Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » NSA, Patriot (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: NSA, Patriot
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Paraphrasing two of Bush's stated positions from the last year.

"The authorization of force passed by congress lets me use the powers of the commander in chief to bypass legal channels in order to fight Al Qaeda."

"The PATRIOT ACT is an essential law enforcement tool in fighting the war on terror, and must be renewed."

Bush has essentially staked out the legal position that he does not need to get warrants in order to spy on american citizens if that spying is part of the fight against terrorism. This implies the position that the executive branch has the authority to execute the war on terror without judicial or legislative oversight, and therefore executive branch agencies do not need to follow legal channels when engaging in operations designed to combat terror. These powers derive from the executive's role as commander in chief, and as such, he can use whatever means necessary to protect american security, since he has been authorized by congress to take on that role by the bill authorizing use of force.

He has also staked out the position that the PATRIOT ACT is a necessary legal framework for the executive branch to operate within, in order to effectively prosecute the war on terror.

Given the Bush Administration position on intelligence gathering, and how the authorization of the use of force allows the executive to bypass legislatively determined requirements for intelligence gather, and given that the Bush administration has pushed for the continuation of the PATRIOT ACT after the authorization of the use of force bill came into effect, these two positions seem contradictory. If the first position, on the use of force, is correct, then the patriot act is entirely irrelevant for prosecuting the war on terror. If the second statement is correct, and the patriot act is a necessary tool for fighting the war on terror, then the first statement is incorrect, because the executive does not have the power to bypass legislation determining how the war may be prosecuted.

So, what am I missing? How are these not contradictory?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd say your reasoning is sound.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd say that you missed a pretty big point.

What the President is saying is that he needs both the Patriot Act and also the powers granted by the authorization of force from Congress in order to successfully prosecute the war on terror. One does not contradict or supercede the need for the other.

You imply that the President has been granted duplicate authority by each act of Congress, but you haven't shown that to be the case. It's entirely reasonable to assume that the powers granted under the Patriot Act extend further in certain areas than those granted by the authorization of the use of force. Conversely, the authorization for the use of force may grant powers beyond those allowed under the Patriot Act in other areas. If there is overlap in authority between the two, then those areas are merely reinforced. But there is still need for both provisions.

[ January 25, 2006, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Digger ]

Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Digger-
THe implications of what the president has used for his legal justification for the NSA intelligence gathering are that it is impossible for congress to effect the available intelligence gathering tools at the presidents disposal through legislative action.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Correction: Congress would have the ability to effect the available intelligence gathering tools by de-authorizing the use of force, but that would be it. Even then, given past interpretations of the commander in chief clause of the constitution, president bush could argue that he can still act to protect national security acting as C in C
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You may need to restate that - it comes across a little muddled. But, if I'm reading it correctly, what exactly is the contradiction? The President is conducting the wiretapping under the auspices of the use of force granted by Congress and has also asked for the Patriot Act to be extended. The Patriot Act extension doesn't have anything to do with granting him authorization to conduct surveillance without a warrant, AFAIK. These two things appear to be wholly unrelated.
Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seeing the correction:
"...president bush could argue that he can still act to protect national security acting as C in C"

Yeah, he probably could. Which is not unprecedented, IIRC.

Edited to add: Which still doesn't result in a contradiction or superfluousness if the Patriot Act extends powers (to the President or otherwise) beyond what could reasonably be claimed otherwise.

[ January 25, 2006, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Digger ]

Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure I understand how its not a contradiction to say that the patriot act is necessary to fight the war on terror AND there's no legislation you can pass that effects how I wage the war on terror
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because he never said those things. You said those things.

What he said was the authorization to use force allows him privileges to fight the war on terror - which is true. The Patriot Act also provides him with abilities to fight the war on terror (among other things, presumably) - which is also true. He's never said that his powers under either Act were limitless, nor that one set of powers completely encompassed the powers set forth under the other Act. Therefore, both are necessary for him and others to maintain the full range of powers he feels are necessary to prosecute the war.

There is no contradiction.

[ January 25, 2006, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Digger ]

Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Bush has essentially staked out the legal position that he does not need to get warrants in order to spy on american citizens if that spying is part of the fight against terrorism."

