I’ve been brewing on this issue of “Presidential liberties” as it pertains to NSA eavesdropping on American citizens since the issue became public notice in the past few days. I use the word “brewing” intentionally.
While I’ve been hesitant to pass judgement on the President, I can do so no longer — especially since the President addressed the nation today. With that said, I believe the President should be impeached and brought up on charges of intentional violation of the Fourth Amendment and usurping judicial authority.
As president and commander in chief, I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country. Article 2 of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the authority necessary to fulfill it.
Not at the expense of the Fourth Amendment, sir.
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.
If Bush can provide evidence that this went through the auspices of a legal court, even a secret court, then the Fourth Amendment has been preserved. If not, he has drawn undue authority from Article 2.
Alberto Gonzales defends the President with this farce:
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Soledad, provides that you must get a court order to engage in electronic surveillance … except as otherwise authorized by Congress. We believe that other authorization by Congress exists in the authorization to use military force that was passed by the Congress in the days following the attacks of September 11, yes.
Congress’ authorization does not include wiretapping of American’s without court order! To put this under the auspices of war is ridiculous because, if you want to be honest, we’re not at war. There was no declaration of war and Congress’ authorization authorized military force. To derive this authorization from the military war powers act would be akin to saying that I can write a book on kinetic energy because SpiderWorks has authorized me to write a book… sure it’s a book on blogging, but a book is a book, right?
Gonzales continues:
And we understand the concern that have been raised by certain members of Congress. As the president indicated on Saturday, we have reached certain key members of Congress from the beginning of this program about what we’re doing and the justifications for what we’re doing.
The President consulting with Congress is not judicial oversight and the argument that he has consulted with Harry Reid does not matter. Harry Reid is not a federal judge and, to be honest, he too was bound by law not to reveal the contents of a highly classified program.
So what do we do? This was a willfull, intentional usurpation of power akin to a dictator. This goes beyond politics. The President should be impeached for this action.
Update: Excellent piece here from The Daily Whim which reinforces (and complements) my argument nicely.
Whether it’s NSA eavesdropping, or the debate over torture, or any sliver of due process for various detainees, or the Patriot Act, etc., etc., the generic similarity used in defense can be summed up as three words:
“We’re at war.”
And if that is true, this defense goes, it follows that the President can take extraordinary measures in a time of war. In fact, that’s part of Bush’s defense, that the office of the President has implied powers via the Constitution that allow him to do as he sees fit in a time of war.
I’ve heard this raised-eyebrow defense of “well, we’re at war” quite a lot over the past few years. And it has grown to grate on me.
Because we are not acting like a nation truly at war, we haven’t been asked to act like a nation at war, and we haven’t since September 11, 2001, in many of the ways that count. In fact, it only seems like “we’re at war” when it comes time to push the legal boundaries involving investigation and punishment. The “sacrifice” one would expect to see in a nation at war seems to be quite limited to a targeted few.
<snip>
There are some things that we knew on September 12, 2001 (or should have known), that are just as true today. We knew that one of the biggest and trickiest dangers we faced was ourselves. The danger that we might trade a measurable amount of our liberty for an unknown quantity of additional security.
We knew the next step in that progression was that if you aren’t careful, you can become the very thing you hate. Where you begin to justify your actions with rationalizations like “well, at least we’re not beheading those we take prisoner, like those animals.”
In my opinion, we’ve been walked right up to the edge of that cliff.
<snip>
So. I’m supposed to accept that George Bush is going to use “implied powers” (will I be able to see them if I look at the Constitution with 3D glasses or something?) to do whatever he sees fit to fight the war on terrorism. I’m supposed to just trust him, and not demand the three branch government of checks and balances that has served this country quite well through astoundingly difficult times?
If he tells me he’s placed people in the loop to make judgments so that no-warrant wiretaps or torture or whatever is only used in rare and very necessary circumstances, I’m supposed to trust he’s placed qualified people in that loop? Or is it just some guy named Brownie and his assistant Harriet? Or someone who will proclaim his bold choice a “slam dunk”?
It’s that trust issue. Too much water under the bridge, water of all types. From a lot of sources.
Interesting!
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 128 comments }
David Nick 12.19.05 at 9:21 pm
Hola Aaron,
Glad to see your voice in this matter. This NSA fiasco (which is what it is) really needs to be objectively looked at. First of all, this wouldn’t even be a discussion if the NYT hadn’t published a story to preempt a book release. Secondly, there are some questions as to how this information was leaked to this “author” who in less than 10 days hopes to profit on ill gotten classified information.
Aside from all of that, I have to ask what the big deal is? While I do worry about big brother having free will to peer into my phone conversations, check up on my latest novel purchases (many of them involving espionage mind you LOL), I can’t say I disagree with the methods the President is using to go after terrorists and anyone the government “assumes” is in bed with Al-Qaeda.
I realize that I will likely inflame the “Keep gov’t outta my personal lives” crowd, and I feel the same way about Government being a tool for the people not a method to control civilians, but I would be willing to loosen up some legal “belts” if that means it would be used to hunt down terrorist cells in this country.
Perhaps I am taking a casual look concerning what my government is doing with “extra power”, but, I am certain everyone can agree that if you want to prevent 9/11 part 2, you then are willing to sacrifice to achieve those goals.
Impeaching President Bush I think is a bit extreme when his predecessor bombed na aspirin factory and he wasn’t thrown out of office. If we are to learn anything from that last clown in office, impeachment doesn’t mean he gets the boot.
Good article Aaron, this is a great topic.
David Nick 12.19.05 at 9:21 pm
Hola Aaron,
Glad to see your voice in this matter. This NSA fiasco (which is what it is) really needs to be objectively looked at. First of all, this wouldn’t even be a discussion if the NYT hadn’t published a story to preempt a book release. Secondly, there are some questions as to how this information was leaked to this “author” who in less than 10 days hopes to profit on ill gotten classified information.
