This 'Wiretap' Thing Is Going To Blowback On Dems

[Annie]

Kondracke is hardly conservative:

http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_23_05_MK.html

December 23, 2005
Congress Should Give Bush Power To Tap Terrorists
By Mort Kondracke

By all means, Congress should hold hearings to determine whether President Bush had the authority to intercept communications involving terrorist suspects in the U.S.
And, if he didn’t have the authority, Congress should give it to him — forthwith.

Ideally, Congress should tear down whatever barriers prevent the government from getting court warrants to tap terrorists. But, if it can’t do that, it should authorize no-warrant intercepts, subject to eventual court review.

What newspapers and Bush critics are characterizing as “domestic spying” conjures up images of J. Edgar Hoover tapping the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to get blackmail material or Richard Nixon ordering taps on Vietnam war dissenters.
So far as is known in discussion since The New York Times revealed the Bush wiretap policy, “domestic” refers strictly to the American end of international calls between suspected Al Qaeda operatives.

These are not people exercising First Amendment rights to protest U.S. policy in the Mideast. Al Qaeda leaders have openly declared intent to use nuclear and biological weapons to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.

Bush and his defenders have repeatedly stated — legitimately — that he’s been criticized for failing to “connect the dots” on terrorist activity prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and that his ordering National Security Agency intercepts are his attempt to correct that error.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has promised hearings on the program, and he should hold them, as should the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Because of the highly classified nature of the activity — including, it’s been hinted, some secret technological advances — the hearings must be closed.

But the committees should issue a report on whether they think Bush had authority to order the program and should recommend legislation, if necessary, to allow him to proceed.

Bush and his defenders claim that it’s too slow and cumbersome to obtain warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court when a terrorist target has been identified and an intercept needs to be established quickly.

Critics respond that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act gives the government 72 hours of emergency authority to conduct intercepts, after which a court warrant must be obtained. It’s not clear why that isn’t adequate for what Bush wants to do.

Whatever roadblocks stand in the way of the administration’s getting authority to monitor terrorist suspects effectively, though, Congress should remove them.

The FISA court should be empowered to insure that no administration can misuse its authority to tap true domestic dissidents, but Congress probably should lower the standard to allow NSA intercepts when the government has “reason to believe” that terrorist planning is under way, rather than “probable cause.”

If a 72-hour emergency period is deemed inadequate, it ought to be extended. If paperwork is a problem, it should be streamlined.

There should never be another case like that of Al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui, whose laptop computer couldn’t be examined prior to Sept. 11 because the Justice Department did not think it could get FISA court permission.

Congress might also consider empowering the president, with expedited FISA approval, to tap communications conducted entirely within the U.S. If one terrorist in San Diego is plotting with another in Chicago, the government ought to be able to use electronic surveillance to stop them.

It would be far better for Congress to write laws allowing the president to do what needs to be done to protect the country than to let Bush exercise his “inherent” presidential powers, as he conceives of them.

The evidence suggests that there are next to no limits to what Bush thinks he can do as chief executive and commander in chief. By executive order, he sealed all presidential records from public view for 25 years and decided, after Sept. 11, that he could imprison, judge and condemn unlawful combatants without court review.

Early on, he also got legal opinions from his minions that exempted him from observing international law in the treatment of prisoners and the Justice Department declared that he has “plenary” power in the conduct of war — to the extent of initiating it without Congressional involvement.

Congress and the courts need to exercise legitimate authority to rein in an imperial presidency, but they also need to use good judgment in doing so.

It’s not good judgment when Members of Congress erupted over the disclosure of the identity of CIA operative Valarie Plame, but not over The Washington Post’s disclosure that the U.S. maintains secret detention facilities in Europe or The New York Times’ disclosure of the no-warrant intercept policy.

Attorney Gen. Alberto Gonzales said that one reason Bush didn’t seek Congressional authorization for domestic taps on terrorists is that he got word that Congress wouldn’t grant it.

Now that existence of the program is known — and it’s been established that the Clinton administration believed it had authority to conduct similar operations — Congress ought to act.

And if anyone in Congress stands in the way of a president’s ability to prevent a terrorist attack, they’re fair game the next time they run for reelection.

Mort Kondracke is the Executive Editor of Roll Call.

 

[007]

Whoever doesn't realize by now that this whole thing is just more crap from the left in their ever going attempt to bring this President down, fueled by their burning HATE for him, must have their head buried up their.... posterior orifice....

I'd think the left should HOPE there ISN'T hearings, because if there is, they'll be the ones that leave with a black eye... as usual.

 

[KarlMarx]

When this type of thing happens, I get very frustrated.

