Posted on 08/18/2006 1:48:59 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
CAMP DAVID, Md. - President Bush on Friday criticized a federal court ruling that said his warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional, declaring that opponents "do not understand the nature of the world in which we live."
"I strongly disagree with that decision, strongly disagree," Bush said, striking his finger on a podium to underscore his point. "That's why I instructed the Justice Department to appeal immediately, and I believe our appeals will be upheld."
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit on Thursday was the first to find the National Security Agency surveillance program unconstitutional. The program involves monitoring international phone calls and e-mails to and from the United States involving people with suspected ties to terrorists.
"If al-Qaida is calling in to the United States, we want to know why they're calling," Bush said.
Critics say the surveillance program skirts the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court warrants for domestic eavesdropping. The administration has argued that obtaining warrants from a secret court set up under FISA is a time-consuming process unsuited for the government's fast-moving war on terror.
The judge said the government, in defending the program, appeared to be saying the president had the "inherent power" to violate laws of Congress.
"It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control," Taylor wrote in a 43-page opinion. "... There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution."
On other issues, Bush said it would take the world time to view the war between Israel and Hezbollah as a loss for the Islamic militant group.
"The first reaction, of course, of Hezbollah and its supporters is, declare victory," Bush said. "I guess I would have done the same thing if I were them, but sometimes it takes people a while to come to the sober realization of what forces create stability and which don't. Hezbollah is a force of instability."
Bush also expressed some disappointment with France's contribution to an expanded peacekeeping force in Lebanon.
France had been expected to make a significant new contribution that would form the backbone of the expanded force. But French President Jacques Chirac disappointed the United Nations and other countries by announcing France would contribute just 200 combat engineers to its current 200-member contingent in Lebanon.
"France has said they will send some troops," the president said. "We hope they'll send more."
Members of Bush's economic team stood alongside the president as he spoke under bright sunshine at the Camp David helipad. Among attendees were Vice President Dick Cheney, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, National Economic Council Director Allan Hubbard and White House budget chief Rob Portman.
The meeting came at a time when only 37 percent of Americans support Bush's handling of the economy, according to AP-Ipsos polling in early August. It's also just weeks before congressional midterm elections that will determine whether Republicans continue to control the House and the Senate.
Bush declared the economy solid and strong because of tax cuts his administration pushed through Congress. He rattled off a series of economic indicators, including the nation's 4.8 percent jobless rate in July and 4 percent annual economic growth rate through the first half of the year.
But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi took issue with Bush's upbeat comments on the economy, saying, "President Bush may think the economy is moving forward, but many hard working Americans are stuck living paycheck to paycheck.
"Under President Bush and the Republican Congress, the economic situation for too many Americans is going in the wrong direction," said the California Democrat. Since Bush took office, she said, "real median family income has dropped by $1,700 while families are paying $3,200 more in household costs."
Bush did not mention that the July unemployment rate had inched up from 4.6 percent in June, reflecting a slowdown in job creation that reflects weaker economic growth. And while the gross domestic product expanded at an annual rate of 5.6 percent in the first quarter, it slowed to just 2.5 percent in the April-June quarter.
On Friday, a University of Michigan survey showed consumer confidence fell sharply in early August to the lowest level in 10 months as Americans were rattled by new terrorism concerns and gasoline prices above $3 per gallon.
Bush did not mention the jump in gasoline prices, although he did discuss the need to invest in new energy technologies.
Paulson, speaking to reporters later, said the team spent much time talking about long-term challenges such as changing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in view of the pending retirement of 78 million baby boomers.
"We think it is quite possible to come up with a fix that is quite doable," Paulson said of reforming the government programs. "The question is whether we can get the support of Congress to get something done."
___
AP Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger contributed to this report.
according to the SCOTUS - yes. not in this wiretap case, I agree with you there - but generally speaking, what else can you call granting Habeas rights to Gitmo detainees?
I would favor Bush's impeachment at that juncture. He is not above the law. He has, in fact, taken an oath to uphold the laws and abide by the laws. I expect him to honor that oath.
I do agree that the SC is a mess.
The political situation in the US is heartbreaking. There is nothing but us-vs-them, with very little common sense shown on either side. The SWAT-style invasions for most any reason are just plain uncalled for. I am concerned very much about these situations. They are more important than terrorism.
I favor isolationism and gun-boat diplomacy where natural resources are concerned. I'd rather see all Islamics driven from this Nation ... and a Constitutional Ammendment to overlook Islam as a religion if necessary.
For the fourth time: does the Constitution protect the rights of terrorists?
A mistake.
Fortunately, none has a chance of ever being elected, so we can focus our energies on keeping treacherous leftists out of the White House......
NO, and you haven't asked me that four times.
well then, you have just decided that the judiciary has unchecked powers above the other two branches. if they are free to make any aribitrary decision and decide that its "the law" - and you are then directing congress to impeach the president based on any violation of their decision, then 5 justices on the SCOTUS essentially control the country - a judicial oligarchy.
well yes, we agree on that.
You ignore foreign terrorists, yet you want to drive innocent American Muslim citizens out of the country.
Thank God you're nowhere near the levers of power.
I'm just well read. I can also compare the differences in life in the US a few decades ago to what it is now. Few of the adverse differences are caused by terroism or even the "threat of terroism". (Americans are not supposed to cower when threatened.)
...it's no wonder you don't recognize the threat of terrorism.
As I stated previously, I can compare America over a few decades. The decay did not start with 911. It started on Capital Hill, in State governments, and in neighborhoods. It is a creeping crud of the left; and, this is far more destructive than terrorism has been and ever will be. Terrorism will not terminate the US. Crappy politics will.
Well then, if foreign terrorists are not protected by the Constitution, why are warrants required to listen in on their conversations?
I think it would do just fine. The plan is for the country to be assimilated by globalism. It most certainly won't survive under a string of globalist presidents.
Ever see any of them protest terroist acts? There are no innocent Muslims. They all rejoiced on 911.
That is completely false.
Oh, it's a popular sentiment, and sure to win points with the Deus Vult crowd---but it is absolutely 100% bull****.
As you were.
Well then, it's a good thing that we don't HAVE a 'globalist' President now, isn't it?
I thought we were talking about people living in the United States.
I can't imagine why anyone would think the Constitution applies to people who live in other countries,
Must have been five or six someplace. I've seen no evidence that could convince me to change my mind. If you monitor the news for just a month, you will notice that the vast majority of violence is committed by Muslims. Worldwide.
actually, the SCOTUS is very close to declaring that foreign persons IN foreign countries, do get constitutional protections once they come under control of the US military of the CIA. what do you think about that?
We do have a globalist President, right now. The wide-open southern border is just one example of that.
Do you mean do I think we should obey the Supreme Court, the Constitution?
You know, I really don't care. I like talking to you guys, but my opinion doesn't make a difference to anyone.
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.