Power to eavesdrop at will among spoils of job?

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., offered an unusual take last week on the problem with President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping. Without criticizing the program, Brownback said the White House should not have pointed to the war on terrorism as justification. Better to say it comes with presidential powers, Brownback said, than to blame it on the war, which might deter future Congresses from approving military action.
Posted by Rhonda Holman

14 Comments

  1. CF
    Posted December 28, 2005 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    Oh. So, should some reactionary Kansas senator–for the sake of argument, let’s call him “Senator Brownback,” become President, I imagine those sorts of expanded Executive powers would be quite useful.

    I think this tells us everything we need to know about the probable, imperial shape of a Brownback presidency. He doesn’t even feel the need to argue for unlimited Presidential power by invoking some emergency or state of affairs. The guy doesn’t seem to have a lot of respect for an independent Judiciary or the separation of powers, now does he?

  2. Ahmad
    Posted December 28, 2005 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    True, CF, Brownback would be a disaster as a president (although it’s hard to imagine anyone worse than the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue).

    But just imagine CANDIDATE Brownback, siphoning off the church-y “extra chromosome” Republicans while their mainstream candidate has to fight for middle ground.

    It’s a lose-lose proposition for Republicans, which means it’s win-win for the country.

  3. mrcontroversy
    Posted December 28, 2005 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    Of course, it’s academic if Hilary Clinton runs. A Clinton-Obama ticket would make Brownback-Santorum a modern day Landon-Knox.

  4. XXX
    Posted December 28, 2005 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    Or maybe Brownback is afraid that if congress got balky about war powers because of civil liberties issues, he couldn’t be a “war time” president. After all, it would be a pretty tough act to follow G. “War Time President” Bush. Somehow Sam “wash people’s feet” Brownback just lacks something. Maybe he could wipe himself down with Crisco (like our former AG). CF, don’t be too quick to write Brownback off. Keep in mind, over half the people in this country think the planet is less than 10,000 years old. I can see the republican spin now, “A vote against Brownback is a vote against God”. Sheesh!

  5. writerdog
    Posted December 29, 2005 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    Stop reality….I want to get off!I really try not to be frightened, I really do. A President Brownback, I keep hoping that it gets better!But of course I was shocked when G.W. was re-elected too.And me without my assult weapon too.Why oh why did I ever trade it for a guitar?

  6. Sum1
    Posted December 29, 2005 at 6:46 am | Permalink

    I still have the same thought.

    If the president had these powers to begin with, there would never have been need for the Patriot Act.

  7. Rage
    Posted December 29, 2005 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    I am completely unsurprised by Brownback’s comments. The lunatic right doesn’t seem to understand that the legislative branch, by definition, makes the rules. Even when FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court–an audacious and unethical tactic–he asked for (and was refused) congressional approval.

    And since I expect some resident Repubs might mention it, FDR also interned Japanese-Americans, I’m thinking WITHOUT congressional approval. To our everlasting shame.

    But, no, they want a King. And they want to “fix” the electoral system so they never lose power. It’s pretty scary.

  8. JohnDoe#2
    Posted December 30, 2005 at 2:30 am | Permalink

    i used to think it would be good to just move outta kansas…

    then i realized canada was lookin good…

    now, mexico would be fine…and i love their food.

    a couple of weeks ago i read that if brownback hadn’t married a rich woman, he would still be a western kansas goat roper…or sheep farmer…or dog catcher…or something like that.

    what did sam do before he married up, as george likes to say.

  9. Roo
    Posted December 30, 2005 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    Let me guess, brownnosing? brown-paper-packaging? brown-shirting?

  10. codie
    Posted December 31, 2005 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    You should be worring about which democrat is leaking top secret information to the enemy in the time of war. Its getting so that a president can’t even tell congress secrets without them leaking.

  11. Zeitgeist
    Posted December 31, 2005 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    Codie–

    If democrats ever got told anything by this administration, your assertion might make sense.

    Looks to me like “Scooter” Libby is the only person indicted of any leaking so far . . . and he’s as republican as you can get.

  12. Jed
    Posted December 31, 2005 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    Codie,That “top secret information” was stuff that was being kept secret from the American public (our foreign enemies were already well aware of it). Are we the people the administration’s real enemy? Sure beginning to seem that way!

  13. Paxton
    Posted December 31, 2005 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    Are we the people the administration’s real enemy?

    Only half of you.

  14. Jed
    Posted January 2, 2006 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    Paxton,Something about a house divided against itself…..