Here is David Cole’s take on why the Bush administration can’t come clean about its views on executive power:
“The reason (Attorney General Alberto) Gonzales spent so much time dodging and weaving is not that he was unable to answer, but that he knows that a candid answer would have been politically unacceptable to the senators and to the American people. His honest answer to all of the . . . questions would have been the same: Yes, the president could order warrantless searches of Americans’ homes, the opening of mail, domestic wiretaps and torture — because there are no limits on the president’s powers as commander in chief to engage the enemy.
“That answer is not hypothetical — it is found buried in the footnotes of a detailed 42-paged single-spaced legal memorandum provided to Congress in January. In that memo, which sought to defend the legality of the NSA surveillance program, the Justice Department argues that Congress may not in any way impede the president’s executive authority to choose the ‘means and methods of engaging the enemy.’”
Posted by Melissa Cooley
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
27 Comments
You imply that they are not coming clean becuase they won’t answer politically motivated questions to your satisfaction.
This entire thing is nothing but a political beating stick being wielded by the democrats. This has nothing to do with how well any questions are answered. No matter what the answer, no matter why the reason, this is just another thing the democrats are going to use as much as they can to attack the President.
The truth of the matter is this:
Do you think terrorists communications should be intercepted? YES or NO
That is what is being done.
Regardless of what you liberals keep trying to portray, President Bush is not in his office listening to you have phone sex with your boyfriends…
“Yes, the president could order warrantless searches of Americans’ homes, the opening of mail, domestic wiretaps and torture”
All you righteous upstanding Repubies need to read that closely. That’s what you’re supporting; that’s what your man stands for.I and many of my friends and brothers fought, bled, and died to insure your freedom and liberty. And in a fit of fear, you’re ready to give up our freedom for supposed safety. Patriots fight and die for the ideal of liberty. Cowards hand it over with only a whimper.
Welcome to the police state, the United States of Amerikka.
I hope you don’t hurt yourself on that slippery slope of yours XXX.
And I hope you don’t hit your head hiding under the bed from them bad old terrorists, Nathan.
Why would I be hiding?
I know that President Bush is fighting them for us!
Nathan said:
“The truth of the matter is this:
Do you think terrorists communications should be intercepted? YES or NO”
No sir that is not the truth of the matter that is the problem. The truth of the matter is if this spying is legal and done as it has been said. Why not use the system that was set up for such actions?That is the matter, to say it is about it being about weither or not to spy on the terrorists is a smoke screen.
Farther more, if the President in a time of war has such powers. Why then was there a need for FISA and the Patriot act? He could have done many of the things that the Patriot act allows him and the Government to do. Without bothering anyone for premission to do so. No Nathan that is the truth of this matter. You do not save your house from a tornado by burning it to the ground. Nor do you save a nation by detroying what has made that nation great.
LOL
[sarcasm on]
Yes, FISA is the foundation of our government!
By all that is good and just in this world FISA is all we have holding this great land of liberty together.
[sarcasm off]
A need for FISA? The same reason Congress tries to inject themselves into everything, becuase of politics.
FISA was another one of Congress’s vain attempts at trying to make the President jump through their hoops when the President doesn’t have to.
FISA is not what makes this country great writerdog.
The PA is a whole entire different topic, but it helps domestic law enforcement tremendously.
Nathan,
I lived for years in a quasi-theocratic country where the Prez was close to being a monarch, with a rubber-stamping Parliament (Congress) and corrupt judiciary. You don’t want to live there, believe me, especially being a devout evangelical Christian. BTW, it was also one of US strongest allies in the region.
FISA *IS* one of the many things that make America great. The fact is that in America there is separation of powers with procedures for checks and balances, so that none of the branches can dominate the others.
Repeatedly, you have shown preference for a strongman to be the head of state, almost to the point of semi-deity. Last time I check, the president of the USA is just a *temp*, like all other elected offices. Having a strongman at the helm is almost a sure-fire recipe for bloody upheaval when it is time for power transfer, examples abound around the world. It sure did happen in the country I had resided shortly after my being reassigned to the US.
