revel wrote:Ticomaya wrote:revel wrote:All these allegations should be settled in a court or by congress, not just Bush or NSA denials or cute little catch phrases. This is a serious issue and should be treated as such.
Yes, but that wasn't a serious article.
You knew that, .... right?
No I didn't know that. I didn't go to the source of the article.
So are saying a NSA spokesman really did not say, " "Does anyone still read The New York Times? and otherwise deny the report in the New York Times?
I don't know, revel. Do you think they did?
I find it difficult to believe that as frequently as you've shown yourself unaware that Scott Ott and Scrappleface are satirical stories only, you still swallow it.
Ticomaya wrote:Debra_Law wrote:Are you arguing that FISA is unconstitutional?
No, I'm not. The FISCR opinion I've been citing didn't find it unconstitutional, and in dicta it upheld the rulings of those prior cases IN LIGHT OF THE PASSAGE OF FISA. So again, your argument is in conflict with the FISCR opinion.
How can that be? You can't have it both ways, Ticomaya--and neither can the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Appeals. The sentence you keep quoting from that decision is nonsensical--it amounts to a contradiction wrapped into an enigma.
If the President has constitutional authority--an authority that Congress cannot encroach upon; then the President's authority must be exclusive and Congress must be excluded from legislating on the subject. However, the FISA Court did not declare that FISA was unconstitutional. That means, if FISA is a constitutional enactment, then the President must faithfully execute the law as written. The President has NO AUTHORITY (inherent or otherwise) to override a constitutional congressional enactment by executive order.
You're basically telling us that Congress has the power to enact enforceable laws that can't be enforced. That makes no sense at all. No one can possibly make such an absurd argument and maintain a straight face.
The Bushco supporters keep repeating the refrain that in a time of war, the President is free to do anything he/she pleases to "protect our security." If that's true, the "war on terrorism" has no end, so that means congress is powerless against any president into the future.
Common sense should tell us otherwise.
I have never seen any right-winged person ever say the President is free to do anything he/she pleases to "protect our security."
But that's the justification used by Bush.
Ummmm... No. It isn't. You, and those of similar mind may want that to be so, but as the old adage goes, want in one hand...
"This program has been reviewed, constantly reviewed, by people throughout my administration. And it still is reviewed," he said.
He also clarified remarks he had made in April 2004, in which he said that all wiretaps required a court order and that "when we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
Asked about those statements Sunday, Bush said: "I was talking about roving wiretaps, I believe, involved in the Patriot Act. This is different from the NSA program. The NSA program is a necessary program."
The president's comments came after he was asked about a newspaper report that a top Justice Department official had questioned the legality of certain aspects of the surveillance, resulting in its temporary suspension. He avoided answering directly and instead raised a spirited defense of the program.
"We're at war, and as commander in chief, I've got to use the resources at my disposal, within the law, to protect the American people," he said.
Bush defends NSA spying program
Senators back hearings as president explains campaign remarks
Sunday, January 1, 2006; Posted: 10:10 p.m. EST (03:10 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Sunday defended his administration's use of wiretaps on U.S. citizens without a court order, saying comments he made in 2004 that "nothing has changed" in the use of wiretaps were not misleading.
Over 200 years ago, the framers of the U.S. Constitution established an ingenious security device against tyrannical government: they divided government power among three different bodies. A carefully thought out system of checks and balances in the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch, ensured that no single branch became too powerful.
Bush on Sunday described his program as "necessary to win this war and to protect the American people," and added that the program has been reviewed "constantly" by Justice Department officials.
Hail to the King, GeorgeIII!
John Schmidt, who, it must be remembered, was not an associate Attorney General under George W. Bush or George Herbert Walker Bush or even Ronald Reagan but rather the ineffable BILL CLINTON.
Schmidt wrote:
"FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation, What was needed after Sept. 11th, according to the President, was surveillance beyond what oculd be authorized under that kind of individualized case be case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment"
Perhaps, and, hopefully, we shall see what the USSC rules on this question. In the meantime, the attempts of partisans to adjudicate this outside the courts appears to be the grossest type of political partisanship.
I am predicting that, as more polls appear that show the voters' belief that President Bush did nothing illegal in his attempt to defend the country against future attacks like 9/11, the politicians running for office in November, will be much more muted on this issue than the left wing crazies in The Screamer Dean's office.
His opinion is only one man's opinion, regardless of who he is.
This is a nation of checks and balances, I sure hope someone second guesses the presidential judgement.
Those are good, accurate quotes C.I. and I thank you for them. I'd like to know though, after reading those quotes, how do you equate that to mean he can do anything he wants?
He has respobsibilities that come with his job. He needs to fulfill those responsibilities through the necessary means available to him.
McGentrix wrote:Those are good, accurate quotes C.I. and I thank you for them. I'd like to know though, after reading those quotes, how do you equate that to mean he can do anything he wants?
He has respobsibilities that come with his job. He needs to fulfill those responsibilities through the necessary means available to him.
McG
If one interprets the constitution to grant the president the inherent seniority of power (perhaps just during war, perhaps always) such that he can remain free of the constraints which congress or the courts (and prior law) might wish to apply to him, then he stands unchecked in his power by anyone or anything. You may wish, as in your second paragraph, to grant the presidency this stature at present, but at least be clear on what it is you grant and allow. That Bush doesn't say this is what he reaches for is absolutely unimportant because he never would say it.
Now here's a really despicable spin that I witnessed last night in an interview with an advisor in the Bush one administration. He argued that because an administration has numerous voices and often contrary opinions within it, then it is incorrect to argue that such an executive is unchecked or unbalanced because checks and balances are already there in that executive all by itself.
I'm hoping this fukk is hit by a truck today.
I firmly believe in the checks and balance our government provides within the 3 branches of government. I do not believe in sole executive discretionary powers.
I understand that a line exists that the president, no matter the cause, cannot cross. I do not believe that line has been crossed.
That leaders in congress were briefed about the presidents plan is rather important to remember. Secret programs to monitor Americans with known connections to terrorist organizations is a good idea, so long as it remains secret. At present time, no evidence of wrongdoing has surfaced in so far as the monitoring of Americans with NO connections to terrorists or fishing for other crimes.
The US has a history of secret spy programs. The U2 missions come to mind.
McG
Who or what the spy programs have peered into is not relevant to the 'powers of the presidency' argument. That's two separate issues. The spying leak merely led to Bush's defence of the spying and that's where the legal/constitutional matter sits because the logical consequences of this argument are that the presidency may well be completely untethered from any constraints.
