The Washington Post had competing commentaries Tuesday from two conservatives about President Bush authorizing eavesdropping. George Will argued that the executive branch “needs concentrated decisiveness,” particularly in times of war or the threat of it. “But the inescapable corollary of this need is the danger of arbitrary power,” Will wrote. And he doesn’t understand why Bush didn’t just get court or congressional permission for the eavesdropping. But William Kristol doesn’t see a constitutional problem with Bush’s actions. “Founders intended the executive to have — believed the executive needed to have — some powers in the national security area that were extralegal but constitutional,” Kristol argued.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
32 Comments
And of course “Bill” Kristol see no problem with G.W. acting on his own.Kristol, editor in chief of the weekly standard a Neo-con rag. Is one of the signers threating G.W. if he did not invade Iraq and is on the board of the PNAC. Mr. Kristol you are a reporter, can you spell TRAITOR?
Both George Will and William Kristol agree for the need of extralegal presidential powers in times of war although George Will says he doesn’t understand why Bush didn’t just get court or congressional permission for the eavesdropping.”
I think the answer is a bit scary when the president of the United States says: “The constitution is just a G-d piece of paper.”
I also think that leaves little doubt that the Neoconservatives surrounding Bush have an attitude problem. And a concentration of power in their hands is the last thing America needs.
As the destruction of al-Qaeda expanded throughout the whole of Afghanistan with Osama on the run, by 2003, effectively the so-called “war on terrorism” was over.
That is notwithstanding the exception of the plans of the Zionist/PNAC/Neoconservative/cabal occupying the White House. They needed something, some excuse to keep their “terrorism” thing going. And what better excuse than 27 million Iraqi “terrorists.” Although the Iraqis weren’t “terrorists” yet, they soon would be after a couple of years of daily bombings and a goodly sprinkle of “burn-to-the bone” phosphorus { A little chemical warfare that once on your skin it burns right to the bone as there’s no way to stop it }.
Things are not going well in Iraq as we got caught with the “everything is going great propaganda” { 600 million dollars worth of advertising slogans gone-up in smoke, damn that truth-telling Al-Jazeera anyway }.
But Bush’s new daddy “Bulldozer Ariel Sharon” had a little stroke, and little-boy-Bush was all worried. Sharon invented modern-day “terrorism” by giving that name to the Palestinian Resistance defending their homes, farms, and families. It fit like a glove and the world bought it “hook-line-and-sinker.” And come March to two planned to meet in Washington to expand the sagging war on the phantom terrorism to Iran.
Now tell me Bush isn’t sucking-up to Sharon, who has been running this phony war all along..
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/659324.html
Ed
Perhaps you can tell me who the person was that reported the “The constitution is just a G-d piece of paper.” quote. I’ve looked around and can’t find the name of the person who supposedly overheard this.
Ed al-Qaeda is fighting in Iraq to this day, listen to the tapes from their leaders that have been released in the past month or so.
If we apprehend one of their leaders, or as we did with Zarqawi, capture his laptop, and we find American phone numbers in his address book does it not make sense to listen in on those phones and do it as quickly as possible? After all they probably arent to a pizza delivery service.
Heckler they could do it for 72 hours without a warrant is that quick enough? I believe it does not make a different in the setting up a warrantless bug or a warranted bug.
But that was not the point that concerned Bush. It was having to follow the law that seem to be the sticking point with him. The President is above the law it would seem.
Heckler,Of course, you would listen in as quickly as you could. AND then you would go before the court and get the pro-forma warrent/approval. As I understand the process, it is more of a court notification than it is a request for approval.
Why couldn’t Bush be troubled with this little bit of homework? Makes ya wonder . . .
The misinformation services from Rumsfeld do not exclude anything that will help promote expanding, justifying, exaggerating, continuing the phony war on phony terrorism. Lying, false tapes, false web-sites, this is a full-court press for propaganda. If they have you sold, then that’s one more in their pocket. That link to “The constitution is just a G-d piece of paper,” and also “I’m the president, so we’re going to do it my way” is somewhere on this blog { actually Bush’s actions more than support what he was reported to have said, but believe as you will }.