Let's try to tune this sentence up a bit.

Try this:

"Bush has essentially staked out the legal position that he does not need to get warrants in order to intercept communication to or from known terrorists sources even and particularly if they originate or end in U.S. territory if that spying is part of the fight against terrorism. Additionally, while not conceding their control, he has continued to inform Congress of the results of his system.

I get your point, but let's include all the information, not just selective readings.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah. I love how every radio/TV newscast I hear or see constantly refers to this whole kerfluffle as "Domestic Spying."

As if it's being used to spy on John Doe calling Jane Doe to talk about their Democrat Fundraising function....

How about "Intelligence gathering on conversations between American and Foreign contacts."

I guess it's all in the spin you choose to accept to frame your debate's starting point to reach the conclusion you want to reach. [Confused]

[ January 25, 2006, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He hasn't informed congress, he's informed a few representatives. He's required to inform the entire intelligence committies.
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
His position is he doesn't have to inform anyone. It's his powers Constitutionally granted. He is being gracious in giving select members of the intelligence committees information.

I am just stating his position. And seeing how sievelike Congress can be, I wouldn't trust them all on a program like this either.

Edited to add: You are correct. He hasn't informed Congress. Nor should he. I think he should inform the intelligence committees. And if the committees leak this, they should be strung up. Someone leaked it. Where is the rope?

[ January 25, 2006, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: flydye45 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gonzales claims that if anyone had a problem with the program, they should have gone public. At the same time his office is seaking for a "leaker" to punish.

The defense is not merely as you stated flydye, the claim is that Authorization of Force allows the Executive the power to do this...and may allow them to do more.

The issue here is : do the People have the right to even know what the powers of the Executive are?

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does FDR have the right to listen in on Japanese radio communications aimed at Pearl Harbor? Does he need a warrent?

Does FDR have the right to wonder about someone transmitting a radio signal from inside the United States using Japanese cryptography without a warrent? Should he listen?

It's amazing how a little context changes the whole situation. Are we at war? That is one disconnect between my side and the other. Even being at war, I think Bush is mishandling this and perhaps overreaching. But I could be wrong. I am foresquare against "domestic spying". But that isn't exactly what is happening, is it? So my criticism has become muted.

And the Gonzales claim is very easy to fit into both of our arguments. IF Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, maybe a token RINO like Specter all went on CNN saying "This is what Bush is doing and it is WRONG!", that is a valid way of going public. Huge moral authority involved. Even a single Rep or Senator could do this validly and honorably. There might be a price to pay, but if it's that important, PAY THE DAMNED PRICE.

A weasel making an intern do his dirty work without paying the political price is treasonous. And the Administration cannot even depend of something like that. Who else knows? Who else leaked? Can they assume it was Kennedy? Is there a mole? And whether they are punished or not, who exactly broke their confidentiality agreements in an egregious fashion? This person doesn't even have the courage of Linda Tripp. At least (God help me) she let it all hang out.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"...do the People have the right to even know what the powers of the Executive are? "

Just off the top of my head, the President has the right to suspend habeas corpus, jail reporters, censor newspapers, intern large masses of funny looking immigrants or people with Italian and German names, launch attacks on foreign soil without asking Congress, and keeping people from lawyers.

And all this is not Bush "overreach" but historically established precedent. Your actual question is "should any president (but particularly Bush) have this power" and your implicit answer is "No".

Edited to add: [Smile] and the comment "This is a great point to start the debate on presidental power. I have some of the same worries as you about too much power in the Executive, particularly in this WOT. I would certainly not grant Clinton such powers and that gives me pause right there. I think the Congress, the President, and the Court should hash this out. But by all means, let him continue until then.


And hang the bastard that leaked this. [Mad] "

[ January 25, 2006, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: flydye45 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Bush has essentially staked out the legal position that he does not need to get warrants in order to intercept communication to or from known terrorists sources even and particularly if they originate or end in U.S. territory if that spying is part of the fight against terrorism. Additionally, while not conceding their control, he has continued to inform Congress of the results of his system.

I get your point, but let's include all the information, not just selective readings."