Aside from all of that, I have to ask what the big deal is? While I do worry about big brother having free will to peer into my phone conversations, check up on my latest novel purchases (many of them involving espionage mind you LOL), I can’t say I disagree with the methods the President is using to go after terrorists and anyone the government “assumes” is in bed with Al-Qaeda.
I realize that I will likely inflame the “Keep gov’t outta my personal lives” crowd, and I feel the same way about Government being a tool for the people not a method to control civilians, but I would be willing to loosen up some legal “belts” if that means it would be used to hunt down terrorist cells in this country.
Perhaps I am taking a casual look concerning what my government is doing with “extra power”, but, I am certain everyone can agree that if you want to prevent 9/11 part 2, you then are willing to sacrifice to achieve those goals.
Impeaching President Bush I think is a bit extreme when his predecessor bombed na aspirin factory and he wasn’t thrown out of office. If we are to learn anything from that last clown in office, impeachment doesn’t mean he gets the boot.
Good article Aaron, this is a great topic.
David Nick 12.19.05 at 9:21 pm
Hola Aaron,
Glad to see your voice in this matter. This NSA fiasco (which is what it is) really needs to be objectively looked at. First of all, this wouldn’t even be a discussion if the NYT hadn’t published a story to preempt a book release. Secondly, there are some questions as to how this information was leaked to this “author” who in less than 10 days hopes to profit on ill gotten classified information.
Aside from all of that, I have to ask what the big deal is? While I do worry about big brother having free will to peer into my phone conversations, check up on my latest novel purchases (many of them involving espionage mind you LOL), I can’t say I disagree with the methods the President is using to go after terrorists and anyone the government “assumes” is in bed with Al-Qaeda.
I realize that I will likely inflame the “Keep gov’t outta my personal lives” crowd, and I feel the same way about Government being a tool for the people not a method to control civilians, but I would be willing to loosen up some legal “belts” if that means it would be used to hunt down terrorist cells in this country.
Perhaps I am taking a casual look concerning what my government is doing with “extra power”, but, I am certain everyone can agree that if you want to prevent 9/11 part 2, you then are willing to sacrifice to achieve those goals.
Impeaching President Bush I think is a bit extreme when his predecessor bombed na aspirin factory and he wasn’t thrown out of office. If we are to learn anything from that last clown in office, impeachment doesn’t mean he gets the boot.
Good article Aaron, this is a great topic.
David Nick 12.19.05 at 9:21 pm
Hola Aaron,
Glad to see your voice in this matter. This NSA fiasco (which is what it is) really needs to be objectively looked at. First of all, this wouldn’t even be a discussion if the NYT hadn’t published a story to preempt a book release. Secondly, there are some questions as to how this information was leaked to this “author” who in less than 10 days hopes to profit on ill gotten classified information.
Aside from all of that, I have to ask what the big deal is? While I do worry about big brother having free will to peer into my phone conversations, check up on my latest novel purchases (many of them involving espionage mind you LOL), I can’t say I disagree with the methods the President is using to go after terrorists and anyone the government “assumes” is in bed with Al-Qaeda.
I realize that I will likely inflame the “Keep gov’t outta my personal lives” crowd, and I feel the same way about Government being a tool for the people not a method to control civilians, but I would be willing to loosen up some legal “belts” if that means it would be used to hunt down terrorist cells in this country.
Perhaps I am taking a casual look concerning what my government is doing with “extra power”, but, I am certain everyone can agree that if you want to prevent 9/11 part 2, you then are willing to sacrifice to achieve those goals.
Impeaching President Bush I think is a bit extreme when his predecessor bombed na aspirin factory and he wasn’t thrown out of office. If we are to learn anything from that last clown in office, impeachment doesn’t mean he gets the boot.
Good article Aaron, this is a great topic.
Aaron Brazell 12.19.05 at 9:38 pm
Hey David… Good to see you again. :) Naturally, I have some thoughts on your comments.
First of all, this wouldn’t even be a discussion if the NYT hadn’t published a story to preempt a book release. Secondly, there are some questions as to how this information was leaked to this “author†who in less than 10 days hopes to profit on ill gotten classified information.
Who cares? Yeah it was political, but so what? The Administration denies none of it. It could at least be argues from the Administration point of view that it was political if they chose to. Which begs the question? Why wouldn’t they? At least they had a plausible defense (NYT best interst)? Maybe someone is blackmailing the Administration with something much worse than this? I hope not but certainly concievable, and worse would fall inside the norms of this administration.
but I would be willing to loosen up some legal “belts†if that means it would be used to hunt down terrorist cells in this country.
Then amend the Constitution. Don’t make an end-around it picking and choosing what applies and what doesn’t. I’d be willing to give up some extra-Constitutional “liberties” as well… if it is done lawfully.
Impeaching President Bush I think is a bit extreme when his predecessor bombed na aspirin factory and he wasn’t thrown out of office. If we are to learn anything from that last clown in office, impeachment doesn’t mean he gets the boot. Forget Clinton. He’s old news and he is no one to lean on in formulating a defense of this president. Every President must stand on his own. I let this president slide on so much, including the war. When Harry Reid and company was bitching about his handling of the war and pre-war intelligence and possible impeachment, I scoffed. THIS, on the other hand, falls into my “high crimes and misdemeanors” category. No President, regardless of party, can blatantly ignore the sytem of checks and balances in place in the Constitution.
Anyways, thanks for stopping by again. When are you going to start writing for me again? :)
Aaron Brazell 12.19.05 at 9:38 pm
Hey David… Good to see you again. :) Naturally, I have some thoughts on your comments.
First of all, this wouldn’t even be a discussion if the NYT hadn’t published a story to preempt a book release. Secondly, there are some questions as to how this information was leaked to this “author†who in less than 10 days hopes to profit on ill gotten classified information.
