Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee today (see photo) that "the president is acting with authority both by the Constitution and by statute" in authorizing the domestic eavesdropping program. He also has an op-ed piece in today’s Wall Street Journal arguing that the eavesdropping program falls under Congress’ war authorization. "The use of signals intelligence — intercepting enemy communications — is a fundamental incident of waging war," he wrote.
But many lawmakers aren’t buying it — most notably, Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who said this weekend that the eavesdropping "is in flat violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act." The supposed limited nature of the program also doesn’t match The Washington Post’s reportthis weekend that thousands of Americans have been wiretapped.
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
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- XXX on Open thread 11/8
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
54 Comments
I haven’t heard one legitimate argument that proves it was legal.
But what disturbs me the most, is that all the Republican members of the Committe voted to not swear in Gonzales when all the Democrats voted to swear him in. And since the Repubs outnumber the Democrats, Gonzales will be giving his testimony without being under oath.
Doncha think that allowing him to testify without being under oath kinda defeats the purpose of holding this hearing?
Depends on what the purpose of the hearing is. Sounds like it’s mostly for spin!
Let me mirror your statement cookie:
“I haven’t heard one legitimate argument that proves it was illegal.”
And last I checked it is not my job or the Presidents to prove the legality, but yours to show how it was illegal.
Even though, the president has already said how it was legal and the protections that are in place.
Wiretapping without a warrant signed by a judge has been illegal for decades. It’s up to Bush to prove his was, or face the consequences under law. Last I heard, this was still a nation of laws, regardless of the cult of Bush’s so-called personality!
If he was “wiretapping” by the sense you are using it, then yeah you might have a point.
He authorized the NSA to intercept enemy communications in time of war.
Big difference.
You can try to attach whatever buzzword you would like to make it sound worse than it is, but it doesn’t make it anymore illegal.
Nathan,”He authorized the NSA to intercept enemy communications in time of war.”Depends on whether the “enemies” we’re talking about are Osama, or his political opposition. Nixon got that confused, and look what happened to him. J. Edgar abused it all over the place, and blackmailed everybody in sight. That’s why a judge’s signature is the very least protection we need!
You assume that there is not any oversight on this.
Members of congress have been kept in the loop and there is oversight in the NSA as well.
His handpicked members of congress, you mean. A rubber stamp doesn’t oversee anything!
And y’all remember the signed and sealed statement that Jay Rockefeller wrote after he heard about this program, expressing his doubts that it was legal, right?
A few hand-picked Congress Critters were informed, but there wasn’t nearly enough oversight, and not a darned thing any of them could do stop it.
Nathan is wrong. The burden of proof lies with the President and not with his critics.
The Constitution doesn’t have to prove its case against the President; the President has to prove HIS case against the traditionally understood limits of Constitutional authority. The burden of proof falls on the entity asserting rights, particularly in the case of the Executive, whose rights are quite circumscribed within the Constitution.
Nathan’s argument is based on fallacious reasoning. Intellectual integrity and Nathan don’t have much to say to each other.
Cookie, even with oversight, the program would still be blatantly illegal. The FISA statute made that clear, and none of the precedents gratutiously cited by administration apologists (Keith, Truong, or even In Re: Sealed case) are relevant, let alone dispositive.
CF, people like Nathan are simply pennant-wavers. He doesn’t even understand the issues; he just knows people are attacking Bush, and that’s enough to take a contrary position.
Nathan: Prove me wrong. Show me you at least UNDERSTAND the criticisms (I won’t be holdingmy breath waiting. . .).
You’re right, Rage, it is blantantly illegal.
When does the impeachment start?
You belittle me and then demand me to prove you wrong?
LOL
Good thing you are not holding your breath!
Uhm. . .yeah. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but do you understand the issues or not?
Like I said: Prove me wrong.
This is the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The president takes an oath to uphold and defend the constitution:
“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.”
That means that the government can’t tap into phone switching stations listening for keywords like “hijack” or “Osama.”
They can’t monitor credit card statements. They can’t go on ‘fishing expeditions’ into the e-mail files of peace activists or protestors.
