http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/shrill-hysterical-lefty-partisan.html
Quote:Sunday, September 17, 2006
Shrill, hysterical lefty partisan blogger
...
Just look at the things we're debating -- whether the U.S. Government can abduct and indefinitely imprison U.S. citizens without charges; whether we can use torture to interrogate people; whether our Government can eavesdrop on our private conversations without warrants; whether we can create secret prisons and keep people there out of sight and beyond the reach of any law or oversight; and whether the President can simply disregard long-standing constitutional limitations and duly enacted Congressional laws because he has deemed that doing so is necessary to "protect" us.
...
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/shrill-hysterical-lefty-partisan.html
Quote:Sunday, September 17, 2006
Shrill, hysterical lefty partisan blogger
...
Just look at the things we're debating -- whether the U.S. Government can abduct and indefinitely imprison U.S. citizens without charges; whether we can use torture to interrogate people; whether our Government can eavesdrop on our private conversations without warrants; whether we can create secret prisons and keep people there out of sight and beyond the reach of any law or oversight; and whether the President can simply disregard long-standing constitutional limitations and duly enacted Congressional laws because he has deemed that doing so is necessary to "protect" us.
...
Cycloptichorn
This is hysterical pseudological propaganda. It is a mistatement, misrepresentation, and distortion of the real issues being debated.
We are debating whether the US can hold prisoner in locations inside the USA, until the war is ended, those persons captured in the act of making war on non-combatants and who did not comply with the Geneva Conventions.
We are debating whether the US can hold prisoner in locations outside the USA, until the war is ended, those persons captured in the act of making war on non-combatants and who did not comply with the Geneva Conventions.
We are debating whether the US can hold prisoner, until the war is ended, those persons captured in the act of making war on non-combatants and who did not comply with the Geneva Conventions, and interrogate those prisoners by using kindness, rage, bribery, humiliation, fear, or fatigue.
We are debating whether the US can eavesdrop under presidential order, without warrants, on private conversations between suspect persons located outside the USA and persons located inside the USA, in order to help detect and prevent actions to slaughter Americans, but not indict any conversers.
These haven't been open questions for decades if not centuries and they ought not be open questions now. The President is not disregarding long-standing constitutional limitations and duly enacted Congressional laws.
I bet more people are becoming far more frightened of the Democrats' obvious, crazy hysterical anti-American or anti-Bush pseudological propaganda than they are of Republican bunglers. Yes, I bet the American people will choose mediocre people over hysterical people to lead them.
Quote:
But the leflibs cannot see what is there for all to see, because it deprives their self-images of their dependency on the belief that Bush and Conservatives are rotten.
You have allowed yourself to become so ideologically blinded, that noone who holds a different opinion than your own - in your mind - can be driven by anything other than hatred and false logic. This is a perilous trap, thinking that a vast swath of people - the Majority of Americans and world citizens - are wrong, and you are right.
Perhaps you should examine your own self-image.
Cycloptichorn
And you do not realize how this statement of yours is your own self-indictment of what you say I have accused leflibs 
"No one" 
...
Unfortunately, we are signiatory members of covenants and treaties which prohibit such actions. We should either repudate our membership in said treaties, or cease those ineffective actions immediately.
Those "covenants and treaties which prohibit such actions" do not apply to any of those who do not comply with those "covenants and treaties which prohibit such actions"
Quote:We are debating whether the US can eavesdrop under presidential order, without warrants, on private conversations between suspect persons located outside the USA and persons located inside the USA, in order to help detect and prevent actions to slaughter Americans, but not indict any conversers.
You don't know that this last part - not indict any conversers - is true. This is only an assertion of yours, because you don't know
a) who is being spied upon, and
b) what is being done with that information.
If you claim to know this, you are lying. Therefore, you cannot make your last statement with any fact backing it up.
I don't know anything for certain other than I know I don't know anything for certain. Therefore, I cannot prove you are likewise limited, but I bet you probably are.
I have heard Bush has repeatedly said in his press conferences and speeches on this topic that his administration does not use eavesdrop or wiretap information to indict anyone, unless that information is obtained under a warrant.