Who cares? Yeah it was political, but so what? The Administration denies none of it. It could at least be argues from the Administration point of view that it was political if they chose to. Which begs the question? Why wouldn’t they? At least they had a plausible defense (NYT best interst)? Maybe someone is blackmailing the Administration with something much worse than this? I hope not but certainly concievable, and worse would fall inside the norms of this administration.
but I would be willing to loosen up some legal “belts†if that means it would be used to hunt down terrorist cells in this country.
Then amend the Constitution. Don’t make an end-around it picking and choosing what applies and what doesn’t. I’d be willing to give up some extra-Constitutional “liberties” as well… if it is done lawfully.
Impeaching President Bush I think is a bit extreme when his predecessor bombed na aspirin factory and he wasn’t thrown out of office. If we are to learn anything from that last clown in office, impeachment doesn’t mean he gets the boot. Forget Clinton. He’s old news and he is no one to lean on in formulating a defense of this president. Every President must stand on his own. I let this president slide on so much, including the war. When Harry Reid and company was bitching about his handling of the war and pre-war intelligence and possible impeachment, I scoffed. THIS, on the other hand, falls into my “high crimes and misdemeanors” category. No President, regardless of party, can blatantly ignore the sytem of checks and balances in place in the Constitution.
Anyways, thanks for stopping by again. When are you going to start writing for me again? :)
Aaron Brazell 12.19.05 at 9:38 pm
Hey David… Good to see you again. :) Naturally, I have some thoughts on your comments.
First of all, this wouldn’t even be a discussion if the NYT hadn’t published a story to preempt a book release. Secondly, there are some questions as to how this information was leaked to this “author†who in less than 10 days hopes to profit on ill gotten classified information.
Who cares? Yeah it was political, but so what? The Administration denies none of it. It could at least be argues from the Administration point of view that it was political if they chose to. Which begs the question? Why wouldn’t they? At least they had a plausible defense (NYT best interst)? Maybe someone is blackmailing the Administration with something much worse than this? I hope not but certainly concievable, and worse would fall inside the norms of this administration.
but I would be willing to loosen up some legal “belts†if that means it would be used to hunt down terrorist cells in this country.
Then amend the Constitution. Don’t make an end-around it picking and choosing what applies and what doesn’t. I’d be willing to give up some extra-Constitutional “liberties” as well… if it is done lawfully.
Impeaching President Bush I think is a bit extreme when his predecessor bombed na aspirin factory and he wasn’t thrown out of office. If we are to learn anything from that last clown in office, impeachment doesn’t mean he gets the boot. Forget Clinton. He’s old news and he is no one to lean on in formulating a defense of this president. Every President must stand on his own. I let this president slide on so much, including the war. When Harry Reid and company was bitching about his handling of the war and pre-war intelligence and possible impeachment, I scoffed. THIS, on the other hand, falls into my “high crimes and misdemeanors” category. No President, regardless of party, can blatantly ignore the sytem of checks and balances in place in the Constitution.
Anyways, thanks for stopping by again. When are you going to start writing for me again? :)
Aaron Brazell 12.19.05 at 9:38 pm
Hey David… Good to see you again. :) Naturally, I have some thoughts on your comments.
First of all, this wouldn’t even be a discussion if the NYT hadn’t published a story to preempt a book release. Secondly, there are some questions as to how this information was leaked to this “author†who in less than 10 days hopes to profit on ill gotten classified information.
Who cares? Yeah it was political, but so what? The Administration denies none of it. It could at least be argues from the Administration point of view that it was political if they chose to. Which begs the question? Why wouldn’t they? At least they had a plausible defense (NYT best interst)? Maybe someone is blackmailing the Administration with something much worse than this? I hope not but certainly concievable, and worse would fall inside the norms of this administration.
but I would be willing to loosen up some legal “belts†if that means it would be used to hunt down terrorist cells in this country.
Then amend the Constitution. Don’t make an end-around it picking and choosing what applies and what doesn’t. I’d be willing to give up some extra-Constitutional “liberties” as well… if it is done lawfully.
Impeaching President Bush I think is a bit extreme when his predecessor bombed na aspirin factory and he wasn’t thrown out of office. If we are to learn anything from that last clown in office, impeachment doesn’t mean he gets the boot. Forget Clinton. He’s old news and he is no one to lean on in formulating a defense of this president. Every President must stand on his own. I let this president slide on so much, including the war. When Harry Reid and company was bitching about his handling of the war and pre-war intelligence and possible impeachment, I scoffed. THIS, on the other hand, falls into my “high crimes and misdemeanors” category. No President, regardless of party, can blatantly ignore the sytem of checks and balances in place in the Constitution.
Anyways, thanks for stopping by again. When are you going to start writing for me again? :)
David Nick 12.19.05 at 10:25 pm
HeH :)
As far as this whole situation goes, all we know for certain is that the President authorized the NSA to utilize its assets in spying on people making phonecalls and emails outside the US. No one knows what took place behind the scenes at the White House but EVERYONE seems to love speculating the “what-ifs”.
Congress is charged with running any investigations into criminal actions, but my guess is that Congress WAS briefed, and people involved in the Intelligence Committees were made aware of EXACTLY what was going on.
Where were they then?
I find this whole thing politically motivated by the left. And that, more than the NSA spying on associates or believed associates of Al-Qaeda should be our focus. It should cause us to ask ourselves WHY the left has played this card, and for what purposes.
I find it all highly suspect, but like I said, if these naysayers in Congress are that upset, they should launch an inquiry. Put their money where their mouths are, so to speak. ;)
As for writing for you again, I would love to! If, I had time in my schedule these next few months.
I just got done with finals for my first semester (3.2GPA TYVM) and I am gearing up for my wedding, moving, honeymoon, all set to take place the first week of January. OY!
Then, Jan 9th, I start semester 2 and when that happens, I will have little time for anything other than wife, work, school. I am always around and I miss blogging.
See ya later. Merry Christmas my friend.
