Posted on 06/23/2007 8:03:06 PM PDT by TheTruthAintPretty
A federal judge who used to authorize wiretaps in terrorist and espionage cases criticized President Bush's decision to order warrantless surveillance after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Royce Lamberth, a district court judge in Washington, said Saturday it was proper for executive branch agencies to conduct such surveillance. "But what we have found in the history of our country is that you can't trust the executive," he said at the American Library Association's convention.
"We have to understand you can fight the war (on terrorism) and lose everything if you have no civil liberties left when you get through fighting the war," said Lamberth, who was appointed by President Reagan.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
Then why isn't it called a Declaration of War?
L
Sorry, I should have written this more clearly, as in “conditions of entry” and “citizenship” not “conditions of entry” and “conditions of citizenship.” Clearly the individual states cannot confer federal citizenship. The Constitution basically assumes that free people born here were automatically citizens, Amendment XIV subsequently extending birthright citizenship to freed slaves.
Article I, Section 8 addresses citizenship in terms of establishing “a uniform rule of naturalization.” Establishing conditions of entry, e.g., immigration law, is also a legislative function. These days one almost wishes it weren’t, but I digress...
Regarding “the people” and citizens, I would argue thusly. One, the Declaration of Independence states that “all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” In other words, God grants rights, not governments, and He grants them to all, not just Americans.
Two, the Constitution confirms those rights and charges the government established by it with securing “the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” That is, it is the duty of government to protect and ensure our rights, not to trample on them and not to attempt to extend them missionarylike beyond our shores (as John Quincy Adams stated, America “is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own”).
Three, because God-given rights are universal, it would be unseemly for the Constitution to “secure” them only for citizens and not also for noncitizens residing in the US. They are “human rights,” as it were, not simply prerogatives of citizenship. Noncitizens cannot be “second-class citizens” (pun intended) where God-given rights are concerned.
This, I suspect, may be one reason why the Founders employed the language they did (”the people” instead of citizens). Note also in this connection that voting is NOT identified as a God-given right in the Constitution, rather it is established statutorily (Amendment XV extending the franchise to former slaves) and restricted to citizens (initially to land-owning, tax-paying adult male citizens). So, while all residents enjoy the God-given rights enshrined in the Constitution, only citizens may vote.
One of these days I’d like to explore this matter more thoroughly but this theory is certainly congruent with the language used and the political philosophy of the Founders. Does this clarify matters?
This is not "domestic spying". If you've flown to an overseas country you most assuredly did not get on line for a "domestic" flight. Calling these intercepts "domestic spying" is deliberately distorting the truth in favor of our enemies.
No, we are not losing any of our rights under this program. Unless you can find something in the Constitution that constitutes a "right" to make private, overseas phone calls. I can't make any calls in this country without being told "your call may be monitored for quality purposes". Maybe the businesses should outsource their QC programs to the NSA?
There is a more fundamental right that this program protects - the Right to Life. The right to go into an office building or board an airplane without being immolated because the government didn't do its job defending us.
It depends on where that signals intelligence is gathered. If abroad, then fine. If during the course of signals intelligence gathered abroad a domestic phone number, etc., arises, then a warrant can be secured to pursue that lead. By way of contrast, domestic signals intelligence would be flatly unconstitutional sans a warrant - a warrant is required for domestic law enforcement purposes; the president has no domestic warmaking powers in the absence of civil war, revolution, insurrection, or the like.
In other words, if conducted domestically, signals intelligence becomes, on the face of it, a law enforcement issue that must pass constitutional muster. If the courts have decided otherwise, then they have decided poorly. Nothing remarkable about that as the Kelo and CFR decisions among others in recent years have amply demonstrated.
It goes without saying that I do not concur with your assessment that the post 9-11 congressional resolution is a declaration of war. Rather, it is a prescription for permanent government employment of emergency powers because war against an unidentified and undefined enemy, against a tactic rather than countries and people known to promote, foster, and practice it, is inherently unwinnable.
A true Democrat couldn't have said it better. That is worse than contemptible.
If you want to change the Constitution, fine. Do it. Repeal or change whatever you can. But don't just ignore it, or we have nothing.
Those wars had definable ends. This one does not. Any rights we allow the government to infringe for 50 years or more, will be infringed permanently.
On September 18, 2001, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force. It reads, in part:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
If that's not a declaration of war against Al-Qaeda, I don't know what is.
Or do you agree with John Edwards that we're not really in a global war on terror?
I didn’t mean to compare you to John Edwards, that was a low blow.
Sorry about that.
Let’s go back to my World War II analogy for a second.
If we intercept a phone call from the German High Command to a Nazi spy in this country, is it Signals Intelligence, or is a law enforcement matter?
"Definable ends" only in retrospect. I doubt Lincoln saw an end of the Civil War when he suspended habeas corpus. Nor did FDR perceive that the Axis would ever submit to "unconditional surrender" when he forced the issue on Quirin.
I understand your point. But I am quibbling with Lamberth -- who, without specific examples, is overstating his case, serving only as a fear-monger.