That was why I was happy to be back in America where I can exercise my right, sorry, my obligation to question the Government. That is how freedom is preserved, by being utilized. And in regard with current Administration, their history of secrecy and stonewalling is detrimental to the preservation of liberty. It is only natural that queries be asked. To accept blindly only encourages it to further diminish this freedom.
Besides, why doesn’t the Administration request that FISA be declared unconstitutional in the first place, if it is as you say, “…was another one of Congress’s vain attempts at trying to make the President jump through their hoops when the President doesn’t have to?” Or, even to propose amending it to fit the current global situation? Or, is the word “Commander-in-Chief” supersedes all notions of legality, and in the process become synonym to “Dictator,” something that seems to be running along your taste, perhaps?
Roo(my real name.)
Nathan,
It’s great to see Stalinists like you finally come clean about your belief that the Executive is Big Brother Jesus who shouldn’t have to acknowledge any stinkin’ Constitutional limits. Laws are, like, SO for people who don’t have God on their side.
FISA = the rule of law. That’s why Bush hates it, and that’s why bootlicking suckups like you hate it, too.
Informed on anyone lately, Nathan?
The power of the President of the U. S. is huge, and if you allow one President to take away the constitutional rights of the citizens, even if it is for wire tapping the enemy, then some time in the future another President will think that he has the right to take away another right of the people, and before long you have lost them all. If you don’t agree with the Constitutional rights of all citizens that our military fought and died for, then I suggest you leave the country and go where there are no rights for the Citizens. I’m sure you would be welcome with open arms from the Government of that Country, but not the Citizens.
Nathan, are you comfortable with Clinton having unlimited powers? or Jimmy Carter? or Hilary Clinton?
After all, they are only trying to keep you safe.
I think we should round up Nathan, Ian, Hank, et al and fence off a portion of western Kansas and let them run their little theocracy out there. I wonder how many women would stay with them? No civil liberites, like freedom of worship, no right to show their stupidity on the blog, no right to carry a gun, no right to have protection when the guards beat them up, no judge to let them out of christian hell when they are tired of the fun and games.
Those are just a few of the liberties YOU enjoy Nathan. I cant wait for the day a radical Mexican Muslim is elected preznit and the shoe is on the other foot. That person would have the same unlimited powers you are so willingly giving to bush, nathan.
Would you follow them blindly too? After all, they would be waving the flag and spying on you and your christian terrorist cells for the good of the country.
Leonard Pitts is correct. Goddess save us from the irony impaired. Maybe Hillary will put all those powers to good use.
CF, Nathan would have to know something in order to inform on someone. I mean, who is he gonna tattle about? Jesus?
ksfarmgrrl,
No, not Jesus, but His mother, I presume. After all, she was pregnant out of wedlock, and not with her betrothed, and most likely also being underage.
“LOL[sarcasm on]Yes, FISA is the foundation of our government!By all that is good and just in this world FISA is all we have holding this great land of liberty together.[sarcasm off]”
Yes Nathan it is, what is FISA? It is the law of the land, like the Constitution or is that just “to make the President jump through hoops”? A “God damn piece of paper”, or so it goes, FISA was set up to give the President that power under the law to do the spying.72 hours Nathan, he could spy for three days without a warrant. The law was even expanded from 24 hours to 72 hours before a warrant was needed. Enough time to check as to why someone in the U.S. was receiving a phone call, an e-mail, or mail from a person in another country. If there was a terrorist connection then they had what was needed to get the warrant. Once the equipment was up and running he could start, then three days was allowed before he would have to go before the secret court.
What are we fighting for if we become the government that Al-Qaeda want to set up?The terrorists can kill people, blow up buildings, disrupt the day, but they can not suspend the Constitution, be above the law of the land, take away those liberty you mentioned.Only Bush can do that, this is not about what the terrorists are doing but what the Government is doing. It is our Constitution and the precepts based on that that makes this country great and different from all other countries. Even in war time this is still a Republic and not a Dictatorship. The President of the United States first job is to defend the Constitution and all it stands for. The terrorists want to tear up that piece of paper and all it stands for. They can not do it, but you are saying that Bush can.