David Nick 12.19.05 at 10:25 pm
HeH :)
As far as this whole situation goes, all we know for certain is that the President authorized the NSA to utilize its assets in spying on people making phonecalls and emails outside the US. No one knows what took place behind the scenes at the White House but EVERYONE seems to love speculating the “what-ifs”.
Congress is charged with running any investigations into criminal actions, but my guess is that Congress WAS briefed, and people involved in the Intelligence Committees were made aware of EXACTLY what was going on.
Where were they then?
I find this whole thing politically motivated by the left. And that, more than the NSA spying on associates or believed associates of Al-Qaeda should be our focus. It should cause us to ask ourselves WHY the left has played this card, and for what purposes.
I find it all highly suspect, but like I said, if these naysayers in Congress are that upset, they should launch an inquiry. Put their money where their mouths are, so to speak. ;)
As for writing for you again, I would love to! If, I had time in my schedule these next few months.
I just got done with finals for my first semester (3.2GPA TYVM) and I am gearing up for my wedding, moving, honeymoon, all set to take place the first week of January. OY!
Then, Jan 9th, I start semester 2 and when that happens, I will have little time for anything other than wife, work, school. I am always around and I miss blogging.
See ya later. Merry Christmas my friend.
David Nick 12.19.05 at 10:25 pm
HeH :)
As far as this whole situation goes, all we know for certain is that the President authorized the NSA to utilize its assets in spying on people making phonecalls and emails outside the US. No one knows what took place behind the scenes at the White House but EVERYONE seems to love speculating the “what-ifs”.
Congress is charged with running any investigations into criminal actions, but my guess is that Congress WAS briefed, and people involved in the Intelligence Committees were made aware of EXACTLY what was going on.
Where were they then?
I find this whole thing politically motivated by the left. And that, more than the NSA spying on associates or believed associates of Al-Qaeda should be our focus. It should cause us to ask ourselves WHY the left has played this card, and for what purposes.
I find it all highly suspect, but like I said, if these naysayers in Congress are that upset, they should launch an inquiry. Put their money where their mouths are, so to speak. ;)
As for writing for you again, I would love to! If, I had time in my schedule these next few months.
I just got done with finals for my first semester (3.2GPA TYVM) and I am gearing up for my wedding, moving, honeymoon, all set to take place the first week of January. OY!
Then, Jan 9th, I start semester 2 and when that happens, I will have little time for anything other than wife, work, school. I am always around and I miss blogging.
See ya later. Merry Christmas my friend.
David Nick 12.19.05 at 10:25 pm
HeH :)
As far as this whole situation goes, all we know for certain is that the President authorized the NSA to utilize its assets in spying on people making phonecalls and emails outside the US. No one knows what took place behind the scenes at the White House but EVERYONE seems to love speculating the “what-ifs”.
Congress is charged with running any investigations into criminal actions, but my guess is that Congress WAS briefed, and people involved in the Intelligence Committees were made aware of EXACTLY what was going on.
Where were they then?
I find this whole thing politically motivated by the left. And that, more than the NSA spying on associates or believed associates of Al-Qaeda should be our focus. It should cause us to ask ourselves WHY the left has played this card, and for what purposes.
I find it all highly suspect, but like I said, if these naysayers in Congress are that upset, they should launch an inquiry. Put their money where their mouths are, so to speak. ;)
As for writing for you again, I would love to! If, I had time in my schedule these next few months.
I just got done with finals for my first semester (3.2GPA TYVM) and I am gearing up for my wedding, moving, honeymoon, all set to take place the first week of January. OY!
Then, Jan 9th, I start semester 2 and when that happens, I will have little time for anything other than wife, work, school. I am always around and I miss blogging.
See ya later. Merry Christmas my friend.
Aaron Brazell 12.19.05 at 10:33 pm
As I said in my entry, Harry Reid was briefed…so what? He is bound by law not to reveal classified information. Besides, briefing Congress is not enough to invade the privacy of citizens. You need a warrant. In other words, the courts need to be involved in the process.
You are right that it was (supposedly) outside of the US. I welcome an inquiry to find out more. If the President authorized unlawful eavesdropping on US citizens, he needs to be impeached.
Aaron 12.19.05 at 10:33 pm
As I said in my entry, Harry Reid was briefed…so what? He is bound by law not to reveal classified information. Besides, briefing Congress is not enough to invade the privacy of citizens. You need a warrant. In other words, the courts need to be involved in the process.
You are right that it was (supposedly) outside of the US. I welcome an inquiry to find out more. If the President authorized unlawful eavesdropping on US citizens, he needs to be impeached.
Aaron 12.19.05 at 10:33 pm
As I said in my entry, Harry Reid was briefed…so what? He is bound by law not to reveal classified information. Besides, briefing Congress is not enough to invade the privacy of citizens. You need a warrant. In other words, the courts need to be involved in the process.
You are right that it was (supposedly) outside of the US. I welcome an inquiry to find out more. If the President authorized unlawful eavesdropping on US citizens, he needs to be impeached.
Aaron 12.19.05 at 10:33 pm
As I said in my entry, Harry Reid was briefed…so what? He is bound by law not to reveal classified information. Besides, briefing Congress is not enough to invade the privacy of citizens. You need a warrant. In other words, the courts need to be involved in the process.
You are right that it was (supposedly) outside of the US. I welcome an inquiry to find out more. If the President authorized unlawful eavesdropping on US citizens, he needs to be impeached.
Travis Seitler 12.20.05 at 12:31 pm
“If the President authorized unlawful eavesdropping on US citizens, he needs to be impeached.”
Agreed. Who do we call?
Travis Seitler 12.20.05 at 12:31 pm
“If the President authorized unlawful eavesdropping on US citizens, he needs to be impeached.”
Agreed. Who do we call?
Travis Seitler 12.20.05 at 12:31 pm
“If the President authorized unlawful eavesdropping on US citizens, he needs to be impeached.”
