Cheney’s now saying that people against domestic spying without warrants are pro-terrorist. What a pile from our horrible vice president.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Cheney Works With Bush’s Straw
January 4th, 2006
46 Comments
It’s standard Oliver Willis hyperbole.
You all should be used to it by now.
When you use a warrant, you drive with Hitler!
Someone PLEASE point out where Cheney says anything close to claiming opponents of the NSA program are pro-terrorist.
I see where he says others are downplaying the current threat from terrorism, but I don’t see where he makes any claims about critics supporting terrorism.
The continued attempt to frame the argument as people who are for or against wiretapping is absolutely brazen.
You’ll be hard-pressed to find an American who says we shouldn’t eavesdrop on the enemy. The argument is about whether or not we should suspend the system of checks and balances to do it.
If the answer, as Cheney would say, is “yes,” then one wonders why we don’t just do away with pesky things like term limits as well. There is, after all, a war on.
Oliver – I am getting pretty used to your complete distortion of what other people say, but this one is a flat out lie, unless you simply did not read the article you linked to, and chose to insert your own narrative instead of what Vice President Cheney actually said.
Setting the record straight:
Cheney said the program is necessary “even though some in Washington are yielding to the temptation to downplay the ongoing threat to our country.” = “people against domestic spying without warrants are pro-terrorist.”
“you simply did not read the article you linked to, and chose to insert your own narrative instead of what Vice President Cheney actually said”
Why let facts stand in the way of a good ole’ typical Odub ad hominem hit piece, eh?
Sorry, OW, but the ankle-biters are right this time. What you claim Cheney said isn’t in that article.
I do agree with BD.
Cheney is engaging in some clever framing here:
Wow! Really?
“Some in Washington” want to downplay the threat? Who?
He forgot to tell us.
He forgot to tell us because his claim is bogus and a diversion from the real argument that’s taking place.
The administration has had difficulty with this program from the outset. Judges on the FISA court raised objections. Members of Congress raised objections. The DOJ raised objections.
Nevertheless, the administration decided that it didn’t need a warrant. The best explanation they’ve offered so far was that the authorization of force resolution gave them the authority to implement this program.
That’s pretty lame.
It may be that the Bush administration did exactly the right thing here. However, it’s hard to argue one way or the other as long as we don’t know a) what the program actually entails, and b) what objections were raised.
What quote leads you to believe Cheney would advocate suspending the system of “checks and balances”? Cheney and the rest of the administration is arguing that what they did is legal and that they did not “suspend” legal requirements.
You may disagree with the legal analysis, but I don’t see on what basis you have determined that Cheney is arguing for a suspension of current laws.
Hard to argue that Cheney is advocating the suspension of checks & balances when the Administration went and informed Congress about the situation.
The Democratic Party is a disorganized mess, that’s why.
I’m not a member of the Democratic Party, so I’ll commit to a really simple position here.
Obey The Law.
Answered above:
We’ll soon see if anyone raises a voice when Congress is back in session.
Hey, if the Abramoff scandal is 50 to 1 a Republican scandal, then Cheney’s speech was the equivalent of calling for imprisonment of all Democrats – for breathing.
Its ‘mega-uber-ultra hyperbole’ time.
Dugger
What is ridiculous, Oliver should have pointed out, is Cheney saying that people that think the President is dead wrong on this warrantless and unconstituional spying are not serious about National Security. I would argue the opposite, those who embrace this warrantless intrusion beyond and outside the checks and balances of our constitution are not serious about the security of our way of life.
mitterpidge,
Wonder why the Democratic Party doesn’t step up and say exactly what should be done, if what Bushellezeebub is wrong? Lets here it from them. They can be heard even from the sidelines. Couldn’t be that they are afraid to take a position, you think? The Democrats?! Nahhh.
Dugger
Pedro, see the blue words in Oliver’s original post? If you click on those, you’ll learn what subject we’re discussing and that will keep you from making uninformed comments.
Well, it might help.
See, when you wrote this:
…it makes it look like you never bothered to read this:
Perhaps you could contact CNN. They seem to be under the impression that Democrats have been speaking up. Maybe you could provide them with your “understanding of the facts.”
Thanks in advance.
Yea cause heck, if they aren’t on the “peoples timeclock” you can’t expect them to defend the constitution can you?
Or….
Maybe it really isn’t illegal, and the democrats in the know (i.e. on the intelligence committee’s) don’t want to get in the way of an important national security operation
Just a thought…
By the way OW, is it YOU leaving the big mess in the men’s room?
http://www.wonkette.com/politics/media-matters/report-male-employees-at-media-matters-are-total-fucking-slobs-146462.php
“Hard to argue that Cheney is advocating the suspension of checks & balances when the Administration went and informed Congress about the situation.”
More bullshit from the serially stupid. The checks and balances completely ignored by the Bush adminstration was the requirement that only a FISA judge could approve wiretapping of an American citizen or US person, as defined in the law. The President decided he had the authority to break that law. Providing selective information about a classified program to a handful of Congressmen doesn’t rise to the kind of checks and balances required by the law.
I guess I should contact them about their continued shoddy reporting….
Heated criticism, particularly from democrats! Mon Dieu!
