Yep, they did... But unfortunately one was in my line of fire... Damn it! Why couldn't it have been a CBS reporter?
Posted on 02/14/2006 3:08:30 PM PST by presidio9
It's taken awhile, a little more than five years to be precise, but we may be witnessing the return of a respected and important political ideology in this town: conservatism. And its apparent ride back onto the political scene comes not a moment too soon. Last week, when the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Democrats asked a lot of combative questions, as one might expect. But the real news was that some of the senators on the right side of the dais wondered aloud about whether the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program went too far in the way of expanding executive power.
Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina called some of the legal justifications the Bush administration used for the program (like its assertion that it didn't need Congress's or the judiciary's OK) "dangerous." Over in the House, Heather Wilson, a Republican from New Mexico, is calling for an investigation.
Why was this significant? Because conservatism, real conservatism with its distrust of government and radical change, has been in short supply in our nation's capital since 2001. Oh, there are Republicans, and they have controlled the political landscape here since then. But there is a difference between Republicanism and conservatism.
Republicans are a party, concerned ultimately, as all parties are, with maintaining and growing power. And the GOP in particular is disciplined about doing whatever it takes to help their president. Conservatism is a political outlook, one that questions what the state is doing and is skeptical of power. It owes nothing to no one - not the president, nor the Congress. And it is crucial as a counterbalance to liberalism in the proper functioning of the government. It is the arched eyebrow in a room full of ideas.
Other than its belief in tax cuts (a cornerstone of the conservative philosophy), the current administration has hardly been conservative. On everything from fiscal responsibility to rebuilding Iraq, the administration is sure of itself despite what the data say. It is skeptical of others, but never of itself or its own policies. Counter facts and contrary opinions are ignored or dismissed. And the administration's wiretapping without seeking warrants is based on the idea that other branches of government can't really challenge the executive branch during a time of war. If that's not a bald political power grab, what is?
Yet many conservatives in Congress and elsewhere have not only looked the other way, they've urged the president on.
Even the National Review, the publication that once helped bring the conservative movement back to the front of American politics, supported the president's move. "[T]he evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties," wrote the magazine's editors in December.
Of course, that evidence of scrupulousness came from those running the program. No one else could talk about it. And the terms "al Qaeda suspects" and "those with terrorist ties" seem to be fairly broad definitions. But more to the point, the warrantless wiretapping issue isn't really about the taps themselves.
The administration is proposing what is essentially an unchecked power for the president (not just this president, but all presidents) during the "war on terror." And despite all the comparisons to World War II or World War I or the Revolutionary War - yes, we did hear Attorney General Gonzales cite George Washington as a precedent last week - the "war on terror" is a lot more like the cold war. It is likely to go on for decades, which means any expansion of powers the executive branch claims will not be a temporary measure ended by an armistice. It will be an indefinite expansion, perhaps even permanent. When will the time come when no terrorist wants to target the United States?
And since when have conservatives been eager to give the president extra powers?
They haven't. Back in the 1990s, when a president named Bill Clinton was seeking to have his sexual harassment case put off until he left office, it was the conservatives who rose up and declared that the president is not a king and is not above the law.
Was it all just politics? Sure, and some of this is now. It's a lot easier for Republicans to stand up to a president whose approval rating is hovering around 40 percent than it was when it was over 50 percent - and it's especially easy for those facing tough reelection fights.
But there is a principle at stake here as well, and it only makes sense that the party that distrusts and dislikes federal power assert itself in the argument.
If we're lucky it means the conservatives are ready to make themselves a serious part of the political discussion in Washington again. Who knows, maybe it'll even wake up the liberals.
"Never hate your enemy. It affects your Judgement".
GODFATHER-III.
Well damn, I was going to post a comment, but you nailed it. All that's left for me to say is, "What he said!"
Yep, they did... But unfortunately one was in my line of fire... Damn it! Why couldn't it have been a CBS reporter?
The President already has the "power" to do this, I look upon it as a necessary step taken to protect the American people and I don't see anything "unconservative" about it. The left is surprising in its attempts to take away Executive powers already there. They are performing what the left always does, any words or actions to harm America, so I pay no attention to their phoney "protestations". Intercepting communications from terrorists outside the Country to their fellow terrorists in the United States, even ones that are citizens, is a necessary function to protect us. I have no problem with that no matter what Lindsay Graham says.