Agreed. Who do we call?
Travis Seitler 12.20.05 at 12:31 pm
“If the President authorized unlawful eavesdropping on US citizens, he needs to be impeached.”
Agreed. Who do we call?
David Nick 12.20.05 at 1:30 pm
If you haven’t read Bill Kristol’s article in the Washington Post, I urge you to read it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901027.html
Mr. Kristol has some valid points as it relates to this whole NSA debacle.
David Nick 12.20.05 at 1:30 pm
If you haven’t read Bill Kristol’s article in the Washington Post, I urge you to read it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
Mr. Kristol has some valid points as it relates to this whole NSA debacle.
David Nick 12.20.05 at 1:30 pm
If you haven’t read Bill Kristol’s article in the Washington Post, I urge you to read it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
Mr. Kristol has some valid points as it relates to this whole NSA debacle.
David Nick 12.20.05 at 1:30 pm
If you haven’t read Bill Kristol’s article in the Washington Post, I urge you to read it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
Mr. Kristol has some valid points as it relates to this whole NSA debacle.
Mike 12.20.05 at 1:56 pm
Aaron… You know how I feel… The idea that NSA was eavesdropping on phone calls from suspected terrorists in an effort to prevent another attack on our country doesn’t keep me awake at night. I prefer to agree with this article from WSJ…
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703
Mike 12.20.05 at 1:56 pm
Aaron… You know how I feel… The idea that NSA was eavesdropping on phone calls from suspected terrorists in an effort to prevent another attack on our country doesn’t keep me awake at night. I prefer to agree with this article from WSJ…
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature...
Mike 12.20.05 at 1:56 pm
Aaron… You know how I feel… The idea that NSA was eavesdropping on phone calls from suspected terrorists in an effort to prevent another attack on our country doesn’t keep me awake at night. I prefer to agree with this article from WSJ…
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature...
Mike 12.20.05 at 1:56 pm
Aaron… You know how I feel… The idea that NSA was eavesdropping on phone calls from suspected terrorists in an effort to prevent another attack on our country doesn’t keep me awake at night. I prefer to agree with this article from WSJ…
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature...
Travis Seitler 12.20.05 at 2:04 pm
It’ll be interesting what the guys over at http://www.theamericanview.com have to say about this in their next broadcast (on the radio Sunday; in the podcast on Monday).
Travis Seitler 12.20.05 at 2:04 pm
It’ll be interesting what the guys over at http://www.theamericanview.com have to say about this in their next broadcast (on the radio Sunday; in the podcast on Monday).
Travis Seitler 12.20.05 at 2:04 pm
It’ll be interesting what the guys over at http://www.theamericanview.com have to say about this in their next broadcast (on the radio Sunday; in the podcast on Monday).
Travis Seitler 12.20.05 at 2:04 pm
It’ll be interesting what the guys over at http://www.theamericanview.com have to say about this in their next broadcast (on the radio Sunday; in the podcast on Monday).
Aaron Brazell 12.20.05 at 2:23 pm
David, I took one look at the title of the article and closed the window. Bill Kristol is a Neocon. Perhaps the most Neoist (literary license there) of all Neocons. I expect him to come to the defense of his puppet president.
If you’re a conservative, you should be severely alarmed at this incident, not defending it. Neocons are, unfortunately, not true conservatives.
Aaron Brazell 12.20.05 at 2:23 pm
David, I took one look at the title of the article and closed the window. Bill Kristol is a Neocon. Perhaps the most Neoist (literary license there) of all Neocons. I expect him to come to the defense of his puppet president.
If you’re a conservative, you should be severely alarmed at this incident, not defending it. Neocons are, unfortunately, not true conservatives.
Aaron Brazell 12.20.05 at 2:23 pm
David, I took one look at the title of the article and closed the window. Bill Kristol is a Neocon. Perhaps the most Neoist (literary license there) of all Neocons. I expect him to come to the defense of his puppet president.
If you’re a conservative, you should be severely alarmed at this incident, not defending it. Neocons are, unfortunately, not true conservatives.
Aaron Brazell 12.20.05 at 2:23 pm
David, I took one look at the title of the article and closed the window. Bill Kristol is a Neocon. Perhaps the most Neoist (literary license there) of all Neocons. I expect him to come to the defense of his puppet president.
If you’re a conservative, you should be severely alarmed at this incident, not defending it. Neocons are, unfortunately, not true conservatives.
Mike 12.20.05 at 2:26 pm
I would like to reiterate what David says above regarding reading the Washington Post article by Bill Kristol. You just don’t treat terrorist the same as you would a criminal. You need to be able to act very quickly and waiting to get a warrant can have devestating results…
Mike 12.20.05 at 2:26 pm
I would like to reiterate what David says above regarding reading the Washington Post article by Bill Kristol. You just don’t treat terrorist the same as you would a criminal. You need to be able to act very quickly and waiting to get a warrant can have devestating results…
Mike 12.20.05 at 2:26 pm
I would like to reiterate what David says above regarding reading the Washington Post article by Bill Kristol. You just don’t treat terrorist the same as you would a criminal. You need to be able to act very quickly and waiting to get a warrant can have devestating results…
Mike 12.20.05 at 2:26 pm
I would like to reiterate what David says above regarding reading the Washington Post article by Bill Kristol. You just don’t treat terrorist the same as you would a criminal. You need to be able to act very quickly and waiting to get a warrant can have devestating results…
David Nick 12.20.05 at 2:33 pm
Aaron-
I am a conservative. Not a republican. Let’s make that distinction first. LOL
Secondly, if you listen to what Harry Reid says versus a “NeoCon” I am deeply troubled LOL.
Seriously though, Harry Reid isn’t the only one who was briefed on the steps the President has taken.
Mike posted that link to the OpEd piece in the WSJ and I think you should read that as well. I don’t know who wrote it, but it certainly backs up some of the points I have been trying to make.