They CAN monitor any and all phone calls to known terrorists. That’s not a problem.
So when Gonzalez claims that it takes too much “time” to get FISA warrants, it sounds very much like he’s trying to justifying spying that otherwise couldn’t pass the normal judicial tests, i.e., illegal spying.
Rage you are a purple, 3 toed, jungle monkey.
Prove me wrong…
My birth certificate says I’m human. Next!
Oh wait. . .it doesn’t!
Oh my GAWD. . . HOO HOO HOO HOO HOO! EEEEE!
Nathan, who makes it his business to give ALL five year-olds a bad name, has no response to my refutation above. It disproves his assertions, so he feels justified in ignoring it.
Being a Repuke must be great; you can just make shit up that sounds cool and doesn’t have to be true. And if anyone calls you on it, ignore them–because you can.
SWEET!
Im sorry CF, I didn’t realize you were actually trying to make a point up there…
Here you go:
“Nathan is wrong. The burden of proof lies with the President and not with his critics.”
You are the one saying he did something illegal. I am waiting for the proof.
In a court of law and any argument, you must make the case for your claim.
Just becuase you say it is illegal doesn’t make it so.
“The Constitution doesn’t have to prove its case against the President; the President has to prove HIS case against the traditionally understood limits of Constitutional authority.”
He already has. What he did was constitutional. That is why he did it.
“The burden of proof falls on the entity asserting rights, particularly in the case of the Executive, whose rights are quite circumscribed within the Constitution.”
Already did. Now you are claiming it was illegal and have yet to show why/how.
“Nathan’s argument is based on fallacious reasoning.”
Which argument are you talking about?
“Intellectual integrity and Nathan don’t have much to say to each other.”
Me: 1
CF: 17
Once again, Nathan begs his own question. By that, I mean that he assumes what needs to be proven.
Who acted first, Nathan: the President, or his critics? The President. And in asserting Constitutionality, he goes against the mainstream of legal opinions on this matter. I’m stating this as a fact, because it is a fact, as evidenced by the Republican Senators who rejected his theory of Presidential exemption from law.
For the President to claim exemption from the law, he needs to prove his case. He’s done nothing of the sort. You say he’s proven it? OK, Nathan. Are you a constitutional scholar? No? Then you aren’t really in any position to assert these arguments are proven, now are you?
If you want to believe lies, whether because you believe them or because you are titilated by getting to argue ‘make me,’ there’s nothing I can do. All I can do is show that your argument is dishonest and self-serving, and that by making it, you show yourself to be willing to defend Bush regardless of what actions he takes.
Seems a bit pathological to me, but hey, it’s your life. And I’m happy that my comments have forced you to extend your counting skills up to the number 17. Frankly, I think you need to work on your powers of observation; surely I’ve insulted you more than just that.
You gotta love the fact that people like Nathan are up in arms when the Supremes find penumbra rights for the people buried in the Constitution..like the right to privacy, equal rights for gays, etc. But they have not one iota of outrage or even discomfort with a legal argument based on unenumerated powers of the presidency that seem to be in direct violation of precedent and statute.
CF,
You assume that I defend the President at every turn. I don’t.
I have many qualms with his policies and actions he has takin.
First, non of the issues we discuss are issues I have qualms with.
Second, I will never say anything against my Commander and Chief on any public forum or public debate.
I am still serving in the Marine Corps and have always firmly believed in never publically going against any of my superior officers without using my chain of command or addressing the issue in a manner that will enact change in a profesional manner.
So you will probably never see me say much of anything negative about President Bush in a public place just like I never said anything against Clinton while he was President.
CF, I’m not sure why I should bother, but. . .
NATHAN! HELLO! PAY ATTENTION!
Once more:
(1)The FISA law says domestic wiretaps are illegal unless otherwise authorized by statute.
(2)They weren’t.
(3)The Fourth Amendment says: “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.”
(4) Katz v. Unites States specifically ruled that illegal wiretaps of Americans are unconstitutional.
(5) The president does not have the right to break the law.
“So you will probably never see me say much of anything negative about President Bush in a public place just like I never said anything against Clinton while he was President.”