For instance, they let the Patriot Act lapse (OK... we get another month... whatever)

Why is the GOP acting like a bunch of eunuchs for the Democratic Party? Who is in charge?

Sure, the wiretap thing will blow over.... but....

Sure, we're doing great in Iraq.... but.....

Sure, the economy is doing swell.... but....

I wonder if we elected a bunch of milquetoasts to Congress... and if so, why should I vote for these clowns?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Whoever doesn't realize by now that this whole thing is just more crap from the left in their ever going attempt to bring this President down, fueled by their burning HATE for him, must have their head buried up their.... posterior orifice....

I'd think the left should HOPE there ISN'T hearings, because if there is, they'll be the ones that leave with a black eye... as usual.

cmon now PR,,,posting pictures of our liberal posters isnt nice!

PSSSSSssss, I want a full frontal head shot to see if thats Maxi pad, mariner, confident or psychoBOOO HOOOS

 

[Annie]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201102.html

Impeachment Nonsense

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, December 23, 2005; A21

2005 was already the year of the demagogue, having been dominated for months by the endlessly echoed falsehood that the president "lied us into war." But the year ends with yet another round of demagoguery.

Administration critics, political and media, charge that by ordering surveillance on communications of suspected al Qaeda agents in the United States, the president clearly violated the law. Some even suggest that Bush has thereby so trampled the Constitution that impeachment should now be considered. (Barbara Boxer, Jonathan Alter, John Dean and various luminaries of the left have already begun floating the idea.) The braying herds have already concluded, Tenet-like, that the president's actions were slam-dunk illegal. It takes a superior mix of partisanship, animus and ignorance to say that.

Does the president have the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches against suspected foreign agents in the United States? George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr (one critic calls him the man who "literally wrote the book on government seizure of electronic evidence") finds "pretty decent arguments" on both sides, but his own conclusion is that Bush's actions were "probably constitutional."

In 1972 the Supreme Court required the president to obtain warrants to eavesdrop on domestic groups but specifically declined to apply this requirement to snooping on foreign agents. Four appeals courts have since upheld presidential authority for such warrantless searches. Not surprisingly, the executive branch has agreed.

True, Congress tried to restrict this presidential authority with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. It requires that warrants for wiretapping of enemy agents in the United States be obtained from a secret court. But as John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, wrote: "Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms." Indeed, President Bill Clinton's own deputy attorney general testified to Congress that "the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," then noted a few minutes later that "courts have made no distinction between electronic surveillances and physical searches."

Presidents always jealously guard executive authority. And Congress always wants to challenge the scope of that authority. This tug of war is a bipartisan and constant feature of the American system of separation of powers. President Bush's circumvention of FISA is a classic separation-of-powers dispute in the area in which these powers are most in dispute -- war powers.

Consider the War Powers Resolution passed over Richard Nixon's veto in 1973. It restricts, with very specific timetables, the president's authority to use force. Every president since Nixon, Democrat and Republican, has regarded himself not bound by this law, declaring it an unconstitutional invasion of his authority as commander in chief.

Nor will it do to argue that the Clinton administration ultimately accepted the strictures of the FISA law after a revision was passed. So what? For the past three decades, presidents have adhered to the War Powers Resolution for reasons of prudence, to avoid a constitutional fight with Congress. But they all maintained the inherent illegitimacy of the law and the right to ignore it. Similarly, Clinton's acquiescence to FISA in no way binds future executives to renounce Clinton's claim of "inherent authority" to conduct warrantless searches for purposes of foreign intelligence.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales chose a different justification for these wiretaps: They were covered by the congressional resolution passed shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the use of "all necessary and appropriate force" against al Qaeda. Gonzales's interpretation is based on a plurality Supreme Court opinion written by Sandra Day O'Connor that deemed legal the "executive detention" of U.S. citizen and enemy combatant Yaser Esam Hamdi. "Detention" is an obvious element of any authorization to use force. Gonzales argues that so is gathering intelligence about the enemy's plans by intercepting his communications.

I am skeptical of Gonzales's argument -- it implies an almost limitless expansion of the idea of "use of force" -- while the distinguished liberal law professor Cass Sunstein finds it "entirely plausible" (so long as the wiretapping is limited to those reasonably believed to be associated with al Qaeda). Sunstein maintains that "surveillance, including wiretapping, is reasonably believed to be an incident of the use of force" that "standardly occurs during war."

Contrary to the administration, I also believe that as a matter of political prudence and comity with Congress, Bush should have tried to get the law changed rather than circumvent it. This was an error of political judgment. But that does not make it a crime. And only the most brazen and reckless partisan could pretend it is anything approaching a high crime and misdemeanor.