Quote:These haven't been open questions for decades if not centuries and they ought not be open questions now. The President is not disregarding long-standing constitutional limitations and duly enacted Congressional laws.
Yes, we are: FISA specifically prohibits what the president is doing. It was written to prohibit what the president is doing. It is a duly enacted Congressional law that the President is ignoring.
FISA, as I understand it, relates only to domestic conversations: that is, between people while they are both located in the USA. It specifically forbids use of information obtained via such eavesdropping or wiretapping to indict.
Quote:I bet more people are becoming far more frightened of the Democrats' obvious, crazy hysterical anti-American or anti-Bush pseudological propaganda than they are of Republican bunglers. Yes, I bet the American people will choose mediocre people over hysterical people to lead them.
Yeah, well, we all know that your track record for predictions, isn't so hot, now is it?
"We shall see my little chickadee."
None of that is 'hysterical.' The kinds of things Bush and his Admin propose doing, or are doing, are the things that our founding fathers considered tyranny and reason for revolt.
Describe such "kinds of things", and I will look them up in:
the Constitution as amended 27 times,
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble
the Declaration of Independence,
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/declare.htm
and in the Federalist Papers.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm
Cycloptichorn
The observations of the judicious Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: "To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. . . .
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
. . . yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body.
Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.
I have heard Bush has repeatedly said in his press conferences and speeches on this topic that his administration does not use eavesdrop or wiretap information to indict anyone, unless that information is obtained under a warrant.
FISA, as I understand it, relates only to domestic conversations: that is, between people while they are both located in the USA. It specifically forbids use of information obtained via such eavesdropping or wiretapping to indict.
Federalist papers, hmm?
Yeah! I figure Hamilton and Madison and Jay were themselves among the "Founding Fathers" and were writing things subsequently supported by other "Founding Fathers".
It was you who alleged that the Founding Fathers would not agree with what Bush has done; not me.
...
Quote:The observations of the judicious Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: "To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.
Bush has not acted "To bereave a man of life, ... or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial" using eavesdrop/wiretap information obtained without a warrant.
...
Quote:The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. . . .
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Of Course, the Supreme Court has the last word on the interpretation of anything adopted by federal or state legislatures, that was not vetoed or not veto overridden, respectively, by the president, or by a particular state's governor.
The Supreme Court has recently ordered that the President should request the Congress to legislate exactly what powers the president has to eavesdrop/wiretap with and without a warrant.
I agree that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land as interpreted by the Supreme Court. However, I agree that the Constitution can lawfully be changed only by lawful amendment and not by Judicial order.
...
This lefty blogger fails to take seriously the existential threat posed by Islamofascist-Nazi Terrorists, because he resists the notion that the Constitution changes as a result of that threat.
...
[color =blue]The "lefty blogger" is correct. But the left blogger has not demonstrated that the eavesdropping/wiretapping that the President has been doing is unconstitutional. All that's been done by the Supreme Court is to order the Congress to decide.[/color]
...
I don't consider your 'leftlib' moniker to actually apply to anyone in the real world. It is nothing but a boogeyman that you have created in your mind, a label that seeks to take away individual differences from people in order to either marginalize them or attack them.
Nonsense! The moniker "leftlib" serves a similar purpose to those served by the monikers "lefty blogger", "extreme right", "religious right", "neo-conservative," "racist", et al. They serve to help identify political positions people take and not "take away individual differences from people in order to either marginalize them or attack them."
...
Hearsay? Have you also heard that Bush has lied about this program on more than one occasion? Why would you trust Bush at all on this issue, since he has lied about it on more than one occasion?
I don't have any reason to think Bush lied. It's the leflibs who think they have reason to think Bush lied. They make this accusation. They are obligated to provide evidence to support their accusation. So far, all I hear from them is more accusations repeated over and over.
...
Do you even know what FISA stands for? Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It regulates all aspects of intelligence gathering in the US, including Domestic-foreign calls. It specifically prohibits what the President is currently doing.
FISA relates specifically to foreign intelligence gathered domestically, not gathered internationally. No, it does not "specifically prohibit what the President is currently doing." If it did, the Supreme Court would have simply said so instead of ordering the President to try and get the Congress to clarify and decide the issue.
