America... Spying on Americans

I can't wait untill all those subversives are put away. Perhaps then we can find a nice cup of coffee without standing in line.

February 02, 2006, 8:53 a.m.
National Security by Committee

"[i]If al Qaeda is ever to be successful in its continuing efforts to repeat 9/11, it must have the help of operatives inside this country, with whom it necessarily must communicate[/i]."

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

parados wrote:

Who said the executive branch had to go to the legislature or the courts to decide what it could do? As Tico said, the President is free to do whatever in the hell he wants. The courts and the legislature are free to respond. Congress could well impeach a President before it ever gets to the courts if they feel the violation is egregious. The courts could decide a President's action is illegal but they have no power to enforce their ruling if the legislature sides with the President.


The courts are bound by the constitution. The constitution is by the people. The courts are seen as the last refuge of the people for an overreaching Executive or legislative branch. The people have the ability to overrule the courts with an amendment.

A law exists. The president has circumvented that law. Either the law is unconstitutional or the President violated it. There aren't really any other choices.

We're not far afield, and yet so far removed.

The three branches push as hard as they can for power.

You and your compadres would impose a standard of care on the Executive Branch that rises far beyond what the Constitution calls for.

In what way am I imposing a standard beyond what the constitution calls for? If any branch tries to overplay its role it is a problem for the country. Since all branches do it, it is the responsibility of the people to say when it is too much. Your argument seems to be we should ignore those times.

When the President ignores existing law, it IS one of those times. You might think he has the right to do it but that doesn't change facts. The law exists. The President didn't follow it. We may interpret the law a little differently but it is no different than when Clinton didn't tell the whole truth. Some interpreted perjury laws as not telling the truth was a violation. There is certainly room for interpretation in the case of FISA too. But there can be little question of Bush following the law to the letter. Even Tico's argument is that the law is unconstitutional rather than arguing that Bush followed it.

Is your standard that the President is free to ignore laws?

It has been my argument that the President has the constitutional authority to order the surveillance under question and the FISA statute cannot deprive him of that authority.

Beliefs in the extent of executive power tend to wax and wane depending upon whether the chief executive is a member of the believer's party.

It has been my argument that the President has the constitutional authority to order the surveillance under question and the FISA statute cannot deprive him of that authority.

I wonder how they can feel so confidant writing such commentary without actually knowing what the facts of the case are?

Who cares.

I am these masters of liberalism could have their views offset by a list of "constitutional experts" by masters of conservatism.

Who cares.

I am these masters of liberalism could have their views offset by a list of "constitutional experts" by masters of conservatism.

Discovery, Detention and Prosecution of Suspected Terrorists

According to civil libertarians, the constitutional safeguards that normally protect individuals suspected of criminal activity have been destroyed in the case of persons suspected of links with terrorism. This accusation reflects an ignorance both of the Constitution and of long-established limits on the criminal-justice system.

Prior to 1978, and dating back at least to World War II, attorneys general of the United States routinely authorized warrantless FBI surveillance, wire taps, and break-ins for national-security purposes. Such actions were taken pursuant to authority delegated by the president as commander-in-chief of the armed forces and as the officer principally responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs. The practice was justified because obtaining a warrant in each disparate case resulted in inconsistent standards and also posed unacceptable risks. (In one notorious instance, a judge had read aloud in his courtroom from highly classified material submitted to him by the government; even under more conscientious judges, clerks, secretaries and others were becoming privy to secret materials.)

Attorneys general were never entirely comfortable with these warrantless searches, whose legality had never been confirmed by the Supreme Court. The solution in 1978 was the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Henceforth, sitting district court judges would conduct secret hearings to approve or disapprove government applications for surveillance.

A further complication arose in the 1980s, however, when, by consensus of the Department of Justice and the FISA court, it was decided that the act authorized the gathering of foreign intelligence only for its own sake ("primary purpose"), and not for the possible criminal prosecution of any foreign agent. The effect was to erect a "wall" between the gathering of intelligence and the enforcement of criminal laws. But last year, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review held that the act did not, in fact, preclude or limit the government's use of that information in such prosecutions. In the opinion of the court, arresting and prosecuting terrorist agents or spies might well be the best way to inhibit their activities, as the threat of prosecution might persuade an agent to cooperate with the government, or enable the government to "turn" him.

When the wall came down, Justice Department prosecutors were able to learn what FBI intelligence officials already knew. This contributed to the arrest of Sami al-Arian, a professor at the University of South Florida, on charges that he raised funds for Palestinian Islamic Jihad and its suicide bombers. Once the evidence could be put at the disposition of prosecutors, al-Arian's longstanding claim that he was being persecuted by the authorities as an innocent victim of anti-Muslim prejudice was shattered.

But Thomas the FISA law was established in 1976!!!! A lot has happened since then so the law is no longer valid, therefore the President, being the President who is our protector, is exempt!

Even if I were a conservative myself, Bork's credentials as a conservative would convince me that on this specific point, my administration's case is fairly weak.