So are Marines required to shill for the President now? Ouch! My sympathies.
Rage,Thanks for the documentation.
Nathan,Then why say anything? I mean, if you’re nonpartisan when it comes to criticism, you should be nonpartisan when it comes to praise as well.
Read “Stars and Stripes” lately? They publish criticisms of the President, the Administration, and the conduct of the war. One can be a good soldier without having to be what I and others call ‘a good German.’
Interesting. The Democrats on the committee seem to have info suggesting that the spying program has extended well into DOMESTIC surveillance. Gonzales’ answers were carefully hedged to only apply to the program he was there to defend. He refused, repeatedly, to deny the existence of other such programs.
Tidbit from Dianne Feinstein: “”I believe the only reason you did what you did is that this program is far broader than you want us to know about.”
Add this to the Republican hacking of Democratic computers a couple of years ago, and a picture starts to emerge.
Interesting.
I just got through watching “24″ on Fox, with the very effective warrantless government wiretaps and torture of terrorists for information. Thank you, Fox.
I think this quote is on point:
“Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself.” –Jean Francois Revel
Guilt is the impression I get from the left and their crusade regarding covert wiretapping. The harm to our national security that has come from this leak should frustrate every American interested in the security of their families.
We need to quit feeling guilty about defending ourselves and get about the business of doing so. I would imagine al qaeda is laughing their butts off as we struggle with our nationally televised dilemma.
Guilt, my ass. I don’t want leaders who can’t be trusted honing weapons that they mean to use against me.
The NSA dragnet is useless for catching al Qaeda. It’s great for stifling domestic opposition.
“If you’re not with us, you’re against us.”
Meanwhile, Outlander has a hard-on for torture. How dare we deprive him of his self-righteous fun!
Outlander is obviously another Rush dittohead. I dismiss him. To cite a fictional TV series just as his master Rush does as a platform for foreign and domestic policy for the most powerful nation on the planet speaks to their evidence of a deluded mind.
Hey Nathan? Let’s meet! I stll say you and your “DAD”hank are one in the same. Oh Nathan? What Kansas Marine base are you stationed to?
Bush is not a king. At least not yet. It is telling that his illegal spying on Americans is decried not just from the “treasonous hate America left” but also from more sensible,less servile voices from the right. Republican Senator and head of the Senate judiciary comittee Arlen Specter is also concerned that laws have been broken by this President and administration.
Are you bushies really so scared of big bad terrorists? What do you wet yourselves anytime you see an Arab? Or…….are you playing the scare? And if you are, just what is YOUR motive? That is what I want investigated and wiretapped.
YOUR and I do mean YOUR pResident has said “If you are not with us, you are against us”. Well I am against pResident Bush and I am also against any who support him in his wanton subversion of the Constitution and his exploitation of his executive power for ends not in the best interest of this nation and its people.
I hope the NSA got that.
As usual the statements are filled with misinformation and half truths.
Take just the one statement about the judge notifying the target that they are being wiretapped.
If you actually read the provision the only way this happens is if the Judge finds the wiretap to have been illegal. And then only if the government states they are going to use the information they collected.
Gonzo made it sound like after the warrant the Judge would immediately notify the target.
Half truths and misdirections.
Nathan,In my eyes 8 senators does not convey oversight? That is the number that were informed. 8
Those 8 senators were also given the barest of information, were not given any way to change anything, and were forbidden to tell anyone else.
“Here’s what we’re doing. Deal with it.”
Oh, yes, that’s “oversight.”
Hey JR
Name the time and place this weekend. We’ll have lunch.
Hank
Oh great… we are back to the lets meet for lunch debate again.
Sure JR,
I’ll meet ya for lunch with my dad.
It is not that hard to figure out where a certain Marine Base might be here in Kansas.
Do a google search or something…
Don’t worry Nathan,
JR won’t have the cajones to meet us. He’d rather hide behind the WE BLOG.
Your Pa,
Hank
Looks like we have a lot of posters here who never did any time in the military. Criticizing the President while in the military probably won’t get you shot, but it’s a career-ending move. You have to have at least a minimum understanding of chain of command. You don’t publicly criticize your superior officers, and the pres, no matter who he is, is as superior as it gets. They don’t call him the CiC for nothing.