...
Cycloptichron
FISA relates specifically to foreign intelligence gathered domestically, not gathered internationally. No, it does not "specifically prohibit what the President is currently doing." If it did, the Supreme Court would have simply said so instead of ordering the President to try and get the Congress to clarify and decide the issue.
Quote:FISA relates specifically to foreign intelligence gathered domestically, not gathered internationally. No, it does not "specifically prohibit what the President is currently doing." If it did, the Supreme Court would have simply said so instead of ordering the President to try and get the Congress to clarify and decide the issue.
The supreme court has not, in fact, addressed this issue at all. You are confusing this with some other case, apparently.
Cycloptichorn
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2
The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
Article II
...
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
...
Amendment IV.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I'll assume for my convenience that you are correct. Then what is the basis of your opinion about the obligation of the president to strictly limit his Constitutional Comander and Chief powers with regard to eavesdropping/wiretapping to those powers granted by FISA?
No warrants are issued based on the the President gathering intelligence via eavesdropping/wiretapping for the purpose of defending the USA. What case can you make that eavesdropping/wiretapping is an "unreasonable" search or seizure under these circumstances. I bet no case.
Corriere della Serra
http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Editoriali/2006/09_Settembre/15/magd1.shtml
Top of Form
[The writer, Magdi Allam, is the Egyptian-born deputy-editor of Italy's highest circulation newspaper, Corriere della Serra.]
The historical truth
by Magdi Allam
Friday, September 15th, 2006
It is sad and worrying that Muslims have given birth to an international united front to attack the Pope and ask for public apologies. From Bin Laden to the Muslim Brotherhood, from Pakistan to Turkey, from al-Jazeera to al-Arabiya, the transversal and universal alliance, which has already come into being following the Danish cartoons affair, has reappeared. Reaffirming very clearly that the root of evil is like a blind and prevailing ideology which outrages the faith and darkens the minds of many Muslims.
Why do not Muslims, especially the so-called moderates, react with such strength and intensity against the real and eternal desecrators of Islam - that is, the Islamic terrorists who kill other Muslims in the name of the same God, radical Muslims who legitimize the destruction of Israel and brainwash ordinary Muslims into martyrdom? Why do they now believe they must start a kind of Islamic "holy war" against the head of the [Catholic] Church who has the right to respectfully express his views about Islam, all the while with clarity on the evident difference between the two religions?
The Popes' quoting the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus, regarding the expansion of Islam through the sword, either during the time of Muhammad and on the Arab Peninsula and after him, elsewhere, underlines an undeniable historical truth. The Quran itself states it; furthermore, the forced conversion of the entire Byzantine Empire, to Islam in the East and South of Mediterranean, and the further expansion northwards in Europe and Eastwards in Asia, demonstrates the point made by the Byzantine Emperor. It is foolish to deny the truth, as it can only cause deranged reaction. In the mid-Nineties one of the most prominent scholars of Islamic studies, the Egyptian Mohamed said al-Ashmawi, told me that he did not approve the Arab tribes' military conquest of Christian lands in the Mediterranean and that he would have preferred Islam to expand peacefully, like it did in South-Eastern Asia. The Pope is threatened because he has said things that every single honest and rational Muslim should accept: the historical truth.
Time has come for both the West and Christianity to stop thinking that they are the source of all that happens - good or evil - within Islam as well as around the world. The ideology of hate is an ancestral reality at the core of Islam; it has been so since its inception, due to its' refusal to recognize and respect the plurality of religious communities – a natural thing since in Islam the relationship between the believer and God is personal and there is no unique spiritual guide who embodies the absolute dogmas of faith. In fact, since the defeat of the Arab armies in the June 5th, 1967 war, the situation has been worsening while Islamic extremism has been on the rise starting from Iran to Indonesia, to the point where the advance of global Islamic terrorism has turned the West into a "Kamikaze factory".