Article 2 includes the powers of the US President as the Commander in Chief to "repel sudden attack. EVERY legal decision agrees that the President has the power to use any means needed to gather battlefield intelligence. FISA HAS zero JURISDICTION over this matter. The FISA Court is designed for prosecution of SPYS who pose no immediate threat to US Citizens lives. Article 2 applies when there is a direct and immediate threat to Americans. A Terrorist may be in the final steps of planning an attack. That is completely different then the FISA court and spys. Therefore the Article 2 powers come into play in this matter.
Anyone who does NOT understand the difference is a super moron who simply WILL not understand because their personal political prejudices WANT to believe "Bush broke the law" No he did not and simply screaming that LIE over and over does will NOT magically make it true.
Personally I find arrogance and ignorance of the "Bush broke the Law" bigots appalling. To call it wiretapping show they have not even bothered to find out what is really going on. They simply tune out anything that does not conform to their Hollywood Sitcom level understanding of the law. They continually show up here to display their fundamental ignorance of the law. LAW is not a black and white absolute. There are gray areas.
Terrorism falls into one of those gray areas. You cannot declare war on it so those legal structures do not exactly fit and yet it requires more action then the Court system, set up to RESPOND TO, not PREVENT, crimes can deal with. So when the Loser Civil Liberties rage about "illegal wiretaps" they display a complete hysterically bigoted emotional respond to the matter. They have simply tuned out ALL the facts because they WANT to believe it is illegal. Just stupid. It is this sort of blind partisan political stupidity that caused the Gorelic wall to be put up and 9-11 happened. Too bad for them their hysteric emotionalism is just so much hot air. THEY have no standing in our legal system. The President DOES have standing. HIS opinion matters the hysteric whining of "Strict Constructionists" on a website are just irrelevant noise.
Section 2.
He is authorized to pursue his duties as Commander in Chief. This includes collecting Foreign Intelligence. Every President since FDR (during which time the ONLY legal circumstances to wiretap was in relations to foreign intelligence. There was at the time no such thing as getting a warrant to tap phones.) has affirmed this power in this manner; there are other instances of this authority being used with non-telephone technologies dating much further back.
That the Executive can authorize signal intelligence for military matters is clear. The only gray area is if the information is used to prosecute a crime.
Part of the issue is that it is being deliberately misstated: The gathering in question is of foreign groups, from foreign soil, who occassionally call people within the United States. As long as the communications are coming or going from outside of the United States, and the surveillance is generally in support of military, foreign policy or diplomatic actions, it is Authorized by Article 2.
Thank YOU for poving my point.
"A little more than five years" is hardly precise, but that's the quality of writing that the Christian Science Monitor has stooped to since its own staff discarded conservatism, to be absolutely precise, oh, a little while ago. Nor has it treated conservatism particularly respectfully in the interim.
It is absolutely proper for Congress to attempt to examine and illuminate boundaries on this topic, and inasmuch as the powers in question will continue across administrations just as they have for the last, to be precise, around thirty years or so, it is incumbent to make the inquiry solemn, serious, and non-partisan. Alas, what we have seen is a mishmash of hyperbole and attempts by Democrats and other liberals including, to be precise, most of the Monitor's editorial staff, to portray the issue as a frightening new step toward fascism on the part of Bush and the Republicans. Only after framing the debate in those terms do they belatedly welcome conservatives into the fray and then only insofar as they will agree that it's all Bush's fault.
I would welcome an open, honest debate on the issue but there isn't one anywhere in site. And that is precise.
And then the Court of Review did one more thing, something that has repercussions in today’s surveillance controversy. Not only could the FISA Court not tell the president how do to his work, the Court of Review said, but the president also had the “inherent authority” under the Constitution to conduct needed surveillance without obtaining any warrant — from the FISA Court or anyone else. Referring to an earlier case, known as Truong, which dealt with surveillance before FISA was passed, the Court of Review wrote: “The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.” http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576697/posts
Posted by Peach
And then the Court of Review did one more thing, something that has repercussions in today’s surveillance controversy. Not only could the FISA Court not tell the president how do to his work, the Court of Review said, but the president also had the “inherent authority” under the Constitution to conduct needed surveillance without obtaining any warrant — from the FISA Court or anyone else. Referring to an earlier case, known as Truong, which dealt with surveillance before FISA was passed, the Court of Review wrote: “The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576697/posts
The term "Commander in Chief" means things, as do other clauses.
You are accusing people of reading things into the Constitution while reading its basic direct meanings out.
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.