Those being that the President hasn’t just trump freedom and privacy in lieu of “going after extremists” or people he thinks fit into that mold.
The left and the MSM do fine enough work inciting fear and pandemonium amongst the ill-informed that I think any blog reader should be more informed than your average paper reader or Sunday morning news viewer.
I know you can understand that Aaron, that’s all I was trying to say.
:)
David Nick 12.20.05 at 2:33 pm
Aaron-
I am a conservative. Not a republican. Let’s make that distinction first. LOL
Secondly, if you listen to what Harry Reid says versus a “NeoCon” I am deeply troubled LOL.
Seriously though, Harry Reid isn’t the only one who was briefed on the steps the President has taken.
Mike posted that link to the OpEd piece in the WSJ and I think you should read that as well. I don’t know who wrote it, but it certainly backs up some of the points I have been trying to make.
Those being that the President hasn’t just trump freedom and privacy in lieu of “going after extremists” or people he thinks fit into that mold.
The left and the MSM do fine enough work inciting fear and pandemonium amongst the ill-informed that I think any blog reader should be more informed than your average paper reader or Sunday morning news viewer.
I know you can understand that Aaron, that’s all I was trying to say.
:)
David Nick 12.20.05 at 2:33 pm
Aaron-
I am a conservative. Not a republican. Let’s make that distinction first. LOL
Secondly, if you listen to what Harry Reid says versus a “NeoCon” I am deeply troubled LOL.
Seriously though, Harry Reid isn’t the only one who was briefed on the steps the President has taken.
Mike posted that link to the OpEd piece in the WSJ and I think you should read that as well. I don’t know who wrote it, but it certainly backs up some of the points I have been trying to make.
Those being that the President hasn’t just trump freedom and privacy in lieu of “going after extremists” or people he thinks fit into that mold.
The left and the MSM do fine enough work inciting fear and pandemonium amongst the ill-informed that I think any blog reader should be more informed than your average paper reader or Sunday morning news viewer.
I know you can understand that Aaron, that’s all I was trying to say.
:)
David Nick 12.20.05 at 2:33 pm
Aaron-
I am a conservative. Not a republican. Let’s make that distinction first. LOL
Secondly, if you listen to what Harry Reid says versus a “NeoCon” I am deeply troubled LOL.
Seriously though, Harry Reid isn’t the only one who was briefed on the steps the President has taken.
Mike posted that link to the OpEd piece in the WSJ and I think you should read that as well. I don’t know who wrote it, but it certainly backs up some of the points I have been trying to make.
Those being that the President hasn’t just trump freedom and privacy in lieu of “going after extremists” or people he thinks fit into that mold.
The left and the MSM do fine enough work inciting fear and pandemonium amongst the ill-informed that I think any blog reader should be more informed than your average paper reader or Sunday morning news viewer.
I know you can understand that Aaron, that’s all I was trying to say.
:)
Mike 12.20.05 at 2:34 pm
I’m more alarmed at the possibility of some terrorist setting off some type of WMD in one of our cities… Stop being such an alarmist at the slightest mention by the MSM that we’re going to lose our civil liberties and lets do what’s needed to keep our country safe. I suppose you’re against using extreme measures (torture) to get information that could possibly safe thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives?
Mike 12.20.05 at 2:34 pm
I’m more alarmed at the possibility of some terrorist setting off some type of WMD in one of our cities… Stop being such an alarmist at the slightest mention by the MSM that we’re going to lose our civil liberties and lets do what’s needed to keep our country safe. I suppose you’re against using extreme measures (torture) to get information that could possibly safe thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives?
Mike 12.20.05 at 2:34 pm
I’m more alarmed at the possibility of some terrorist setting off some type of WMD in one of our cities… Stop being such an alarmist at the slightest mention by the MSM that we’re going to lose our civil liberties and lets do what’s needed to keep our country safe. I suppose you’re against using extreme measures (torture) to get information that could possibly safe thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives?
Mike 12.20.05 at 2:34 pm
I’m more alarmed at the possibility of some terrorist setting off some type of WMD in one of our cities… Stop being such an alarmist at the slightest mention by the MSM that we’re going to lose our civil liberties and lets do what’s needed to keep our country safe. I suppose you’re against using extreme measures (torture) to get information that could possibly safe thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives?
David 12.20.05 at 2:36 pm
Mike,
Don’t go after Aaron by personally attacking him. He’s a smart guy who is entitled to have his views just like you and me.
I know Aaron well enough to say that he is someone who can read, research, and formulate his own opinions and come to his own conclusions.
Saying that he is an “Alarmist” would not be accurate.
David 12.20.05 at 2:36 pm
Mike,
Don’t go after Aaron by personally attacking him. He’s a smart guy who is entitled to have his views just like you and me.
I know Aaron well enough to say that he is someone who can read, research, and formulate his own opinions and come to his own conclusions.
Saying that he is an “Alarmist” would not be accurate.
David 12.20.05 at 2:36 pm
Mike,
Don’t go after Aaron by personally attacking him. He’s a smart guy who is entitled to have his views just like you and me.
I know Aaron well enough to say that he is someone who can read, research, and formulate his own opinions and come to his own conclusions.
Saying that he is an “Alarmist” would not be accurate.
David 12.20.05 at 2:36 pm
Mike,
Don’t go after Aaron by personally attacking him. He’s a smart guy who is entitled to have his views just like you and me.
I know Aaron well enough to say that he is someone who can read, research, and formulate his own opinions and come to his own conclusions.
Saying that he is an “Alarmist” would not be accurate.