 

[Mariner]

so scared of terrorism that you're willing to let Big Brother tap your phone and read your email with zero probable cause and no need of a legal review?

How would it have hurt Bush to have the wiretaps reviewed by the judge within three days, just so someone, at least, was keeping an eye on Big Brother?

Already, we've learned that the supposedly international-only monitoring was in fact domestic at times (they're claiming computer error).

Where are the libertarian Republicans on this board? Where are the people who believe in a small, unintrusive government? Is everyone here simply in support of everything George Bush does? Has no one noticed that many Republican Senators' stomachs have gotten a bit upset over this wiretapping business? For once, I'd love to hear one of the regulars take an alternative Republican point of view than Bush's.

Mariner.

 

[Annie]

so scared of terrorism that you're willing to let Big Brother tap your phone and read your email with zero probable cause and no need of a legal review?

How would it have hurt Bush to have the wiretaps reviewed by the judge within three days, just so someone, at least, was keeping an eye on Big Brother?

Already, we've learned that the supposedly international-only monitoring was in fact domestic at times (they're claiming computer error).

Where are the libertarian Republicans on this board? Where are the people who believe in a small, unintrusive government? Is everyone here simply in support of everything George Bush does? Has no one noticed that many Republican Senators' stomachs have gotten a bit upset over this wiretapping business? For once, I'd love to hear one of the regulars take an alternative Republican point of view than Bush's.

Mariner.

Only from a 20 some year dolt. I could care less for myself, but would like my kids and unborn progeny to have a chance. You don't get it, they mean to kill YOU! Not me. I'm old and no threat. You however, you are sweet pickings. You think you are atheist, sorry, no can do. Agnostic may be worse. Christian-but willing to sell out quick? regular slave, no hard time. Wanna fight? Cool, hard labor.

 

[nbdysfu]

so scared of terrorism that you're willing to let Big Brother tap your phone and read your email with zero probable cause and no need of a legal review?

How would it have hurt Bush to have the wiretaps reviewed by the judge within three days, just so someone, at least, was keeping an eye on Big Brother?

Already, we've learned that the supposedly international-only monitoring was in fact domestic at times (they're claiming computer error).

Where are the libertarian Republicans on this board? Where are the people who believe in a small, unintrusive government? Is everyone here simply in support of everything George Bush does? Has no one noticed that many Republican Senators' stomachs have gotten a bit upset over this wiretapping business? For once, I'd love to hear one of the regulars take an alternative Republican point of view than Bush's.

Mariner.

I'm not so afraid of being wiretapped [which won't happen, because I don't make calls to Afghanistan] that I'd rather see 3,000 more of my countrymen, innocents, molecularized or jump to their deaths.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

so scared of terrorism that you're willing to let Big Brother tap your phone and read your email with zero probable cause and no need of a legal review?

How would it have hurt Bush to have the wiretaps reviewed by the judge within three days, just so someone, at least, was keeping an eye on Big Brother?

Already, we've learned that the supposedly international-only monitoring was in fact domestic at times (they're claiming computer error).

Where are the libertarian Republicans on this board? Where are the people who believe in a small, unintrusive government? Is everyone here simply in support of everything George Bush does? Has no one noticed that many Republican Senators' stomachs have gotten a bit upset over this wiretapping business? For once, I'd love to hear one of the regulars take an alternative Republican point of view than Bush's.

Mariner.

well, if my life is so interesting to them, so be it that they listen, then. I am on here more often than I am actually on a phone. Even then, I am usually using my nextel 2-way talking to Tim, and many times, that conversation can be heard by all, if I am on the speaker itself.

Any other time, I am talking briefly to family members or friends on my home line. If me complaining about my job and co-workers, or talking to my physical therapist, or whatever, is something they want to listen to, then they are not doing a good job of protecting the country and should be fired.

The people doing the taps, are doing so only to those that would yield results, because they have already been suspected. If they get your line in error, they will realize it, and move on. The feds really don't care about your sordid affairs. All they care about is whether or not you are planning or aiding in terrorism.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Where are the people who believe in a small, unintrusive government? Is everyone here simply in support of everything George Bush does? Mariner.

I fall into that group; but when you're engaged in a war, that changes things somewhat, don't you think? You do recognize that we're in a war, don't you, Mariner? I'm for giving President Bush all the powers he needs to make mincemeat out of the goddamned terrorists, or "revolutionaries" or "insurrectionists" as your side so fondly calls them. Name me one ordinary American who has been eavesdropped on under the provisions of the Patriot Act. Either put up or shut up, Chicken Little.