This is the tragic truth of the ideology of hate which binds all Muslims who are obsessed with anti-Americanism, anti-West and the prejudicial denial of Israel's right to exist. They are able to find many pretexts to rage - from Israeli occupation, to the U.S.-led coalition into Iraq, to the cartoons about Muhammad and even the Pope's words. Nevertheless the problem is at the root of Islam itself, an Islam which extremists turned from a faith in God into an ideology aiming for a theocratic and totalitarian order to impose on everyone who is not like them. And I am really scared when I realize that even the so-called moderates have given into a "holy war" where they will be the primary victims.
...
The interpretation that spying is part of the CIC powers is just that, an interpretation. It is not explicitly written in the constitution.
Right, but it is clearly implicit in the Constitution unless the Supreme Court explicitly says otherwise.
Are you arguing that Congress has no ability to regulate the inherent powers of the Executive branch at all?
...
Cycloptichorn
unh-uh. You're talking about an amendment to the constitution. Congress has the power to regulate the executive branch without an amendment to the constitution.
Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the power to regulate the Constitutional powers of the executive branch? Please be specific.
FISA is clear evidence of this power, because it limits the president, and was signed into law by the Executive branch.
FISA was clear evidence of nothing more than Jimmy Carter and the Congress thought Congress can lawfully do such a thing by congressional legislation alone. Until you can show otherwise, or the Supreme Court rules otherwise, FISA is unlawful as it stands.
Just because the executive branch currently doesn't believe they should be constrained by the law, doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist or is unConstitutional; until it is ruled so, it is Constitutional.
Well then, by that logic, if the Congress and the President were to legislate that the Congress has the power to overrule the decisions of the Supreme Court, then such legislation would stand ... until ... what?
If a citizen decides that a federal law is un-Constitutional and refuses to obey it, the following must happen after he is convicted, before his appeals are exhausted, and before he must pay a penalty for breaking that law:
The Supreme Court must rule against him or explicitly refuse to hear his case.
In the "Separate But Equal" case, the people who disobeyed their local separate-but-equal laws, ultimately won their case before the Supreme Court, and all then pending penalties were rescinded.
Similarly, because the President rejects the notion that FISA can lawfully restrict his Constitutional powers, until the Court decides FISA does in fact lawfully limit the powers of the Commander in Chief, FISA does not lawfully limit those powers. Furthermore, that is also true because the current Congress has not impeached and convicted the President for violating his Constitutional powers by not obeying FISA.
As I said earlier, this has all been throroughly hashed out in the 'America... spying on Americans' thread. You should read it before forcing me to type the same stuff over again.
Perhaps hashed out to your satisfaction, but certainly not to mine.
Cycloptichorn
Similarly, because the President rejects the notion that FISA can lawfully restrict his Constitutional powers, until the Court decides FISA does in fact lawfully limit the powers of the Commander in Chief, FISA does not lawfully limit those powers. Furthermore, that is also true because the current Congress has not impeached and convicted the President for violating his Constitutional powers by not obeying FISA.
Well then, by that logic, if the Congress and the President were to legislate that the Congress has the power to overrule the decisions of the Supreme Court, then such legislation would stand ... until ... what?
but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.
FISA was clear evidence of nothing more than Jimmy Carter and the Congress thought Congress can lawfully do such a thing by congressional legislation alone. Until you can show otherwise, or the Supreme Court rules otherwise, FISA is unlawful as it stands.
...
You don't understand how the Constitution and the law work, apparently.
It doesn't matter one whit if someone declares a law 'unconstitutional.' They can still be punished before the Supreme Court hears the case. For example, a murderer can claim that the law under which he was convicted was unconstitutional, found guilty, sent to jail, and stay in jail serving his term while his appeals go on. He isn't in limbo before the ruling; until it is superceded by a higher court, lower court rulings are binding.
We are not discussing the crime of murder, for which a convicted person may or may not be released on bail depending on the Judge's assessment of risk to the lives of others if the convicted person is released on bail.
We are discussing a disagreement between two of the three equal branches of government. Neither branch has the Constitutional power to usurp the Constitutional power of the other. Only the Supreme Court, the other equal branch, has the power to referee this dispute. However, the Congress does have the power to impeach, convict and remove members of the other two branches.
