Exactly wrong.

Extending presidential power is increasing sovereignty. It is all a matter of
degree. Just as there are cardboard Kings and Queens, there can be imperious Presidents. President Mushareff?

Dugger, occasionally lacking precision.

Inherent contradiction. Bush couldn’t want to be King and also extend (his) presidential power. Extending the power of a constitutionally ordained branch of a federal republican government is hardly monarchial, now is it? These kids!

Dugger, I tell ya, my work is never done

We see the “judicial activism” lie thrown around, which is nothing more than an attempt to defang the judiciary of any power. It doesn’t even have anything to do with the “liberal”-ness of the judiciary, as something like 70% of the Federal bench was nominated by Republican presidents. It has to do with concentrating power in the Presidency.

So when Russ Feingold talks about Bush wanted to be King, he is not just being glib, he is referring to the underlying strategy of the right, which is to extend presidential power.

JD –

That is not the issue here. The issue is who gets to determine the status, so-called, of the people being spied on. According to FISA, if an American citizen is involved a FISC judge has to review the NSA’s case for probable cause before the NSA can go ahead with an intercept. Under the law, it’s the judge who determines whether a target is a lawful citizen or possible al-Qaeda operative. Neither the President nor an NSA agent gets to make that decision, ever. The Attorney General can make an on the spot decision probable cause and authorize a FISA wiretap on an American but then has to seek a warrant from an FISC judge within 72 hours (which is why Bush’s timeliness argument is bullshit). So it doesn’t matter who the NSA was spying on — lawabiding citizen or al-qaeada operative, if the targets were Americans, the NSA needed to go to a judge first. That’s it. Plain and simple. Bush circumvented the judge in violation of the law.

Now we know why Team Bush in 2000 tried to distance itself from the Congressional Republicans. Sure, they attacked a Democrat, but they still attacked a President and challenged his authority. They can’t have that. Same story why Bush let the Rich pardon go through. Even party is secondary to executive loyalty for the Bushies.

Every night, George Bush goes to bed, and he is sure to thank Jesus for Osama bin Laden attacking America. That attack led to Bush being able to claim unchecked authority. Make no bones about it, these guys are thankful to bin Laden and would not roll back that day for any reason whatsoever, except to have even more power.

George Bush doesn’t just hate America, he hates humanity. And I pity George Bush and his sad followers for their sad, irrational hate.

Not with the added revelations of spying on anti-war protesters, Quakers, Vegans, and lesbians, this is all of a piece, and more consistent with a police state than a democracy. But it appears some would feel safer living on their knees than knowing the truth. Not me.

Who was Bush spying on? Without judicial review and accountability we have no assurance that it wasn’t political opponents or other inappropriate targets. And guess what apologists, I don’t have to prove that happened, Bush has to prove that it didn’t happen, because the reason warrants are necessary is to prevent that kind of abuse, and if the law is broken by our government officials, the burden shifts to them to show the motives and effects were not misplaced.

What comes after the Blame Clinton defense? Do we go back to “no crime was commited” or “no one has been convicted” or is there some other excuse in the chain?

http://thinkprogress.org/gorelick-testimony/

Here is what York obscures: at the time of Gorelick s testimony, physical searches weren t covered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It s not surprising that, in 1994, Gorelick argued that physical searches weren t covered by FISA. They weren t. With Clinton s backing, the law was amended in 1995 to include physical searches.

York claims that, after the law was amended,  the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary. That s false. Neither Gorelick or the Clinton administration ever argued that president s inherent  authority allowed him to ignore FISA. (We ve posted the full text of Gorelick s testimony here).

What you do not do is decide you get different laws than the rest of America.

Secrecy is a sometimes dicey method of control.

“Should Clinton have been prosecuted for the same thing?”

Nixon, Reagan and Bush have all precipitated “knee-jerk’ congressional
actions to reign in the Executive Branch after abuses of the privileges accorded that office have surfaced.

So why didn’t he? Why is it important that he be allowed these secrets, and these shields from the checks and balances system? Who was he spying on, besides known terrorist contacts?

(Maybe nobody. But then why hide it?)