Posted on 01/04/2006 4:05:09 PM PST by bigsky
*Bingo* The guy Rush spoke with indicated that the "red tape process" had to be completed BEFORE the warrant request could even get before the FISA court. Makes me think that it must be very complicated to reform the bureaucracy, but you're right, Bush screwed up by not implementing reforms.
Rather than change what was wrong with the process after 9/11, they got frustrated with the existing bureaucracy, red tape & time it took to go through those channels. It should have been changed immediately after 9/11, but Bush doesn't lend his ear to enough people in the know who are dealing with endless bureaucratic frustrations everyday which delay important action.
as Clinton's did with the Gorelick Wall
I disagree with you here. There is no way the Clinton/Gorelick Wall can be compared to this situation. The Clinton administration didn't hamstring themselves. They implemented the wall to deliberately control the flow of information. It was an obstacle that was MEANT to serve no other purpose. Corruption ran rampant through that administration and the wall was a way to help keep the lid on.
I didn't mean to make much of a comparison, other than to use the Gorelick Wall as a concrete example of red tape being "self-erected" somewhere within the investigatory machinery itself.
Good post, yours - and I agree that the motives of Clinton were almost purely self-serving, and I believe that President Bush's motives are mostly nation-serving.
Thanks and I like the points you also made in your post #79. Too bad Bush won't listen to us, ha!
What do you think the numbers will show for the year 2005?
Perhaps they will be significantly increased.
My intuition is that the numbers will be about the same as 2003 & 2004. Less than 2000 requests, less than 8 rejections (some of which later turn into grants, BTW), and less than 100 modifications.
The report has come out in April in past years.
"We know they don't have the intellectual toughness to make hard decisions that will cost lives in order to save even more lives."
Post WWII when dems ran military actions---
+ Vietnam
+ Carter's little rescue fiasco, after he spoiled US/Iranian balance of relations
+ Bill Clinton's search for al Qaeda terrorists, directed from the Oral office cloakroom
Ann hits it right on target: lack intellectual toughness
Me too. May she rest in peace.
5.56mm
OH..
bttt
Pardon my midstream intrusion, but my understanding is the President doesn't need to go through FISA, because he has the power directly through the War Powers Act to wiretap without ANY court approval. Is that incorrect?
That is the administration's argument in a nutshell. Note though that it doesn't refer to the "War Powers Act," as that act tends to limit presidential autonomy.
As for the current warrantless surveillance, the administration concedes that it does not meet the criteria set out in 50 USC 1802 (the warrantless electronic surveillance provision of FISA). The administration argues that the surveillance is authorized by the inherent power of the President, in combination with the Congressional Authorization to use Military Force (AUMF).
Assistant Attorney General's Letters to Senate Intelligence Committee
The link above is to an official summary of the administration's argument.
bttt
If congress passes any legislation that attempts to limit presidential powers, isn't that unconstitutional? One branch can only "impede" another where the constitution expressly permits--no?
The argument that the President is raising is that the authority for warrantless electronic surveillance comes from a combination of inherent powers of the executive (to protect the country against invaders) and the Congressional grant of power to use military force against the terrorist organization(s) who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11.
At the same time, the President is arguing that the FISA statute can be construed in such a way that the authorized action is not afoul of FISA - that Congress when it passed FISA meant to and did "carve out" circumstances such as "inherent power plus AUMF."
With regard to a conclusion of "unconstitutional," that term is really loaded and means different things depending on context. Permit me to use an example of a President encroaching on the legislature (and on the people) by raising Lincoln's suspension of access to courts (suspension of habeas corpus) during the Civil War.
No question he did it, suspended habeas corpus. And no question that as the executive (he has the guns) there is no superior force to cause him to relent "quickly." A "not quickly" relent would be to lose the next election or to be impeached, but that's a digression. After the fact, the Supreme Court reviewed the cases, and concluded that the Presidents suspension of habeas was in one case (Merryman) unconstitutional because it was unilateral, and in another case (Milligan) was unconstitutional because the denial exceeded the suspension criteria in the Congressional grant.
And that gets me to your "where the constitution expressly permits." The Constitution isn't detailed - it's "expressions" are mostly of principle, and generally lack detail. Past circumstances disputed, negotiated and recorded in court cases, the Congressional Record, and Presidential writings provide the details. And it will be perpetually argued (as long as the republic exists) that a particular action is unconstitutional, or constitutional.
In the case of the NSA issue, not only are Congress and the president butting heads, a right of the people embodied in the 4th Amendment is also in the constitutional/unconstitutional balance. And one should ask "who decides whether the search is 'reasonable'?" The Constitution in general says that NO branch can decide an issue unilaterally. In the case of executive action, Congress giving authority and the Courts concurring in the judgment. The very presence of these checks and balances is what gives the people some control over their government.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.