FISA does lawfully limit the powers of the President. Just because he, and you apparently, don't believe that it does, doesn't remove him from responsibility for his actions from breaking FISA. The fact that he hasn't been impeached and convicted for not obeying FISA has a lot more to do with Republican majorities in Congress than it does the law, as you well know.
Quote:
Well then, by that logic, if the Congress and the President were to legislate that the Congress has the power to overrule the decisions of the Supreme Court, then such legislation would stand ... until ... what?
The difference being, you are talking about limiting an explicitly spelled out power in the constitution vs. limiting a non-explicitly spelled out power. Nowhere in the constitution does it mention wiretapping phones; therefore, it is open to regulation by Congress.
And it has been regulated by Congress. I know you'd like to think that FISA doesn't exist, but it has neither been rescinded nor ruled UnConstitutional. Until either one of those happens, Bush is breaking the law when he bypasses FISA. His opinions on the matter, and yours, are immaterial; it is a fact that he is breaking the law.
It is not a fact that Bush is breaking the law until either the Supreme Court or Congress decides so, your opinion not withstanding.
You also have not made a convincing 4th amendment argument. It doesn't matter if indictments arise from the evidence or not, there is still protection from unwarranted spying inherent in the constitution.
There is no Constitutionally specified or implied limitation on the power of the President to eavesdrop/wiretap for the purpose of defending the American people. There is such a limitation on the power of the President for the purpose of gathering evidence for the purpose of indictment.
I also showed how the Federalist papers described -
Quote:but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.
If the President or any other member of government is truly guilty of "secretly hurrying [a non-prisoner of war] to jail [or other incarceration], where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten", it is truly a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government".
Which is exactly what we have been doing - secret detentions, without chagres, without trial. Explicitly listed as a tyrannical act. You haven't responded to this either.
If the President or any other member of government is truly guilty of "secret detentions, without charges, without trial", of enemy combatants who are in compliance with the Geneva Conventions, then that is truly a tyrannical act. However, If the President or any other member of government is truly guilty of "secret detentions, without charges, without trial", of enemy combatants who are not in compliance with the Geneva Conventions, then that is truly not a tyrannical act.
Cycloptichorn
...
The problem being, Carter was the head of the Executive branch, and his decisions are binding upon those executive branches that come after him. I know you wish this wasn't true, but it is.
Presidents can and do rescind executive order decisions of their predecessors.
Your assertions that FISA is unlawful don't carry any weight, because you can't show how it is unlawful.
I am not obligated to show its unlawful by anything other than the arguments I have provided you. You likewise are not obligated to show its lawful by anything other than the arguments you have provided me.
It would be like Congress voting to give themselves 20 less vacation days each year, and the next congress coming in ignoring that rule without attempting to change the law.
That would not be a law. That would be nothing more than a change of Congressional operating rules. Subsequent Congresses can change the rules established by previous Congresses whenever they see fit, without Presidential approval. However, the President possesses the Constitutional power to call Congress back into what is called special session without Congress's approval..
Bush could have amended FISA to work in the way he wished, there is little doubt that after 9/11 the congress would have gone for it; but he did not. He can't just decide to ignore laws he doesn't like! He isn't a king, for Christ' sake!
Any president including Bush has those powers delegated to him by the Constitution. Those powers cannot be increased or decreased without a Constitutional amendment that does that. Those powers cannot be curtailed for future presidents by Congress and a President acting together, without a Constitutional amendment that says so. If enough Democrats are elected to Congress who want to do so, they can impeach and convict Bush of "Treason, Bribery, high Crimes, and Misdemeanors" when they become convinced that Bush is guilty of any of these.
Of course, they risk being voted out of office for doing that.
Cycloptichorn
It is not a fact that Bush is breaking the law until either the Supreme Court or Congress decides so, your opinion not withstanding.
Quote:
It is not a fact that Bush is breaking the law until either the Supreme Court or Congress decides so, your opinion not withstanding.
You are wrong. Congress has already decided that what FISA does doesn't break the law. They decided that when they passed the law creating FISA. Laws are the expression of Congress' decisions.
Congress decided that the Presdient was the one breaking the law, in fact. Strange how this has come up again now that a bunch of the same people are in the WH.
Cycloptichorn