What you have said with sarcasm, is the truest statement you have said so far.
Nathan said:”The truth of the matter is this:
“Do you think terrorists communications should be intercepted? YES or NO
“That is what is being done.”
Since no one in the administration is answering questions on this subject, there is absolutely no way you can know this. Unless of course you are in on collecting the information, which I seriously doubt.
Therefore, the only way that you can make this questionable judgement is if you contend that every word that comes out of Bush and minions’ mouths is the gospel truth.
If you believe the above, I have some wonderful swampland that I would like for you to purchase sight-unseen. Thank you.
Is this an example of your reasoning and logic that you have recently touted. if so, it’s kinda weak, brother.
Nathan said:”The truth of the matter is this:
“Do you think terrorists communications should be intercepted? YES or NO
“That is what is being done.”
Nathan, can you answer this question?
Do you think the president has the absolute right to defy the rule of law? YES or NO
THAT, little boy, is indeed what is being done.
Remedial Logic 101 for Nathan:
If one argues about premises that one has no idea if they are true, or not, one is committing which logical fallacy?
A) Argumentum ad NathanismB) Argumentum ad HankismC) A & BD) Agrumentum ad ignorantiam
Extra credit given for those who can distinguish their rectum from a hole in the ground.
Nathan does what conservatives do best. He changes the subject.
“”Do you think terrorists communications should be intercepted? YES or NO”Of course terrorists communications should be intercepted. But that wasn’t the point of this thread, was it? My point is that the government has no business spying on Americans without a warrant.
“Yes, the president could order warrantless searches of Americans’ homes, the opening of mail, domestic wiretaps and torture — because there are no limits on the president’s powers as commander in chief to engage the enemy.”
This is the point, and I beg to differ! Attitudes like this are the reason for Congress and the Judicial. It’s not Congress making the president “jump through hoops”, it’s the proper application of oversight and balance of power.
Without it, we become the police state that conservatives covet.
Well written, Roo. I’m going to have to copy that to the “save” file.
“Argumentum ad Nathanism” Hehehe, that’s GREAT, REB.
BTW, did you all see where Gonzales refered to the President as “my client.”
Oops . . . he accidentally told the truth for a second there.
Also, according to Gonzo, George Washington conducted “electronic surveillence.”
Hmmm . . . I guess the ones that know about the history of science cost more . . . or maybe they’re all Democrats.
Dear Melissa,
Can we please, Please, PLEASE get a ‘Dick Cheney shoots his pal’ thread? Pretty please? Won’t you throw a bone to us aging lefties?
Dear Melissa,
You and the rest of the libs need to enjoy this ’scandal’ while you can. It appears the dems aren’t polling as well as hoped so another ‘principaled’ outrage about presidential abuse will soon be forgotten.
Hank
Hank must be listening to Russert. A mistake if you’re interested in the truth.
“The Wall Street Journal — which co-sponsored the poll with NBC — reported in a January 31 news article that the poll’s results showed that Americans’ opinion on the warrantless domestic spying is “mixed”:
“On the controversy over warrantless wiretaps by the National Security Agency, opinion is mixed. A narrow 51% majority says it approves of the Bush administration’s approach to wiretapping international calls by suspected terrorists abroad and inside the U.S. But when asked whether the administration should obtain court orders for those wiretaps, the result is reversed, with 53% saying court orders should be required. Some 79% of Democrats, 58% of independents, and 27% of Republicans describe themselves as “extremely” or “quite” concerned that warrantless wiretaps “could be misused to violate people’s privacy.”
Rest of the story here:http://mediamatters.org/items/200602060006
Notice how the Bush backing Wall Street Journal is peddling a different story than Hank. There is obvious concern about these wiretaps.
You know when I wanted to watch a good fight I used to watch boxing. But these WE bloggers man, they gang up on ya and hit below the belt!When will you folks take master Yoda’s advice?
“Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to suffering.”Master Yoda -Star Wars: Episode 1LOL
“Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to suffering.”That also is an explaination of why Bush& Co. wanted to invade Iraq.
Writerdog,Very astute! Too true! too true!