 

[Mariner]

without authorization is an intrusion on personal liberty so vast that it changes what America means.

No one has answered why simply following the pre-existing rule--review by a special, secret judge within 72 hours, would somehow hamper intelligence-gathering... ?

The judge himself resigned in protest when he learned that the pre-existing system had been circumvented.

Sure, terrorism is an evil, but so is an overly powerful government--which is potentially much more vastly evil. Think of which other countries permit this kind of thing--dictatorships and totatalitarian regimes.

When people say, "They mean to kill you," they are playing into the fear that is exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted to spread.

If we're really worried about large-scale terrorism, then the step that has been most obvious for 15 years hasn't properly been taken--securing all ofo the former USSR's nuclear materials, and paying its nucrlear engineers so that nuclear materials stay out of the hands of terrorists. We haven't been willing to pay the few billions of dollars that that would cost. I'd call it prudent, and cheap, and more important by far than violating all of our civil rights in the name of security.


Mariner.

 

[Hobbit]

without authorization is an intrusion on personal liberty so vast that it changes what America means.

No one has answered why simply following the pre-existing rule--review by a special, secret judge within 72 hours, would somehow hamper intelligence-gathering... ?

The judge himself resigned in protest when he learned that the pre-existing system had been circumvented.

Sure, terrorism is an evil, but so is an overly powerful government--which is potentially much more vastly evil. Think of which other countries permit this kind of thing--dictatorships and totatalitarian regimes.

When people say, "They mean to kill you," they are playing into the fear that is exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted to spread.

If we're really worried about large-scale terrorism, then the step that has been most obvious for 15 years hasn't properly been taken--securing all ofo the former USSR's nuclear materials, and paying its nucrlear engineers so that nuclear materials stay out of the hands of terrorists. We haven't been willing to pay the few billions of dollars that that would cost. I'd call it prudent, and cheap, and more important by far than violating all of our civil rights in the name of security.


Mariner.

The wire taps were authorized. If the attorney general signs a certain piece of paper, the president may issue any number of wire taps he wants, but only for the purposes of gathering foreign intelligence. Any other information learned from one of these taps would be inadmissible in a court of law, along with any evidence discovered as a result of that information. Foreign intelligence gathering doesn't follow the same rules as domestic evidence gathering. When was the last time you saw James Bond get a warrant?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

without authorization is an intrusion on personal liberty so vast that it changes what America means.

No one has answered why simply following the pre-existing rule--review by a special, secret judge within 72 hours, would somehow hamper intelligence-gathering... ?

The judge himself resigned in protest when he learned that the pre-existing system had been circumvented.

Sure, terrorism is an evil, but so is an overly powerful government--which is potentially much more vastly evil. Think of which other countries permit this kind of thing--dictatorships and totatalitarian regimes.

When people say, "They mean to kill you," they are playing into the fear that is exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted to spread.

If we're really worried about large-scale terrorism, then the step that has been most obvious for 15 years hasn't properly been taken--securing all ofo the former USSR's nuclear materials, and paying its nucrlear engineers so that nuclear materials stay out of the hands of terrorists. We haven't been willing to pay the few billions of dollars that that would cost. I'd call it prudent, and cheap, and more important by far than violating all of our civil rights in the name of security.


Mariner.

The depths of your idiocy seem infinite, mariner.

America will be nothing if we hamstring our leaders from doing what they need to do to catch the bad guys.

According to you, we can't fight back, or that's playing into Osama's plan. I can also tell you that allowing ourselves to be conquered with no resistance also plays into his plan. What do we do, mariner? Nothing. You'd like that, wouldn't you, you antiamerican scum.

 

[manu1959]

without authorization is an intrusion on personal liberty so vast that it changes what America means.

No one has answered why simply following the pre-existing rule--review by a special, secret judge within 72 hours, would somehow hamper intelligence-gathering... ?

The judge himself resigned in protest when he learned that the pre-existing system had been circumvented.

Sure, terrorism is an evil, but so is an overly powerful government--which is potentially much more vastly evil. Think of which other countries permit this kind of thing--dictatorships and totatalitarian regimes.

When people say, "They mean to kill you," they are playing into the fear that is exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted to spread.

If we're really worried about large-scale terrorism, then the step that has been most obvious for 15 years hasn't properly been taken--securing all ofo the former USSR's nuclear materials, and paying its nucrlear engineers so that nuclear materials stay out of the hands of terrorists. We haven't been willing to pay the few billions of dollars that that would cost. I'd call it prudent, and cheap, and more important by far than violating all of our civil rights in the name of security.