They could have at least mentioned Al-Queda by name. And the word "war" in there somewhere might have been useful.
Or do you agree with John Edwards that we're not really in a global war on terror?
John Edwards actually managed to say something correct, but he did it entirely by mistake. Saying we're at war with 'terror' is akin to Roosevelt having said we were at war with 'aviation' after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
We aren't at war with 'terror'.
We are at war with islam.
You can't defeat what you can't define.
L
Which the SCOTUS promptly and correctly bitch slapped Lincoln for doing. Only Congress has the authority to suspend Habeus Corpus.
L
Unless somebody ignores the SCOTUS. As you well know, there is more to this story...
The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling.Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.
So, fighting a Civil War without a definable end, coupled with civil unrest on the part of the Copperhead Democrats, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Surely, he had good reason -- as he saw it. And it stayed suspended until the war had, in fact, reached an end.
Proving once again: the courts are no place to fight a war.
Which of course simply proved the case the South was making that Lincoln was an out of control tyrant.
L
The war on Islamofascists is different -- not only do we not know how long it will last, no one even knows how to define what an "end" to this war looks like. By most accounts it's expected to go on for at least 50 years (and since it's been going on for the last many centuries, that's probably an optimistic assessment). It is a pretty solid reality that any infringements we allow in the name of this war will be permanent.
The real argument here is whether we should permenantly give up Constitutional protection of x, y and z rights. But the temporary suspension of government protections that characterized traditional wars is not relevant here. As things stand now, there will be no point in our lifetimes where the war on Islamofascists can be declared won, and our Constitutional protections restored.
Well, I am glad to hear you defend the racist Chief Justice Taney. Taney was a despicable Democrat who, in Dred Scott decision, enacted the most egregious case of judicial activism. His decision nullified the previous Congressional decisions that might have led to the gradual elimination of slavery. Great Britian managed to outlaw slavery without a civil war. Thanks to that bastard, a civil war became inevitable. So if you list him as a “credible source” - be sure what sort of monster you are embracing.
Taney, like the 7 justices in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, are not god-like persons capable of deciding from a Mt. Olympus position, what should and should not be law, crafting decisions to achieve a desired result - making law, rather than following the Constitution. They all deserve to rot in hell for judicial activism that has cost this country (a civil war in 1861) and innocent individuals (40 million babies aborted) so much!
Accusing Lincoln of being a tyrant because Lincoln opposed Taney - a man who supported the dissolution of the nation seems to be a bit strange . . . unless you also felt that the south had a moral and legal right to do what ever it took to ensure their right to continue enslaving men. (Yes, there might have been other reasons for the south to want to separate from the union - but if they had recognized the immorality of enslaving men, freed the slaves - and then tried to separate from the Union because of “northern oppressive tariffs, etc., the north would have never supported a war, and the south would have been successful in either eliminating the oppressive tariffs, or they would have been able to separate and pull out of the U.S. without the same risk of war.
Royce Lambert, in his OPINION - is swaying into areas where he will handicap our country, seeing a risk that isn’t a risk, while allowing more serious problems to occur. And I wouldn’t have any problems with any Democrat President exercising the SAME power ... and would be upset if they failed to exercise due diligence in gathering intelligence to prevent future attacks on this country.
And the Congressional authorization for the global war on terror didn’t specify Al Qaeda, because there are other organizations that support A.Q. and also need to be targeted. (The Phillipine Islamic terrorist group needs to be targeted, even though it goes by a different name; they were working with Khalid Sheik Mohammed on Operation Bojinka, a plot to blow up over 10 airplanes.) What if A.Q. changed their name - would the Congressional resolution then require the war to end and the President to get a new C.R. to go after a new organization? Totally ridiculous suggestion.
Mike
You don't hear well.
So if you list him as a “credible source”
I didn't.
Here's a link to the US Constitution. Mosey on over there and give it a read. Do take your time.
Since it's obvious you've never actually done it, I'll give you some time. I'll add extra time as I assume you'll most likely need to run your fingers across the screen and move your lips while you do it.
Once you finish up that little chore, get back to me with the answer to this question.
Does the US Constitution give the President the power to suspend Habeus Corpus?
A simple 'yes' or 'no' is all that's required.
And I wouldn’t have any problems with any Democrat President exercising the SAME power
Then you're an even bigger fool than I thought.
L
As I suggested above, the government has alittle more domestic surveillance leeway during wartime. Having said that, my copy of the Constitution does not contain an “invalid during wartime” clause so the government should pursue its wartime ends with minimum possible disruption of civil liberties.
Today, however, we are not in a state of war (government rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding). Domestic signals intelligence during peacetime constitutes a “search” by any reasonable standard; and blanket as opposed to targeted domestic signals intelligence gathering during peacetime is “unreasonable” with extreme prejudice in my book.
It matters not which agency of government is involved. Amendment IV does not contain a signals intelligence exception - a search is a search is a search. Any domestic peacetime search by any government agency not conducted in accordance with Amendment IV parameters (probable cause and a limited, detailed warrant) is at a bare minimum constitutionally suspect.
You are correct Sir
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.