Aaron Brazell 12.20.05 at 2:42 pm
First of all, the Administration claimed authority derived by the War Powers act, which did not give him authority to do whatever he damn well pleased and also under FISA, a 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. However, he is in violation of FISA in that:
Source: USC 50, 1805, Sec A, Subsec 3a
So how do we know what basis was used in determining “probable cause” here? That the subject didn’t agree with the President. That the subject made comments of disdain toward the US? All protected first amendment rights…
As for not having time, FISA provides for emergency warrants on short notice and even includes retroactive provisioning…
Source: USC Title 50, 1805, Sec F, Subsec 2
So please, please, please don’t use the “not enough time” argument on me. I guarantee Congress won’t give a damn that the President “says” he authorized it because he didn’t have enough time, and I guarantee the courts will uphold that finding.
Bush is in violation of federal law THOROUGHLY…
By the way, find all the FISA language here.
Aaron Brazell 12.20.05 at 2:42 pm
First of all, the Administration claimed authority derived by the War Powers act, which did not give him authority to do whatever he damn well pleased and also under FISA, a 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. However, he is in violation of FISA in that:
Source: USC 50, 1805, Sec A, Subsec 3a
So how do we know what basis was used in determining “probable cause” here? That the subject didn’t agree with the President. That the subject made comments of disdain toward the US? All protected first amendment rights…
As for not having time, FISA provides for emergency warrants on short notice and even includes retroactive provisioning…
Source: USC Title 50, 1805, Sec F, Subsec 2
So please, please, please don’t use the “not enough time” argument on me. I guarantee Congress won’t give a damn that the President “says” he authorized it because he didn’t have enough time, and I guarantee the courts will uphold that finding.
Bush is in violation of federal law THOROUGHLY…
By the way, find all the FISA language here.
Aaron Brazell 12.20.05 at 2:42 pm
First of all, the Administration claimed authority derived by the War Powers act, which did not give him authority to do whatever he damn well pleased and also under FISA, a 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. However, he is in violation of FISA in that:
Source: USC 50, 1805, Sec A, Subsec 3a
So how do we know what basis was used in determining “probable cause” here? That the subject didn’t agree with the President. That the subject made comments of disdain toward the US? All protected first amendment rights…
As for not having time, FISA provides for emergency warrants on short notice and even includes retroactive provisioning…
Source: USC Title 50, 1805, Sec F, Subsec 2
So please, please, please don’t use the “not enough time” argument on me. I guarantee Congress won’t give a damn that the President “says” he authorized it because he didn’t have enough time, and I guarantee the courts will uphold that finding.
Bush is in violation of federal law THOROUGHLY…
By the way, find all the FISA language here.
Aaron Brazell 12.20.05 at 2:42 pm
First of all, the Administration claimed authority derived by the War Powers act, which did not give him authority to do whatever he damn well pleased and also under FISA, a 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. However, he is in violation of FISA in that:
Source: USC 50, 1805, Sec A, Subsec 3a
So how do we know what basis was used in determining “probable cause” here? That the subject didn’t agree with the President. That the subject made comments of disdain toward the US? All protected first amendment rights…
As for not having time, FISA provides for emergency warrants on short notice and even includes retroactive provisioning…
Source: USC Title 50, 1805, Sec F, Subsec 2
So please, please, please don’t use the “not enough time” argument on me. I guarantee Congress won’t give a damn that the President “says” he authorized it because he didn’t have enough time, and I guarantee the courts will uphold that finding.
Bush is in violation of federal law THOROUGHLY…
By the way, find all the FISA language here.
Mike 12.20.05 at 2:45 pm
David,
I know Aaron very well also and I agree he is a very smart guy and I try to read his blog daily. The problem is that the president, no matter what you think about him on other topics is doing a terrific job of fighting an enemy who would destroy this country if they could. He is doing his job and we have not been attacked again. If we were attacked and the president had not eavesdropped, what would the Liberals and MSM be saying. That he should have eavesdropped… WE are at war!! In a war you do whatever it takes to win!
Mike 12.20.05 at 2:45 pm
David,
I know Aaron very well also and I agree he is a very smart guy and I try to read his blog daily. The problem is that the president, no matter what you think about him on other topics is doing a terrific job of fighting an enemy who would destroy this country if they could. He is doing his job and we have not been attacked again. If we were attacked and the president had not eavesdropped, what would the Liberals and MSM be saying. That he should have eavesdropped… WE are at war!! In a war you do whatever it takes to win!
Mike 12.20.05 at 2:45 pm
David,
I know Aaron very well also and I agree he is a very smart guy and I try to read his blog daily. The problem is that the president, no matter what you think about him on other topics is doing a terrific job of fighting an enemy who would destroy this country if they could. He is doing his job and we have not been attacked again. If we were attacked and the president had not eavesdropped, what would the Liberals and MSM be saying. That he should have eavesdropped… WE are at war!! In a war you do whatever it takes to win!
Mike 12.20.05 at 2:45 pm
David,
I know Aaron very well also and I agree he is a very smart guy and I try to read his blog daily. The problem is that the president, no matter what you think about him on other topics is doing a terrific job of fighting an enemy who would destroy this country if they could. He is doing his job and we have not been attacked again. If we were attacked and the president had not eavesdropped, what would the Liberals and MSM be saying. That he should have eavesdropped… WE are at war!! In a war you do whatever it takes to win!
David Nick 12.20.05 at 2:48 pm
Aaron-
Take a look at a story that was published on NewsBuster.org’s website:
(http://newsbusters.org/node/3298)
COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES
By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1051 words Published: November 7, 1982
A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.
Reverses 1979 Ruling
The Oct. 21 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit involves the Government’s surveillance of a Michiganborn lawyer, Abdeen Jabara, who for many years has represented Arab-American citizens and alien residents in court. Some of his clients had been investigated by the F.B.I.
Mr. Jabara sued the F.B.I, and the National Security Agency, and in 1979 Federal District Judge Ralph M. Freeman ruled that the agency’s acquisition of several of Mr. Jabara’s overseas messages violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of ”unreasonable searches and seizures.” Last month’s decision reverses that ruling.