You can get away with criticizing the pres if you’re in the military, but you’d have to be an idiot to do that. Believe me, you don’t need the kind of grief a thing like that causes. That’s a good way to spend the rest of a short lifespan on “point”. (Point man usually gets shot first)
But, X, are you, as a marine, required to defend the big CO with any inane support that you think of or have feed to you by republican demagogues? Moreover, is the military trolling the web and issuing subpoenas for identities of commenters on web blogs? Don’t they have a war to fight, or something? Nathan says he disagrees with some parts of the administration, but won’t say them, here. Fine, but since he is choosing to be Bush’s mindless drone, he is still responsible to defend the inanities of ideas he is expressing.
I am not worried about anyone actually finding me on this blog bad mouthing the President.
It is a matter of honor and integrity on my part.
I don’t believe any member of the armed forces should publically attack his President.
God bless you Nathan. People who defend their country are few and far between these days. What branch are you in? I have a brother in the 101st. I have a friend in the Navy. I pray for their safe return everyday.
I am in the Marine Corps.
Currently in the Reserves.
The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced.Frank Zappa
For all you liberal bedwetters out there here is an interesting column by Thomas Sowell:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2006/02/07/185446.html
Enjoy!
Hank
Why would anyone read anything you post when you start with insults?
And you ask this of Hank?
Have you even read half of the posts that most of the liberals post here?
NO.
Dear Tracy,
Nothing personal, just a general comment. Sorry if you took offence.
Stuck pig squeals the loudest.
Hank
It seems like there are more than liberal bloggers here who question the administration’s claim that they are within their legal powers to conduct the so-called “terrorist surveillence program”. Would it be your contention that opinions/concerns like these expressed in the link below are completely unfounded?
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/020706/news4.html
This is from Steven Aftergood’s newsletter:
CRS, NSA AND THE QUESTION OF CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION
Last week, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) lashed out at theCongressional Research Service for asserting that the BushAdministration may have had a legal responsibility to notify morethan just eight members of Congress regarding the NSA surveillanceactivity.
Rep. Hoekstra, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee,did not merely suggest that the CRS might be wrong; he claimed thatthe agency was actually biased against Bush Administration policy(Secrecy News, 02/05/06).
In fact, however, it is increasingly clear that Rep. Hoekstra isthe one who misunderstood and misrepresented the requirements ofthe law.
Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) put the matter plainly at a February 6Senate hearing on the NSA surveillance program, explaining thatthe statute which permits limited notification to eight members ofCongress is relevant only to covert actions, and not to the NSAprogram.
“When you look at that section [50 USC 413(b)], the only thing thisreferences as far as what this Group of Eight does is receivereports in regard to covert action. So that’s really all it is. Itdoes not cover a situation like we’re talking about here at all,”Sen. DeWine said.
“We all have a great deal of respect for these eight people…They’re leaders of the Congress. But there’s no statutoryauthority for this group, other than the section that has to dowith covert operation, and this [the NSA activity] is not a covertoperation as defined in this specific section.”
“I don’t mean to be impolite… I guess I’m just kind of a strictconstructionist, kind of a conservative guy, and that’s how I readthe statute,” Sen. DeWine said.
I guess I am thinking that Sen. DeWine and the CRS might, just might, know more than bloggers here.
Thanks, JustWondering. I hadn’t really looked into the statutory aspects of informing Congress.
This is the original CRS memo wherein they outline their concerns about the notification shortcomings of the Bush administration.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m011806.pdf
There is only one question that needs to be asked, WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO HIDE? If these wiretaps and searches cannot stand up to the light of day then he is trying to hide something illegal. I understand, correct me if I am wrong, the President has 48 hours to report the wiretap to the court for approval. If he can’t do that then he is lying about whom he is spying on!!
grayfox,
In answer to your one question:
Nothing.
Nathan, if he has nothing to hide, then why is he circumventing the legal process established by the Constitution and the United States Congress.