Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wiretap defense invokes Lincoln, Roosevelt-Attorney general says they didn't get warrants, either
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 1/25/6 | Edward Epstein

Posted on 01/25/2006 7:42:18 AM PST by SmithL

Washington -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that President Bush was following in the tradition of such other wartime presidents as Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt when he ordered warrantless domestic wiretaps.

Gonzales also reiterated Bush's contention that his order for the surveillance had been implicitly allowed by Congress shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks when it authorized him to use force against al Qaeda. Gonzales, as White House counsel, helped create the Bush-ordered program in 2001 that allows the secret National Security Agency to intercept calls and e-mails within the country that intelligence officials believe are directed to terrorists abroad. The order allows the spying to occur without a warrant from a special court.

The attorney general's speech before Georgetown University law students -- some of whom silently protested Gonzales' appearance by turning their backs as he spoke -- was part of an administration campaign to sway public opinion in favor of the spying program. The effort included the release last week of a Justice Department report laying out the legal justification for the program, a Monday speech by the country's No. 2 intelligence official and numerous mentions by the president at his appearances.

Top White House aide Karl Rove, in a speech last week to national Republicans, also made the case that Republicans believe the much-criticized spying program is a political winner for the president and his party by focusing attention on the war on terrorism.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: weareatwar

1 posted on 01/25/2006 7:42:20 AM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Lincoln declared martial law and suspended habeas corpus because of the rebellion.

If there was martial law in effect now most of the Left would be sitting in prisons waiting for the gallows.


2 posted on 01/25/2006 7:46:16 AM PST by manglor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The morale boost speech by the President to the NSA this afternoon is in preparation for indictments and arrest with the person(s) who leaked the info. I think the Slimes turned and gave up the source(s).


3 posted on 01/25/2006 7:48:56 AM PST by Wasanother (Terrorist come in many forms but all are RATS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manglor
I really think much of this comes down to the fact that the left refuses to believe we are at war.

So the same same bunch that apologized away Hillary's FBI files, and WHoDB, and Clinton's goons used to intimidate political foes such as Kathleen Willey - go bananas at the current president not getting warrants for survellience involving the enemy.

It shows where their priorities are - it's all about political power, not national security. And it's why, as inept as the Bush Admin often has been politically, they keep kicking the Dems in elections.

4 posted on 01/25/2006 7:49:25 AM PST by dirtboy (My new years resolution is to quit using taglines...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The Administration is presupposing a basic fact, namely, that the dems even accept we are at war. They do not. That is where this battle should be fought. Yes, say that the President is exercising his legitimate war powers. Yes, say the President is safe-guarding civil liberties. But go no further. If the dems (and some Republicans) feel the President is not exercising war powers, then they must feel we are not at war. If that is the case, then the question must be asked, why do the President's critics feel we are NOT at war? Let them answer that question and see them shrink into nothing. Because if they believe we are at war, then they have NO case. If they do not believe we are at war, then they have no political future.


5 posted on 01/25/2006 7:52:43 AM PST by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
--as sort of an aside to this, during WW2 a group of German saboteurs were landed on the New Jersey shore from a German sub. The primary concern of their appointed military lawyer as he prepared a defense was that Roosevelt would have them shot without trial.

Wonder how that would have set with modern-day Democrats?

6 posted on 01/25/2006 7:54:23 AM PST by rellimpank (Don't believe anything about firearms or explosives stated by the mass media---NRABenefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manglor

Did Truman get a court-order to drop the bombs on Hiroshima or Nagasaki???

If not, are the libs saying they think its OK to nuke people without a warrant, but do not surveil their communications?!?


7 posted on 01/25/2006 7:58:35 AM PST by Paloma_55 (Which part of "Common Sense" do you not understand???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Why not just throw ECHELON back in their faces when they bring this up?


8 posted on 01/25/2006 8:01:00 AM PST by Riley ("What color is the boathouse at Hereford?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
I think the German WWII saboteurs are a good way to gauge our conduct of the WOT. The Dems seem to be saying if the FBI had intercepted radio transmissions between the saboteurs and their Gestapo handlers, then FDR would have been guilty of a crime and subject to impeachment.

