View Story | 184 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
The only reason it doesn't now is because Congress refuses to make W accountable the EXISTING LAW.
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
by beemerr90s on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:50:25 PM PDT
by beemerr90s on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:51:26 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
they'll be happy to hand exclusive immunity, because God forbid Bushco should throw a tantrum and call Democrats soft on terra.
Searching for corrupt, lobbyist loving John McCain?
by Lisa Lockwood on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:52:44 PM PDT
laws to make sure bush knows he needs to obey the law.:)
by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:53:43 PM PDT
a bit rediculous!! Perhaps they need to start putting in an extra paragraph that says, "Yes George W. Bush this also applies to you". It makes about as much sense!
Attention Waxman Staffers! Clean up on aisle 1600! huttotex 3/27/07
by reflectionsv37 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:56:24 PM PDT
Because that's just the kind of guy he is!
Dump Steny Hoyer
by mataliandy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:09:51 PM PDT
We really, really mean it.
Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.
by Simplify on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:06:17 PM PDT
they can't punish him for breaking a law nearly half the country and half the Congress doesn't think he's breaking.
Anyway, if they weren't at least trying to stop amnesty, this would've passed already
by nrafter530 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:54:52 PM PDT
why is there a need for immunity for his co-conspirators? One doesn't generally need immunity for legal activity.
by beemerr90s on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:58:03 PM PDT
I don't believe it matters what the country "thinks"!
by reflectionsv37 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:59:13 PM PDT
if the public isn't willing to take action against a President, Congress won't do anything. There just isn't a strong enough movement within the people to punish him. There's a "eh whatever" attitude about him doing this.
by nrafter530 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:44:54 PM PDT
does the public have to use against the President? Aren't the members of Congress supposed to be the leaders?
by bornfdup on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:56:01 PM PDT
not really...they're legislators. They way our government is set up, they can only be leaders when it's popular as they have to face their districts every two years. Legislators are usually not good leaders, which is why so few advance into executive roles. Good leadership means sometimes taking an unpopular opinion, which legislators rarely do and when they do, they lose. The ones who are good leaders are the ones who lose or have a hard time getting reelected (Max Cleland) unless they're in a state or district where the people agree with them 99% of the time (Feingold, Dodd, Wexler), but even they bend to popular opinion every now and then. Don't forget Dodd voted for the war, Feingold put Roberts on SCOTUS.
The real leaders are, or should be, in the executive branch. Which is why I think it's worrysome that our next President is coming out of the Senate...although I think Obama is better fit to be Governor of Illinois.
Furthermore, as for actions? Sadly, at this point the only action that will wake people up is the complete demise of our freedoms. We have been fortunate to not have experience tyranny and dictatorship in our country, or even been close to it. The downside is that we take it for granted. The idea of losing our freedoms is so crazy that we liberals must be overreacting. It'll never happen here.
by nrafter530 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:49:40 PM PDT
he's breaking the law, there will be no court cases after he leaves his protective office (and we get an AG in who isn't a Bush lapdog). As long as the country knows he's breaking the law, even if his office (and his brown-shirts in Congress) protect him from indictment now, it will happen later.
And lay off Pelosi - she's right about impeachment - it would do nothing but give Bush's defense team a Senate acquittal to put under a judge's nose with a request to dismiss the case.
by bfitzinAR on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:19:34 AM PDT
It doesn't matter if it's popular to break the law. If you let someone off the hook because he's "popular," then the whole idea of the rule of law (which, by the way, is the very foundation of a democracy) is subverted, and becomes meaningless, and his successors then have an open field to do what they want. Read my letter above.
"In 10 years, I've never seen the press lay a glove on him." Chris Matthews on John McSame
by wolverinethad on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:05:37 PM PDT
when you need the votes in Congress to punish him. As the Republicans have political cover, he gets away with it.
by nrafter530 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:43:34 PM PDT
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 119 > § 2511 (1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— (a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
FISA warrants are "specifically provided."
The 4th Amendment: It's not just for dope dealers anymore.
by ben masel on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:59:36 PM PDT
That's one of the things that drives me crazy about this issue. Exclusivity is already in the law, and it has been there for decades. And if there weren't a FISA at all, there'd be no statutory authority for this type of surveillance, which makes the exclusivity argument moot anyway.
Exclusivity is a red herring. Pelosi is using it to distract us. She can, to coin a phrase, go to hell.
by catfood on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:01:43 PM PDT
The bloggers get called to the principals office and then what?
Republicans don't have 60 votes, and it doesn't seem to bother them one bit.
by dkmich on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:04:38 PM PDT
Did you ask her how stupid we look? We all know the telcoms already have their immunity and that this one is for Bush. Insult to injury. bull shit.
by dkmich on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:03:10 PM PDT
issue? Gawd, I hope so - I'd hope it was the first question asked. What was her response?
Now, go spread some peace, love and understanding. Use force if necessary. - Phil N DeBlanc
by lineatus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:39:09 PM PDT
Yes, do tell, MCJoan:
What sort of "conference call" was this? The kind where the kool kidz all get a secret dial-in number to get put on a mute-only line, and you get to listen to Nancy blow smoke up your ass*s about how great the netroots are and how we need to keep fighting hard to get more members of Team Nancy/Steny into Congress this November?