In earlier court proceedings, the F.B.I. acknowledged that it then disseminated the information to 17 other law-enforcement or intelligence agencies and three foreign governments.
The opinion of the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals held, ”The simple fact remains that the N.S.A. lawfully acquired Jabara’s messages.”
The court ruled further that the lawyer’s Fourth Amendment rights ”were not violated when summaries of his overseas telegraphic messages” were furnished to the investigative bureau ”irrespective of whether there was reasonable cause to believe that he was a foreign agent.”
That ruling tells me right there that the President was within his rights and I don’t think he violated any laws.
What is in question is whether or not this action was within the purview of “Country at war”.
I know that Congress authorized the President to use whatever means to prosecute the war on terror. As far as I’ve heard, that authorization has not been revoked.
David Nick 12.20.05 at 2:48 pm
Aaron-
Take a look at a story that was published on NewsBuster.org’s website:
(http://newsbusters.org/node/3298)
COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES
By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1051 words Published: November 7, 1982
A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.
Reverses 1979 Ruling
The Oct. 21 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit involves the Government’s surveillance of a Michiganborn lawyer, Abdeen Jabara, who for many years has represented Arab-American citizens and alien residents in court. Some of his clients had been investigated by the F.B.I.
Mr. Jabara sued the F.B.I, and the National Security Agency, and in 1979 Federal District Judge Ralph M. Freeman ruled that the agency’s acquisition of several of Mr. Jabara’s overseas messages violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of ”unreasonable searches and seizures.” Last month’s decision reverses that ruling.
In earlier court proceedings, the F.B.I. acknowledged that it then disseminated the information to 17 other law-enforcement or intelligence agencies and three foreign governments.
The opinion of the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals held, ”The simple fact remains that the N.S.A. lawfully acquired Jabara’s messages.”
The court ruled further that the lawyer’s Fourth Amendment rights ”were not violated when summaries of his overseas telegraphic messages” were furnished to the investigative bureau ”irrespective of whether there was reasonable cause to believe that he was a foreign agent.”
That ruling tells me right there that the President was within his rights and I don’t think he violated any laws.
What is in question is whether or not this action was within the purview of “Country at war”.
I know that Congress authorized the President to use whatever means to prosecute the war on terror. As far as I’ve heard, that authorization has not been revoked.
David Nick 12.20.05 at 2:48 pm
Aaron-
Take a look at a story that was published on NewsBuster.org’s website:
(http://newsbusters.org/node/3298)
COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES
By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1051 words Published: November 7, 1982
A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.
Reverses 1979 Ruling
The Oct. 21 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit involves the Government’s surveillance of a Michiganborn lawyer, Abdeen Jabara, who for many years has represented Arab-American citizens and alien residents in court. Some of his clients had been investigated by the F.B.I.
Mr. Jabara sued the F.B.I, and the National Security Agency, and in 1979 Federal District Judge Ralph M. Freeman ruled that the agency’s acquisition of several of Mr. Jabara’s overseas messages violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of ”unreasonable searches and seizures.” Last month’s decision reverses that ruling.
In earlier court proceedings, the F.B.I. acknowledged that it then disseminated the information to 17 other law-enforcement or intelligence agencies and three foreign governments.
The opinion of the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals held, ”The simple fact remains that the N.S.A. lawfully acquired Jabara’s messages.”
The court ruled further that the lawyer’s Fourth Amendment rights ”were not violated when summaries of his overseas telegraphic messages” were furnished to the investigative bureau ”irrespective of whether there was reasonable cause to believe that he was a foreign agent.”
That ruling tells me right there that the President was within his rights and I don’t think he violated any laws.
What is in question is whether or not this action was within the purview of “Country at war”.
I know that Congress authorized the President to use whatever means to prosecute the war on terror. As far as I’ve heard, that authorization has not been revoked.
David Nick 12.20.05 at 2:48 pm
Aaron-
Take a look at a story that was published on NewsBuster.org’s website:
(http://newsbusters.org/node/3298)
COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES
By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1051 words Published: November 7, 1982
A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.
Reverses 1979 Ruling
The Oct. 21 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit involves the Government’s surveillance of a Michiganborn lawyer, Abdeen Jabara, who for many years has represented Arab-American citizens and alien residents in court. Some of his clients had been investigated by the F.B.I.
Mr. Jabara sued the F.B.I, and the National Security Agency, and in 1979 Federal District Judge Ralph M. Freeman ruled that the agency’s acquisition of several of Mr. Jabara’s overseas messages violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of ”unreasonable searches and seizures.” Last month’s decision reverses that ruling.
In earlier court proceedings, the F.B.I. acknowledged that it then disseminated the information to 17 other law-enforcement or intelligence agencies and three foreign governments.
The opinion of the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals held, ”The simple fact remains that the N.S.A. lawfully acquired Jabara’s messages.”
The court ruled further that the lawyer’s Fourth Amendment rights ”were not violated when summaries of his overseas telegraphic messages” were furnished to the investigative bureau ”irrespective of whether there was reasonable cause to believe that he was a foreign agent.”
That ruling tells me right there that the President was within his rights and I don’t think he violated any laws.
What is in question is whether or not this action was within the purview of “Country at war”.
I know that Congress authorized the President to use whatever means to prosecute the war on terror. As far as I’ve heard, that authorization has not been revoked.
Aaron Brazell 12.20.05 at 2:49 pm
I’m not concerned about personal attacks, but thanks for the defense, David.
Mike, we are NOT at war. We may be at war in a philisophical sense, but we are NOT at war. If we were at war, we would have a declaration of war. There is no legal wiggle room around that comment.
Aaron 12.20.05 at 2:49 pm
I’m not concerned about personal attacks, but thanks for the defense, David.
Mike, we are NOT at war. We may be at war in a philisophical sense, but we are NOT at war. If we were at war, we would have a declaration of war. There is no legal wiggle room around that comment.