President Bush, in his speech at Kansas State University this week, defended his possibly illegal domestic wiretaps by arguing that the phone calls were made from “reasonably suspected” al-Qaida suspects to people in the United States. “If they’re making a phone call into the United States,” he said, “it seems to me we’d want to know why.”
It’s a misleading argument. No one is arguing that such conversations shouldn’t be monitored — of course they should. The concern is why Bush feels the need to bypass the required judicial review that is meant to confirm the “reasonableness” of such surveillance.
If the evidence against a suspect is so compelling, why does the Bush team need to avoid oversight?
The president still hasn’t provided a satisfactory answer to that question.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
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
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
25 Comments
It’s not just that. If these kinds of wiretaps are essential to out national security, then why doesn’t the NSA tap intranational communications as well? (US citizen to US citizen)
If they’re so essential that the law doesn’t matter, if the president believes that Congress can somehow allocate its power under the Constitution to the President here, then why not intercept these as well?
Is the president saying that by fiat he chooses our level of safety? Or does he merely choose not to disclose these kinds of searches? (which is the same as lying since he denies that the NSA engages in these kinds of searches)
It’s a real puzzler (not the first for President Bush). I think that unless an influential Republican gets involved in holding the administration’s feet to the fire, though, he will get off without evening incurring a political price for a patently illegal act.
The price of fear, I guess: a real, real, real bad precedent.
Ya’see, with the advances in technology since Nixon, Bush won’t have to send burglars to tap the phones of the Democratic Headquarters. Bush is far more interested in what the Democrats are up to than he ever was in Al Qaida’a doings. It’s deja vu all over again!
Jed, I do see.When George comes to that fork in the road, he’ll take it.
“The concern is why Bush feels the need to bypass the required judicial review that is meant to confirm the “reasonableness” of such surveillance.”Gee, I don’t know, Randy. Do you suppose he is afraid some Democrat Judge might leak? And some Editor might tell the enemy?
Have any Democratic judges “leaked” in the past?
No?
Then go Cheney yourself.
Courts do not have a history of not accepting warrants for wiretaps. Five on record have been rejected. Bush says it was for time reasons. They have a speedy process to allow a warrant in less than 3 hours. SO, lots of people seem to think that they’re against wiretaps for suspected terrorists, which we aren’t. We just want to know why in the world you would skip the court to do it. That’s all.
Bush is stalling for time. He’s waiting for John Paul Stevens to retire or die.
Does the president have the inherent authority to kill a kitten with a hammer?
http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2006_01_09.html
Good God Rage, what kind of a sick pervert are you tp go to a site like that? (I bookmarked it, lol).
Gee, thanks, X., hehehe!
Off-topic, I expect you in particular would appreciate THIS one:
http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2006_01_23.html
And to continue with what V was saying. Not only does the FISA court issue warrants very rapidly (some in less time than it takes to have a pizza delivered) but the warrants can be made to be retroactive. Up to 72 hours after the surveillance has started. So dubya can start his wiretap and 71 hours later get the warrant and all of the material is legal in a court.
codie, how many of these secret wiretaps have you heard about before this story was leaked? Hmmm….10, 200, 2000? How many. None. In the FISA court everything is classified and nothing had been leaked until dictator for life dubya decided he needed to start wiretaps on Americans without having to get a warrant ever. It was leaked because there was a patriot working for the NSA who understood what the constitution stood for the ramifications of the actions of general george.
A former conservative, I have since distanced myself from almost all conservative politicians. I got this problem with selling out; and that has increasingly seemed to be all of what conservatives are about.
But in these most troubling times, I do take heart a bit. True, MOST of the right is on board and wholly behind just about everything bush does. But there is an under-current, a reason to hope for some reason with the right.
When Al Gore railed against bush’s illegal wiretapping recently, he was introduced by Bob Barr. Christopher Hitchens has expressed unrest with the wiretapping. We can only hope this continues and grows.
Folks on the right need to ask themselves honest questions. Or do I need to remind them that bush presides only over his disputed two terms andcannot and must not be given the powers and un-questioned station of a monarch?
Back in 2002, turns out the Bush Administration was for the FISA law before it was against it, as it is now.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com
Is there anything these Repukes won’t do or say in order to aggregate more power to the executive–provided they’re it?
Any of you Bush-worshippers wanna come out and play?
Thanks for mentioning that, JR. There ARE conservatives who are going apeshit over this–Richard Viguerie is another one. Almost gives ya hope.
By the way, I would have voted for THIS man if he had run for president in 2000 (but he didn’t):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011600779_pf.html
Doesn’t it make you wonder just who he’s been tapping?
Fitzgerald?Earle?Kerry?Murtha?Republicans it expects to go against them?Anti war protestors?
The more I speculate the more people I can think of on the list that would have nothing to do with terrorism overseas.
Is the truth better or worse than the speculations? Until bush decides to come clean I’ll always expect the worse from this administration.
On a side note. Why is he refusing to go along with the Katrina probe? I didnt’ think he had anything else to hide there.