Or alternatively, if instead it actually was what I think of as a "conference call" where the conversation is more than just a (unidirectional) glorified radio broadcast, then what WAS her response when those of you on the call with any sense of moral and journalistic integrity challenged her on her bullsh*t?
by packerland progressive on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:16:07 PM PDT
by ben masel on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:02:17 PM PDT
Congress needs to create a new category: "doubleplus illegal."
Clearly when people aren't following the law the solution is to make those things extra illegal rather than actually enforcing the law.
When Bush violates the new exclusivity (as he did the old one) they can go ahread and pass "super duper exclusivity" then declare mission accomplished.
by Margalis on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:40:21 PM PDT
double secret probation?
by beemerr90s on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:41:38 PM PDT
as it stands?
FISA, which is still the law of the land, as far as I know, has always had exclusivity. That was the whole point of passing the law in the first place!
They're just allowing criminals to run roughshod over the law and the Constitution.
Same thing with torture: torture is, and has always been, illegal in the United States. Suddenly we've got a flurry of activity trying to redefine it into legality seemingly for no other reason than to provide retroactive immunity for the thugs in the executive branch.
It's all of a piece and it sickens the soul.
Bush repealed Godwin's Law with a Signing Statement.
by Mad Kossack on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:14:15 PM PDT
You should at least account for the fact that the Administration, and every appellate court that considered the question, say otherwise. The Supreme Court, which to date has left the question open, see United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 308 (1972) ("the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country."), ultimately may disagree, but don't ignore the actual arguments.
by No Oil for Pacifists on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:20:13 PM PDT
With regards to the opinion quoting Truong you conveniently lopped off the very next sentence which gives lie to your argument. I've seen that exact same passage replicated time and time again by right-wingers, each reaching identical wrong conclusion. (You guys must all copy and paste from the same talking points)
The legal opinion you cited, which you clearly failed to read in full, argues that FISA actually extends the power the of the President:
"The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable."
That's the very next sentence. Let me translate that into simpleton: without FISA laws the President actually has LESS power. ("Amplify" meaning "to increase")
None of that is relevant to what the case finding establishes anyway. The case is a finding on whether the FISA court can impose restrictions. It is not a decision on the constitutionality of FISA laws or warrantless surveillance.
I'd like to see you quote an actual Court case, not a National Review column, where the FINDING of the court case is that the President can perform warrantless wiretapping on US citizens.
I won't hold my breath.
Let me repeat that: you claim courts have found that the President can perform warrantless wiretapping on US citizens. So show me the court case that finds that.
by Margalis on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:50:35 AM PDT
The "next sentence" does not undermine the argument. The issue is whether Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the President the power to conduct warrantless wiretaps of foreign intel national security information, the question specifically reserved in Keith. Your argument that "without FISA laws the President actually has LESS power" is flatly wrong: If the Administration is correct, then Congress could not by statute eliminate this power, nor could a President by signing legislation relinquish such power--otherwise mere statutes could "amend" the Constitution (see the discussion here).
The "next sentence" is relevant to the authority of the case. Yet, regardless of whether the discussion in In re Sealed Case (slip op. at 48) was dicta (a 2000 case from the Southern District of New York includes similar language, United States v. Bin Laden, 126 F. Supp. 2d 256, 264 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)), it quoted the Truong case, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), which in turn correctly characterized all court of appeals cases to that date as having affirmed Presidential power under Article II. Many of those cases are cited and quoted here.) Yes Truong and the cases it cites were pre-FISA, but again, if the President is correct that Article II supplies the authority, FISA could not alter that.
Again, please deal with the actual argument.
by No Oil for Pacifists on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:35:50 PM PDT
You are quoting dicta, as your own blog commenters pointed out. (And you ignored) And you are not quoting it correctly at that.
You say that the "question is open" but until struck down the law is the law. FISA says it is the exclusive means to perform the domestic(key word)surveillance it covers.
That's how it works. Laws are laws. Clinton may have said that he could ignore FISA laws but he never argued that in court. Similarly Bush has never made that argument in court either, only in press releases. If the Bush administration thinks that FISA is unconstitutional it could argue that in court - it hasn't.
The key point you are missing here is that the President has the power to perform surveillance but "the people" have the right to be free from warrantless, unreasonable search.
When the court (that you quoted) says that the President has the power to perform surveillance and that FISA "amplifies" that power the meaning is that FISA amplifies that power by providing domestic surveillance methods in a way that at least approach a traditional warrant and are therefore constitutional. The implication is that approaching a traditional warrant is the lowest possible bar, and any lower is unconstitutional due to what we call the "Bill of Rights."
If you truly feel that FISA is an unconstitutional restriction on the President argue it in court. It's been around for decades and hasn't been struck down or even really challenged. Curious.
by Margalis on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:12:23 AM PDT
See my comment above--if the President's view of Article II is upheld, FISA is not exclusive no matter what Congress declares. Congress may amplify the power of another branch by delegation, but may not subtract it. That requires a Constitutional Amendment.
The argument is not that FISA is unconstitutional--just non-exclusive. President Clinton's Justice Department made that argument, as did President Bush's Attorney General. As far as I'm aware, the Administration has not changed its view--rather, the abandonment of the TSP just over a year ago mooted the argument.
by No Oil for Pacifists on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:49:30 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 184 comments