*Nod* We should include all the information. The legal position the Bush administration has staked out is NOT your statement. Rather, it is much closer to mine, although I simplified a bit for clarity. No subtleties such as the ones you add were lost in my translation.

So, if we include all the information, and not just selective readings, we should say "And flydye's statement of Bush's position is his position as it applies to this specific case, but is not the general reasoning under which Bush is defending his actions."

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because the intelligence data (edit: that is, the data gathered solely under the authority of the President's role as commander-in-chief) is not admissible in court. The PATRIOT act is a law-enforcement tool, presumably with the ultimate intention of criminal prosecution.

(Edit: removed last sentence.)

[ January 25, 2006, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you dagonee, that at least makes some sense.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No problem. I do think that Bush is not claiming under commander-in-chief powers the full extent of the authority granted by the Patriot act, but it's a nitty-gritty discussion and the facts aren't really available to us. So it's really just me "thinking" that at this point.
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ev, "spying on Americans" is misleading and totally avoids these subtleties. You know that. It is a very common "error" suddenly made by everyone with a (D)and much of the media. That is because telling the whole story "We want to know if OBL is calling America" is not a Nixonian case of plumbers. No scandal to listen in on OBL, or someone calling him.

I am unsure how you see the differences between what I said and what you are saying about the legal position. Please expand.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lloyd Perna
Member
Member # 1315

 - posted      Profile for Lloyd Perna   Email Lloyd Perna   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Attorney General Gonzalez speaking at Georgetown University the other day laid down the Administration's arguments pretty well. Check out the full text here.

Here are some of the key points. (Emphasis mine)

quote:
The terrorist surveillance program is firmly grounded in the President’s constitutional authorities. No other public official – no mayor, no governor, no member of Congress -- is charged by the Constitution with the primary responsibility for protecting the safety of all Americans – and the Constitution gives the President all authority necessary to fulfill this solemn duty.

It has long been recognized that the President’s constitutional powers include the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance aimed at detecting and preventing armed attacks on the United States. Presidents have uniformly relied on their inherent power to gather foreign intelligence for reasons both diplomatic and military, and the federal courts have consistently upheld this longstanding practice.

If this is the case in ordinary times, it is even more so in the present circumstances of our armed conflict with al Qaeda and its allies. The terrorist surveillance program was authorized in response to the deadliest foreign attack on American soil, and it is designed solely to prevent the next attack. After all, the goal of our enemy is to blend in with our civilian population in order to plan and carry out future attacks within America. We cannot forget that the 9/11 hijackers were in our country, living in our communities.

The President’s authority to take military action—including the use of communications intelligence targeted at the enemy—does not come merely from his inherent constitutional powers. It comes directly from Congress as well.

Just a few days after the events of September 11th, Congress enacted a joint resolution to support and authorize a military response to the attacks on American soil. In this resolution, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, Congress did two important things. First, it expressly recognized the President’s “authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.” Second, it supplemented that authority by authorizing the President to, quote, “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” in order to prevent further attacks on the United States.

The Resolution means that the President’s authority to use military force against those terrorist groups is at its maximum because he is acting with the express authorization of Congress. Thus, were we to employ the three-part framework of Justice Jackson’s concurring opinion in the Youngstown Steel Seizure case, the President’s authority falls within Category One, and is at its highest. He is acting “pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress,” and the President’s authority “includes all that he possesses in his own right [under the Constitution] plus all that Congress can” confer on him.


Posts: 120 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Appropriate is such a neat word.


Flydye, none of those took place under current legislation. FISA is the law. The President is not above the law. He is not bound only by the Constitution. His legal staff doesn't replace the Courts in time of War.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
Appropriate is such a neat word.


Flydye, none of those took place under current legislation. FISA is the law. The President is not above the law. He is not bound only by the Constitution. His legal staff doesn't replace the Courts in time of War.

And laws passed by Congress don't override the Constitution. Not sure I'd agree that this is pertinent enough, but I'm betting the current administration does.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is a good argument. I am not automatically impressed by something simply being a law. Poll taxes were a law. Anti-abortion legislation was law.

This is a test of these laws. Bush and Co think they are acting in a legal fashion. Let them prove it. His detractors need to prove their case as well.