He’s afraid congress will find out Katrina was the result of Halliberton passing gas.
Does anyone else think it is funny that the MSM discusses this like Bush himself is listening in? Playing on the “trust me” factor he generates amongst the koolaide crowd?
Here is a tip folks. Curious George has other things to do, like eatin’ bubba-que and watchin’ football. Cuttin’ shrubs (hee hee) on the ranch. He spends a lot of time not watching brokeback. As he keeps reminding us, his job is “hard work”.
Surely you realize that low-level bureaucrats are the ones monitoring your calls and emails. When the big dragnet falls, they are the ones making decisions, not our preznit. All you conservatives who rant about “the gummit”…it is this same “gummit” and same “gummit” employees who are listening in.
Does that make you sleep better at night?
This appears to be talking pretty straight to me:
President Bush
“So as I stand here right now I can tell the American people the program is legal, it’s designed to protect civil liberties, and it’s necessary. Now, my concern has always been that in an attempt to try to pass a law on something that’s already legal, we’ll show the enemy what we’re doing. And we have briefed Congress — members of Congress. We’ll continue to do that, but it’s important for people to understand that this program is so sensitive and so important, that if information gets out to how it’s — how we do it, or how we operate, it will help the enemy. And so, of course, we’ll listen to ideas. But, John, I want to make sure that people understand that if it — if the attempt to write law makes this program — is likely to expose the nature of the program, I’ll resist it. And I think the American people understand that. Why tell the enemy what we’re doing if the program is necessary to protect us from the enemy? And it is. And it’s legal. And we’ll continue to brief Congress. And we review it a lot, and we review not only at the Justice Department, but with a good legal staff inside NSA. “
You prove that Bush always does have something to hide behind. Disagree with war policy? He hides behind support the troops. Suggest that he is potentially doing something illegal? He hides behind “we will show what we are doing to the enemy.” He just can’t seem to understand that that is the price we pay for living in a democracy, where we all have a stake in the government, and not a dictatorship, however benevolent a despot Bush thinks he is. He is accountable to us and to the Constitution. I should believe Bush because he says so? HA!
Do you remember this post nathan?
“You simply saying it doesn’t make it true or constitute a sound argument.”
It is legal because bush says it is? When did he reach the status of infallability? Pope George the 43rd?
More of that circular logic. Is this what Nathan and bush are saying? “It’s legal if I say it is legal, and we are not gonna pass a law to make something legal that is already legal because we wouldnt want the enemy to know we are already using all legal means available to us when we are operating legally.”
That makes my ears hurt to listen to it. But is sure makes the case that spying on ordinary citizens without a warrent is legal. After all, he used the word legal at least four times in nathan’s post.
Here is what Molly Ivans says on the subject.
“To me it seems so simple: Would you think this was a good idea if Hillary Clinton were president? Would you be defending the clear and unnecessary violation of the law? Do you have complete confidence that she would never misuse this “inherent power” for any partisan reason?”
Bush isnt the only preznit we will ever have, unless you conservatives know something we dont know. yikes.
Has anyone here ever taken a logic class or argument class?
They have some nice ones at WSU, I suggest you try them out.
It is not Bush’s job or my job or anyone else’s job to disprove your false assertions.
The burden of proof is on you.
Has nothing to do with circular logic.
You keep making false assertions and I keep asking you for proof.
If it seems circular it is only because you keep refusing to back up your attacks with anything of substance.
Wrong thread nathan, you are getting your ass kicked on this subject on another thread. Now who cant keep their subjects straight? One at a time, remember?
But since you want to move it here, check out some more proof posted by Sum1 on that other thread.
http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle_new.asp?ArticleID=13
here’s a another link that shows a few more connections.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ai1hC39cvMns&refer=us
This is in addition to the proof you were already presented and chose to ignore from your lofty and logical position.
And yes nathan, I have taken several logic and argument classes in a real college, not a bible college. (now I suppose he will want to see my transcript as proof.) I know circular logic when I see it, and you have a bad case of it. Self proving statments. Look it up. Look up meme while you are at it.
It’s ok nathan. even though jesus doesnt like temper tantrums, you can still come in and play with the big kids. we wont hurt ya :)
I suppose for you the AP, WaPo, Texas Observer and Bloomberg have no substance? I guess we will just wait until god speaks to you directly before us poor mortals get an answer. How do you and pope george get those messages? From Walker’s aluminum hats?
There’s real beauty in this thing.
The administration lawyers don’t do the wiretaps, so they’re immune from prosecution.
The President and NSA staffers were advised by the lawyers that warrantless wiretapping is legal.
If the Supreme Court decides it isn’t legal, nobody is criminally liable. Legally speaking, there is no criminal intent. If the Supremes rule against the taps, the administration will have to stop, but there is no penalty. My hunch is that the Supreme Court may be displeasured that the administration didn’t give due respect to their judicial colleagues in the FISA court, but this will be interesting to watch.