Bush gave Sharon a map of Greater Israel which stretches all the way from the Nile River to the Euphrates River and that’s what they doing. There is no lie they won’t tell, there is no butchery they won’t commit, no war-crime they won’t commit, just look at Iraq, just look at the Palestinians. These people are worse than the Nazis ever thought about being. If you’re one of them, then defend them all you like, it’s still partly a free country unless the pick your number.
Bush would have to take an oath as to whom he was tapping.
If he didn’t include everybody then some aid would own him.
Rumsfeld probably knows Osama is dead. He lies a lot.
USA Today:
“Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defence, has said he doubts Osama bin Laden is in a position to assert full command over the global operations of the al-Qaida network.
“I have trouble believing that he is able to operate sufficiently to be in a position of major command over a worldwide Al-Qaida operation but I could be wrong. We just don’t know,” Rumsfeld said.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9ED6914C-9CB5-46EC-9EBA-3453FCEF432E.htm
Phillip
I’ve noticed there’s nothing on this lefty blog about the story a little over a weak ago about Clinton using military spy satellites to spy on Americans at Elohim City Oklahoma after the Murrah building bombing in 1995. Highly illegal stuff dont you know.
If a Democrat President breaks the law to spy on white American terrorists anything goes. If a Republican President streches the laws during wartime fighting Islamic terrorists he should be impeached.
You people are pathetic hypocrites.
Here’s a link to some more examples of hypocricy by the simpering fools of the Hate America first Left.http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/michellemalkin/2005/12/21/179926.html
Oops Big Mistake
Not USA Today but rather Al-Jazeera
writerdog Steven E
Your talking about something that must be kept quiet. There are no secrets in Washington. The fewer people who know about it the better chance you have of keeping the operation secret. There was a judicial review process with this operation, it just wasn’t the standard protocal. We are talking about people here who are associating with known terrorists. They may or may not be American citizens. To me this is just a wise thing to do, and according to what I’ve read in several sources, there is legal precedent for doing this type of surveilance.
America’s enemies are in the White House doing as they damn well please.
There are two courses of actionOne: Make peace with the Arabs and stop all this “terrorism” nonsense.
The other is to keep killing Arabs creating new enemies and an endless war, while draining our resources, damaging our economy, and moving into Atomic Warfare.
The only winner through our folly will be China.
Israel is burning both ends of the candle. They’ve already sold some very sophisticated military hardware to China { that one even upset the Pentagon }. One system blinds our Eriguos {spl} radar array.
Aegis Combat System
http://navysite.de/weapons/aegis.htm
Let’s just nuke Israel off the face of the planet and all our problems will be solved.
No, That is the wrong thing to do. Killing Israelis solves nothing.
The are many peace-loving Israelis whose voices are not being heard.
They have demonstrated for peace by the 100s of thousands yet the Likuds want nothing to do with them.
You should be ashamed of yourself for advancing such a horrible plan.
Heckler,”Targeting decisions are classified; however, persons familiar with the project say any domestic use of these satellites is barred by agreements between the CIA and DoD.”
Note it says “agreement”, not law, dumbass. There’s a difference (although judging by your recient posts, it won’t be obvious to you).I take a guy real serious who uses Malikin’s thoughts to form his opinions.
” To me this is just a wise thing to do, and according to what I’ve read in several sources, there is legal precedent for doing this type of surveilance.”
So does your opinion come from your study of the Ren & Stimpy website?
Don’t expect to see this on CBS or CNN.
John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States.
“President Bush’s post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
XXX
Whether they be owned by the CIA or the DOD, the domestic use of them would be illegal either way genius.
Heckler–
1. IF Clinton did what Bush does, then that’s what he should have gotten impeached for. I assume you believe if Bush had sex and lied about it under oath, he too should be impeached?
I suspect Clinton didn’t do exactly what Bush is doing or the Mellon Scaife/ Jerry Fallwell/ Arkansas Project/ Ken Starr people would have been all over it, like they were on Travelgate, White Water, Vince Foster, Troopergate, etc. etc.–none of which panned out for them btw.
2. Your source from the Chicago Trib makes a point . . . a point that is countered by Sen. Rockfeller (who knew of the spying and wrote a letter warning Cheney of it in 2003), by a FISA judge who recently resigned in protest, by John Dean who was Nixon’s legal counsel during Watergate etc. etc.
3. You also have this problem–Bush caught in yet another blatent lie:
President Bush’s own words, verbatim from the White House website from a talk he gave in Buffalo, NY, April 20, 2004.
“When the President speaks, he better mean it. . . . Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
Heck,
I just disposed with one of your precious sources on the “That’s a legal stretch” thread. You should check it out.
Ah, that Bill Kristol. I’m sure the first thing the Founders wanted after throwing off the oppression of one King was to anoint another one. . . maybe he’s been reading too much John Adams.
P.S. The FISA court also said this:———————————–Even without taking into account the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conductwarrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and governmentshowings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrantstandards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing testdrawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances itauthorizes are reasonable.———————————-The language MAKES CLEAR that they expected the rules and procedures of the FISA court to be obeyed. This notion that the FISA court somehow approved extrajudicial surveillance of Americans is an out-and-out lie.
Rage
I believe that you are wrong on the post under “thats a legal stretch”
Go check it out.
Heckler, show me the law. An agreement between the CIA and DOD isn’t law.
XXX
It is illegal for the US military (DOD) to do ANYTHING in the way of law enforcement without a special order of the President.(possi comitatus???)
It is illegal for the CIA to do ANYTHING in the US.
This is as “common knowledge” as it gets in US law. Do I really have to point you to the code?
Let it go, XXX. It’s a red herring, just like Ray’s ploy, and textbook illogic to boot, i.e., if Clinton did it, so can we (a variation on 2 wrongs = right). If there’s anything to that story, the truth will out, but it’s understandable that the press might be a little more interested in widespread abuses by a sitting president.
And by the way, Heckler: “There was a judicial review process with this operation, it just wasn’t the standard protocal.” Oh really? Care to produce your source for this? (and I want a real source, not friggin’ Town Hall!).
One more thing: funny how you have us all pegged as hardcore Clintonites, yet we also “hate America first.” Of course, it might be neither, but if you’re going to resort to vapid rhetoric, at least make up your damn mind.
Have you ever seen a President or king who hated America so bad as to spy on it’s own citizens? Moved our jos overseas? Spent us so far in debt? Can impeachment save us?
Rage
You are a leftist, it comes through in everything you say. I simply like to point out the hypocrisy of the left. Clinton should have been impeached for half a dozen different things, not for Monica’s gate.
I don’t know if you were a Clinton Butt Boy and I really don’t care.
As for the “review process” if you’ve paid attention to the news at all you would have heard the President himself give a brief description of the review process that occurs periodically during this operation.The description was brief and you may not believe him but it was broadcast live on mainstream news channels so if you can’t find it it’s your problem.
You’re stuck on stupid, but don’t feel alone, XXX and Galahad are right there with you.
Every “review” you speak of was conducted not by impartial judges, but by people WHO WORKED FOR HIM, you MORON:
“The review includes approval by our nation’s top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President.”
“The NSA’s activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA’s top legal officials, including NSA’s general counsel and inspector general.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html
This is NOT judicial oversight, nor particularly independent review, and even if, say, the inspector general of NSA objected, all he could do what prepare an angry (secret) report (which I’d kinda like to see, actually). It makes a mockery of the separation of powers, and is also blatantly outside the law. Furthermore, any objections from the few Executive Branch officials WHO EVEN KNEW would have impotent, since Bush and his cronies obviously were brooking no dissent, and those employees couldn’t tell anyone else what was going on.
And, by the way, if “Clinton should have been impeached for half a dozen different things, not for Monica’s gate,” well, why wasn’t he? Just curious.
You’re right Rage, there’s no use arguing with a shill.
I expect to see the investigations start right after the first of the year. What a wonderful way to ring in the New Year!
“You’re stuck on stupid, but don’t feel alone, XXX and Galahad are right there with you.”
Given the last five years, is it more logical to believe Bush or distrust him when he says something?
Looks to me like it’s Heckler who’s stuck on stupid.
I went through the last State of the Union address, and there was not a single proveable fact that W. uttered that could be proven true.
Even the facts that had an appearance of truth–like his claim that the economy had created over a million jobs–were taken out of context. 800 thousand of those jobs were federal gov’t jobs that W. himself created by growing the gov’t (on deficit spending) by 9 percent a year.
Take away those jobs and the economy lost jobs for the first time since Hoover.
If I’m painted with the same brush and considered good enough to be mentioned in a class with Galahad and Rage, I’m complimented. Thank you, Heckler.