I just don't have any patience with trying to call this "domestic spying" when that is at the very least misleading. Listening to me talk to you is "domestic spying". Listening to me call Tora Bora is...to be determined, isn't it? [Big Grin]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Godot
Member
Member # 2099

 - posted      Profile for Godot   Email Godot   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We don't know and we will probably never know who exactly the NSA was spying on and why. Nor will the FISA court. Nor will Congress, nor any other body with possible oversight powers. But when THIS President tells me it was only done to monitor terrorist related communications, I remember all the reasons he gave for invading Iraq, and I believed him. More fool I.

I'm just glad there were NSA agents who were willing to uphold THEIR oath to the constitution to bring this into the light of day.

There was no need for Bush to go around the FISA court to do whatever needed doing UNLESS it was something that wouldn't bear the scrutiny of any oversight, even the (virtually) rubber stamping FISA court.

I don't care if Bush did it for the best of intentions. He should be impeached as a warning to future presidents to take the constitution and the rights of the citizens who live under its protection seriously.

Posts: 444 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's great that you think the Constitution is worth a presidency. I agree as a matter of principle if nothing else.

It's too bad that these "staunch defenders of freedom" didn't have the courage to come right out if this is SO VERY IMPORTANT. It smells, Sir, of politics. These self same hypothetical agents COULD have shown instances of Bush spying on Americans domestically. They...didn't. Hmm.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"I'm just glad there were NSA agents who were willing to uphold THEIR oath to the constitution to bring this into the light of day."
Just a side note, I think we only know of one former intelligence officer who has actually gone public with his beef about this program. I suspect that any other intelligence officers who had reservations had the decency to keep classified information to themselves and pursue their non-concurrence through the appropriate internal channels. I would also say that by and large, people who work at NSA are most likely very supportive of this policy and the President. I think that any agency within DoD, most civilians/military believe in our mission for the GWOT and are generally supportive of President Bush's policies.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Godot
Member
Member # 2099

 - posted      Profile for Godot   Email Godot   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Overriding any debate over the minutiae surrounding Bush's actions are the most salient facts that, (1) he acted beyond his constitutional limits regardless of their massive attempts at justification, and, (2) he didn't have to do so with the FISA provision for 72-hour retroactive search warrants.

The only reason to circumvent FISA is to hide the spying from any oversight. He lied about his reasons for ignoring FISA and that taints anything else that he says.

And I don't think it is "decent" to allow the Constitution to be shredded, even for the best of reasons. The agent(s) who came forward (I heard there were numerous sources) are true patriots.

Posts: 444 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
he acted beyond his constitutional limits regardless of their massive attempts at justification
Interesting definition of "fact" you've got there, since constitutional scholars do not agree on this.

Further, when Congress passes a law that is later found to be unconstitutional, should the members who voted for it be kicked out of Congress?

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Godot
Member
Member # 2099

 - posted      Profile for Godot   Email Godot   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dagonee,

Very true. "Fact" only insofar as the majority of conclusions I've read (outside the administration's) say that the powers of the C-in-C don't apply and that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force resolution does not abrogate the 4th Amendment.

I could be wrong. I'm not a constitutional scolar and (unlike Bush) I have made mistakes and will admit it when I do (caveat: usually). And in this case I was wrong to use the word "fact" because only the weakest definition says, "Something believed to be true or real". So I should have stated it as my belief, not fact. Thanks for keeping me honest.

Now your Congress example is interesting and gave me pause, but it is a rather specious comparison. A law passed by Congress is always subject to judicial review and oversight, just as domestic spying is meant to be under FISA. What Bush did was to move the spying beyond oversight and review. An entirely different situation. And immensely more dangerous.

("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.")

Posts: 444 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
IT...IS...NOT...DOMESTIC...SPYING!