Does this make sense to anyone with an IQ above 20?
9 posted on 01/25/2006 8:06:54 AM PST by BigBobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BigBobber

Karl Rove said it best, the demonRATS have a pre-9/11 mentality and the pubbies have apost 9/11 view of the world. I been to the hole in the ground in ny, ny and it's real. It's amazing that so many new yorkers walk and drive by where the towers once were and still deny we are in a real war. Truman capote recently referred to the war on terror as akin to the war on dandruff. Liberals just can't accept reality, it hurts their head.


10 posted on 01/25/2006 8:16:58 AM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages - In Honor of Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The attorney general's speech before Georgetown University law students -- some of whom silently protested Gonzales' appearance by turning their backs as he spoke -- was part of an administration campaign to sway public opinion in favor of the spying program.

I guess it never occurred to Mr. Epstein that Administration might want to get the facts about the program into the public debate.

11 posted on 01/25/2006 8:42:39 AM PST by The_Victor (If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manglor

In Chicago, they had confederate POW camp called Camp Douglas.

History Channel aired "80 Arces of Hell" just recently.
Some Chicago residents were arrested for being sympathic towards the prisoners.

http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=75261&browseCategoryId=&location=&parentcatid=&subcatid=


12 posted on 01/25/2006 9:00:07 AM PST by Milligan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: manglor
"Lincoln declared martial law and suspended habeas corpus because of the rebellion."

And did so illegally. See: Ex Parte Milligan

"If there was martial law in effect now most of the Left would be sitting in prisons waiting for the gallows."

"The Left" represents roughly half of this country, judging by various elections. I assume you don't honestly believe it possible or desirable to imprison and/or execute 150 million Americans. Disagreeing with someone is not grounds to have them killed.
13 posted on 01/25/2006 9:02:20 AM PST by NJ_gent (Modernman should not have been banned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BigBobber

Roosevelt also had "Purple" and "Magic" which decoded messages between Japan and "persons" in the United States.


14 posted on 01/25/2006 9:06:30 AM PST by massgopguy (massgopguy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent

its very easy to criticize the constitutionality of actions from Lincoln and FDR in hindsight - but at the time, under the circumstances, both of them did the correct thing.


15 posted on 01/25/2006 9:43:40 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
"its very easy to criticize the constitutionality of actions from Lincoln and FDR in hindsight - but at the time, under the circumstances, both of them did the correct thing."

Something can't be right today and wrong tomorrow; something's either right or it's wrong. Either Lincoln's and FDR's actions were legal and Constitutional, or they were illegal and wrong. Lincoln's use of Martial Law was only legal on the actual field of battle where no rightful civilian leadership could operate. FDR's interrment camps (to say nothing of his pre-war domestic programs) were simply wrong on their face, as admitted by numerous Presidents and several different Congresses.
16 posted on 01/25/2006 9:50:49 AM PST by NJ_gent (Modernman should not have been banned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent

courts have always done the "right today, wrong tommorrow" approach. one day Lee Malvo is scheduled to be executed, the next day the SCOTUS finds some new civil right for him to escape it. one day you have property rights, the next day the court says the state can take it from you for private concerns.

its very easy to judge FDR and Lincoln in hindsight - so long as we recognize that we are doing just that - judging in hindsight - and how it clouds the discussion.


17 posted on 01/25/2006 10:00:02 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
"its very easy to judge FDR and Lincoln in hindsight - so long as we recognize that we are doing just that - judging in hindsight - and how it clouds the discussion."

Of course we're judging them in hindsight, and I don't expect anyone to be perfect. What I would expect is for leaders to question whether their own actions are legal, and whether they're right. Was declaring Martial Law convenient at the time for Lincoln? Sure, but I don't honestly believe he thought he had unquestionable and absolute authority over American citizens on American soil in places where elected leadership continued to operate (which is exactly what Martial Law gave him). Such authority would make him no less than a king and would make this nation no better than the one from which we came. At some level, I believe he knew that and ignored it.
18 posted on 01/25/2006 10:06:33 AM PST by NJ_gent (Modernman should not have been banned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson