Posted on 02/11/2006 2:38:12 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(CNSNews.com) -- Demanding that "the leaders of this country abide by the laws of this country," former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr lashed out Thursday at the Bush administration over the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program. Barr debated the legality of the surveillance with former U.S. Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh, who served in the administration of President George H. W. Bush.
In December, the country discovered that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to tap international telephone calls that included one party suspected of terrorist activity. Since that time the program has been heavily criticized and its legality has been called into question, with the Bush administration defending the program at every turn.
"If al Qaeda is calling the United States, or the United States is calling al Qaeda, I hope someone in our government is listening in," said Dinh, who is currently a professor at Georgetown Law School. "In my mind, it just makes common sense."
Dinh said the timing of the domestic surveillance proved that the measure was necessary.
"Conservatism has a healthy skepticism of governmental power. At times, unfortunately, that healthy skepticism needs to yield to threats that are facing our nation. That threat today is real. We all recall Osama Bin Laden's voice a couple of weeks ago on Al Jazeera. As you know there are people whose brutality and fatality cannot be doubted."
Dinh noted that it is reasonable to stop someone near the border, to stop drunk drivers and to test high school athletes for illegal drugs. "These are special circumstances that otherwise make a broad-based program of search reasonable," he said.
"It is by definition, therefore, that a targeted terrorist surveillance program at a time of national security threat and war is reasonable under the president's constitutional authority," Dinh added.
While Barr agreed that the surveillance program should be legal, he questioned whether President Bush had complied with the 1978 Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), requiring him to first receive a court order before ordering the spying.
"What we cannot ignore is a debate about the future of the Bill of Rights, the foundation of our civilization in this country. That cannot wait another day," said Barr.
"No one in this country, whether elected to public office or not, can take it upon themselves to ignore a law.
"There are remedies," Barr said, "if in fact, any administration believes the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not comport with proper constitutional standards as they see it, or because a law does not afford sufficient flexibility to address the specific needs that an administration faces."
Barr concluded by asking whether America is in danger of "putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle.
"We must demand that the leaders of this country abide by the laws of this country," he said.
Copyright © 1998-2005 CNSNews.com - Cybercast News Service
My point is so irrelevant that it echoes the point made in the article by former U.S. Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh, who served in the administration of President George H. W. Bush... who is currently a professor at Georgetown Law School.
In the article ---
Dinh noted that it is reasonable to stop someone near the border, to stop drunk drivers and to test high school athletes for illegal drugs. "These are special circumstances that otherwise make a broad-based program of search reasonable," he said.
"It is by definition, therefore, that a targeted terrorist surveillance program at a time of national security threat and war is reasonable under the president's constitutional authority," Dinh added.
Many on the left cannot see this as a war and electronic surveillance as a war power and speak only to the 4th ammendment without including the word "unreasonable".
I agree with you. I am uncomfortable giving government these broad powers no matter which party runs things. The Constitutional limits on government were put there for a reason.
Speaking of irrelevant, Cong Jane Harman, a Dem, said yesterday after being briefed again, said the the press has almost EVERYTHING about this program wrong.
Maybe this whole discussion is moot, since none of us really knows what facts to debate.
At the risk of being repetitious from not reading the whole thread first, consider this: If the FISA court gets a warrant request, it adds a layer of loose lips. Loose lips that will probably share with the DNC, NYT, WAPO, and any other subversives within reach. Many of our own elected representatives and senators can't be trusted with sensitive information. What makes you think some judges are any different. Since we're essentially being placed in a position of having to make a choice, the question should be, who do you trust?
FGS
I've already explained it.
Marbury v. Madison.
the President does NOT have the power to declare a law unconstitutional.
I don't know of any other way to say it. It's a widely accepted fact, and only a handful of people here seem not to grasp it.
If the President believes FISA to be unconstitutional, he can go to court and argue that, but he is NOT free to disobey any law just because he wants to.
No you didn't exoplain it.
You stated a position that violates separation of powers, and then lamely mention Mar V Mad which apploes ot legislation NOT spying on FOREIGN AGENTS.
Note that the spying the press is whining about is on foreign agents.
DO try to keep that in mind.
Also, the Presidents oath of office says:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Article II Section one of the Constitution:
[Oath to be taken by the president.—7.]
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0749819.html
What's that say?
Preserve, protect, and defend the WHAT?
Doesn't say Scotus, or Congress, does it?
What you are stating is NOT separation of powers.
You want the President to abide by what possible activist judges say he can do instead of the Constitution.
If you've explained anything, it is that you would violate separation of powers to limit the President, but give power to Congress and Scotus that they do not and cannot have by the very separation of powers you have invoked.
OK... there's no point in going around in circles again.
I want a president, you want an emperor. I think my way is better, you think your way is better. Good luck.
BTTT
You are both arguing against the wind. Anyone can choose to ignore a law. In turn, one of the parties can take the matter to the courts and the courts might force the pres to obey FISA or they may decide that FISA is unconstitutional. In any event, it is not the job of either the executive or legislative branch to decide.
You're confused. Congress and the President make determinations regarding whether something is constitutional *all the time*. There's lawyers involved in virtually anything the government does, looking at the Constitution and case law and deciding whether or not some law or action will ultimately pass muster with the Supreme Court. What do you think the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel does? It comes up with opinions regarding what the law means--including what the Constitution means. Congress too has an army of lawyers doing the exact same thing--deciding what is and isn't constitutional. Just because the Supreme Court has the *final* say, doesn't mean the other 2 branches have *no* say.
The president can BELIEVE a law to be unconstitutional, but he is still bound by it until it is either repealed or ruled unconstitutional by the courts.
That's really not true. The President doesn't swear under oath to obey Congress; he swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
If there's a constitutional question that hasn't been addressed by the Court, the President doesn't just sit around twiddling his thumbs wondering what to do. Nor does he go to the Court for an advisory opinion before he can act. He gets his army of lawyers to answer the Constitutional question for him, and then he proceeds accordingly. After that, it takes months or years before an actual case addressing the question gets before the Court, at which point the Court will finally decide whether the President's determination was right or wrong.
That's arguable. The Congress, the courts, and the Executive branches are "co-equal". Which means that supposedly they do not have power over one another, so a law written by Congress should not be binding on the Executive.
Of course Congress "claims" it has power over the executive, and the courts "claim" to have power over it, but I think they're beyond the constitution when they do.
The check on the Executive is impeachment. If the congress can't bring itself to impeach and convict a president, then as far as I'm concerned they can get stuffed.
Even still, if you believe that the President is bound by laws passed by a co-equal branch, the Congress passed a law authorizing "all means necessary" to end Al-Queda. That means what it says, "all means necessary", and the President would be violating it if he DID NOT wiretap suspected terrorists.
That's a very good point.
Jane Harman: I was for the program before I was against it, but now I know more and I'm for it...
Thanks to Biglook for the ping to this garbage from the ACLU whore, Barr.
Never trust anyone who is employed by the ACLU, and Barr is employed by the ACLU.
So it's your position that the President is not bound by any law? That's a tough one to argue, imo. But, since the constitution itself requires a warrant, not FISA, the law does not limit the President. It actually ENABLES him to get warrants, but secretly. It does not limit his powers.
Well, the fourth amendment is pretty clear. FISA does not limit the President - it actually broadens his power to obtain warrants - in this case, secretly.
Oh please. FISA may or may not limit his power, but it most certainly doesn't *broaden* his power. FISA only regulates a pre-existing power.
The constitution doesn't require a warrant. It requires reasonableness. Read it. It says "The right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated". It doesn't say searches without warrants are forbidden. It says warrants without probable cause and particularity are forbidden.
We need to stop this propaganda war in its tracks. Everytime someone mentions 'domestic spying', call them on it. Ask them to show you one single instance of domestic spying. The response will always be something along the lines of "well, we really don't know for sure". At that point, tell them to shut the hell up until they can offer some proof.
Why are we conducting an investigation when there isn't even an ounce of evidence that indicates a crime even took place?
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.