Ignoring the fact that one end of the communication is overseas is at best dishonest. Show me I am wrong and I'll apologize. Hell, I'll send $50 to the ACLU. (you saw it here first, folks!) I'll trust the vote of Ornery to determine liability.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A law passed by Congress is always subject to judicial review and oversight, just as domestic spying is meant to be under FISA. What Bush did was to move the spying beyond oversight and review. An entirely different situation. And immensely more dangerous.
An action performed by COngress is subject to judicial review if someone challenges it. It is very rare for someone to be able to challenge a law without being subject to it first. Which means, for some criminal statutes, the only time it's challenged is when someone is about to be sent to jail for breaking it. It's an all or nothing kind of challenge, and if no one does challenge it, then people who wish to perform the behavior which is being unconstitutionally criminalized will likely be reluctant to do so because of this uncertainty.

The FISA is automatic review of certain actions - something that is not parallel to normal judicial review of congressional enactments. The ACLU's challenge is the judicial review to which the administration is being subjected.

quote:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The separation of powers/FISA question is hotly contested. The fourth amendment question is much less contested - many people who think that FISA constitutionally applied in this case do not think that the wiretaps violated the fourth amendment.
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"IT...IS...NOT...DOMESTIC...SPYING!

Ignoring the fact that one end of the communication is overseas is at best dishonest."

Ignoring the fact that one end is a US citizen on US soil is at best dishonest.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ignoring the fact that one end of the communication is overseas is at best dishonest."
Ignoring the fact that one end is a US citizen on US soil is at best dishonest.

True. But the fact that one is overseas is why the fourth amendment is not clearly being violated here. (Note I said "is not clearly," not "is clearly not.")
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clearly, the CIA should be focusing on the GUY AT THE OTHER END. [Big Grin]

I shouldn't really include a smile there. I'm actually not amused by any of this. If only there were some way to hand them their comeuppance without major tradeoffs. What bothers me most of all, is that it is totally unnecessary for them to have bypassed the court.

"authorization for the use of force" does not bestow dictatorial powers on the Executive.

And even if it did, upholding the Constitutional protections that have stood for over 200 years takes priority. To have an Administration not even go through the motions of due process required by FISA and Patriot Act... well, let's just say that this is the kind of action that usually precedes a coup.

Americans will be told that we still have a democracy, but in fact we will live in a police state. Sound crazy? Not really. Not when so many Americans see nothing wrong with this behaviour.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"True. But the fact that one is overseas is why the fourth amendment is not clearly being violated here."

Interesting, Dagonee [Smile] I think we're about to be in a reversal of roles.

I think its clear that the fourth amendment is being violated... but we've written enough legislation and had enough court decisions obscuring the issue, that there are now legal arguments that what is flatly contradictory to the constitution is really legal.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Smile]

I'm using the functional definition here. Doesn't mean I like it, but that's the definition that needs to be used when discussing whether something is worthy of impeachment.

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To throw a bone into the fever swamps (and mix a metaphor in the process), and since I argued the President's side of this earlier in the thread, I'll go the other way for a minute. If this really is an overreach of Presidential authority and unsupported by the Constitution, bring on the Articles of Impeachment.

Now, I realize that's a tall order with a Republican controlled House and Senate. But, if the matter is really as outrageous as it is being portrayed in some quarters, surely some fair-minded Republicans could be brought on board with the idea?

Without that move, it may be impossible to know with certainty whether this was really out of bounds or not. And even if the Articles are brought, I doubt it will go anywhere, both because the Republicans will squash it and also because majority public opinion won't get behind it. Even if the President is overstepping his authority, the public sees him doing it for what they consider 'good reasons' and there could be a backlash against the Democrats. "What do you mean he should be impeached? Don't you want a safe America?" I just don't see it playing well.

Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm using the functional definition here. Doesn't mean I like it, but that's the definition that needs to be used when discussing whether something is worthy of impeachment."

Fair enough, Dagonee.

"Now, I realize that's a tall order with a Republican controlled House and Senate. But, if the matter is really as outrageous as it is being portrayed in some quarters, surely some fair-minded Republicans could be brought on board with the idea?"

I don't know. I think, right now, the Senate, at least, is solidly in line behind the president... evidence being the alito situation. Not abortion, but, Alito appears to basically be a judicial "yes man" to authority, and one would that that would worry some fair minded republican senators, but it doesn't appear to be doing so.

The house, as always, is a different story.

However, I think its necessary for future american security that hearings be held. It might not play well in some places, but... we NEED some sort of national consensus on what is and is not granted to the CinC under what circumstances.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1