Mariner.

Does the president have the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches against suspected foreign agents in the United States?

according to constitutional authorities...he probably does.

the legislative and judicial braches would like him to ask permission....but you know what...we are at war.....do what it takes

 

[ThomasPaine]

Remeber Bush was "selected" not elected in 2000. Everything since is illegitmate to them. May they rot in their own personal hell.

 

[Annie]

without authorization is an intrusion on personal liberty so vast that it changes what America means.

No one has answered why simply following the pre-existing rule--review by a special, secret judge within 72 hours, would somehow hamper intelligence-gathering... ?

The judge himself resigned in protest when he learned that the pre-existing system had been circumvented.

Sure, terrorism is an evil, but so is an overly powerful government--which is potentially much more vastly evil. Think of which other countries permit this kind of thing--dictatorships and totatalitarian regimes.

When people say, "They mean to kill you," they are playing into the fear that is exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted to spread.

If we're really worried about large-scale terrorism, then the step that has been most obvious for 15 years hasn't properly been taken--securing all ofo the former USSR's nuclear materials, and paying its nucrlear engineers so that nuclear materials stay out of the hands of terrorists. We haven't been willing to pay the few billions of dollars that that would cost. I'd call it prudent, and cheap, and more important by far than violating all of our civil rights in the name of security.


Mariner.

Actually all the European countries, including England and France, do this all the time, within their countries. So throw socialist regimes on too.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

so scared of terrorism that you're willing to let Big Brother tap your phone and read your email with zero probable cause and no need of a legal review?

How would it have hurt Bush to have the wiretaps reviewed by the judge within three days, just so someone, at least, was keeping an eye on Big Brother?

Already, we've learned that the supposedly international-only monitoring was in fact domestic at times (they're claiming computer error).

Where are the libertarian Republicans on this board? Where are the people who believe in a small, unintrusive government? Is everyone here simply in support of everything George Bush does? Has no one noticed that many Republican Senators' stomachs have gotten a bit upset over this wiretapping business? For once, I'd love to hear one of the regulars take an alternative Republican point of view than Bush's.

Mariner.

Wow. Are you so scared a Democrat will never be president again you are willing to put countless lives at risk?

"Big Brother" doesn't need to tap my phone line. I doubt anyone is interested in listening to the conversations I have with my mother, my mechanic, somebody I met at the bar last weekend, or when I hang up on telemarketers. If I had conversations with terrorists calling from Afghanistan, then I might have something to worry about.

As far as hearing a Republican view other than agreeing with President Bush, you obviously don't pay close attention to the board. It happens when it should happen. This isn't one of those cases.

 

[nbdysfu]

without authorization is an intrusion on personal liberty so vast that it changes what America means.

I wonder if you could say the same thing about driver's licenses?

When people say, "They mean to kill you," they are playing into the fear that is exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted to spread.

When your attitude was government policy, preventing information sharing, he managed to build a terrorist network and kill a few thousand people in the financial and governmental centers of our country. It's not going to go away if you just

If we're really worried about large-scale terrorism, then the step that has been most obvious for 15 years hasn't properly been taken--securing all ofo the former USSR's nuclear materials, and paying its nucrlear engineers so that nuclear materials stay out of the hands of terrorists.

I'm sure Putin would be so happy to give us his country's "former" nuclear arsenal, he personally would help with the paperwork.

We haven't been willing to pay the few billions of dollars that that would cost. I'd call it prudent, and cheap, and more important by far than violating all of our civil rights in the name of security.

It would probably cost more than a few billion dollars, would probably be a lot harder, dirtier than you think to neutralize all scientists and sources of russian nuclear tech, and probably would not happen at all without some diplomatic footsie like disarming our own nuclear arsenal. It would do nothing to solve the problem of terrorism and would probably give Iran as well as China and others the incentive of a more level playing field to continue developing nuclear programs.
About all you could do with a few billion would be to boost russian security of their own nuclear weapons.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Ya gotta love it when the idiotic liberals, especially the lying ones who claim not to be anti Bush or anti Republican, turn to the "I thought repubs were for small less intrusive govt" arguement.

Did Repubs ever say we want NO govt?

And the funny thing is, we are supporting a bigger govt role in the highest priority function that the govt should have, protecting its citizens from foreign invaders and killers.

 

[Annie]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm

National Security Agency

Survey of 1,000 Adults

December 26-27, 2005

Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?
Yes 64%
No 23%

RasmussenReports.com

Is President Bush the first President to authorize a program for intercepting telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?
Yes 26%
No 48%

RasmussenReports.com



December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.