You see any democrats NAME in that report? Yea, those guys are really out there hanging out their reputations in the name of the constitution, their bravery brings a tear to my eye (or is that a pain in my a…..?) or alternatively
It ain’t illegal and it is important for national security…
Just throwing it out there…..
You must get some sort of satisfaction from being wrong. You do so much of it.
No, not in that report. However, I do see:
Charles Schumer’s name in this report.
Pelosi, Hoyer, Conyers, and Waxman in this report.
Rockefeller in this one.
Feinstein, Levin, and Wyden in this one. (along with a couple of Republicans!)
Pelosi again, along with Leahy and Reid here.
Please let me know if these eleven names aren’t enough.
“This Administration is a threat to our way of life because it shows no respect for separation of powers. It wants unchecked authority and it has shown an inclination to skirt the law in order to achieve an imperial Presidency”
You guys are in rare form today.
“no respect for the separation of powers” “skirt the law” ” imperial presidency”
Hmm. Wonder why he goes through the motions of having Congress confirm his judges. Just appoint them and let them start serving. Go back and get Judge Bork, sir. He was treated very shabbily. And fire the Democratic appointed judges. Declare war on France. Lower the minmum wage. Go back on the gold standard. Don’t let liberal women vote.
Dugger
Russ Feingold is a Democrat and he’s on record against the warrantless wiretaps. In fact, he’s condemned them in harsh terms. As has Chuck Schumer.
I agree with midderpidge up above. This Administration is a threat to our way of life because it shows no respect for separation of powers. It wants unchecked authority and it has shown an inclination to skirt the law in order to achieve an imperial Presidency. Our government is strongest when each of the branches balances the other. Take war powers, for example. The Constitution does not grant all war-making or war-conducting ability to the Executive as some Bush defenders argue. These are the Constitution’s powers granted to the President, with respect to war-making:
Article II: “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 shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls…” That’s it. Outside of control over the Army and Navy, his power his severely restricted by the Constitution.
And what powers does the Congress have?
Article I: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States…To regulate commerce with foreign nations…To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations… To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”
The Constitution is silent on wiretaps, of course, but is far from silent on the separation of powers in matters of war. Getting beyond the obvious – that the Executive must “faithfully execute the laws of the United States” – the question over war powers seems to skew far more toward the Congress in this case. It seems fair to assume that, had telephony existed in Madison’s time, he would have insisted that Congress has the right to make laws regarding electronic wiretapping (including FISA) and the Executive was bound to adhere to the letter and spirit of that law. Surely it falls under the “provide for the common defense” clause in Article I. Only if Congress explicitly yielded its authority on this matter, and for a designated period of time to be reconsidered at regular intervals, could the President reasonably assume the power to supercede other Congressional interventions (such as FISA).
Flat out BS, O-dub. Cheney says nothing like that. I personally find what he says odious for other reasons, but nowhere does he accuse anyone against the administration’s actions of being “terrorists.” There’s plenty to be pissed at these guys about without having to distort their words.
The people in this country ain’t got the guts to stand up up to Bush/Cheney. They voted for ‘em in 2000 and in 2004, so you get what you get. They’ve rolled over for every illegal thing these thugs have done for the last five years, so why should this domestic spying stuff be any different. They want magical solutions to our problems so they can sit on their fat asses and watch TV. They disgust me and I am ashamed to say I am an American.
Bush does have the power to make recess appointments according to the Constitution. What’s amazing is that he appointed uber-crony Julie Myers to the Immigration post. I beat the conservatives will love that pick.
“Wonder why he goes through the motions of having Congress confirm his judges.”
Bush has never met a recess appointment he didn’t like.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/4/19034/24092
Dugger = Idiot
And Bush has appointed at least one judge in recess. The poin tis that Dugger’s attempt at satire flies in the face of reality: When given the opportunity Bush would rather avoid having to justify any of his choices because he simply hates being questioned on any of his decisions. In the case of the NSA scandal he decided to break the law rather than actually justify his reasons for spying on Americans. What’s so ridiculous is that he’s been forced (rightly so I think) to justify in public a program that, if he had just followed the law and actually had a real justification for it, he could have gotten all the approval he needed from NSA judges in secret — just like the law allows.
Dugger makes light of this penchant of the president to skirt the checks and balances of our system of government failing to understand completely that the President has already committed an act as serious and egregious as any of the transgressions he meant as a joke: Bush broke the fucking law to spy on Americans.
I expect that just a month ago a properly goaded Dugger would have written “Hmm. Wonder why Bush goes through the motions of having NSA judges approve his wiretaps. Just go around them and let the NSA start spying on Americans.” Ha ha.
That would all be true….except that he presented in to the congressional intelligence committee , who, at least tacitly, allowed it to continue.
The FISA law also allows for tapping of foreign communications, even those involving US citizens, as long as the citizen is not the subject of the tap. Ergo, legal.
RES IPSA LOQUITUR
Got two in one post, though #3 is a repeat lie by Peedro.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002
Top 12 media myths and falsehoods on the Bush administration’s spying scandal
2: Congress was adequately informed of — and approved — the administration’s actions
Conservatives have sought to defend the secret spying operation by falsely suggesting that the Bush administration adequately informed Congress of its actions and that Congress raised no objections. For example, on the December 19 broadcast of Westwood One’s The Radio Factor, host Bill O’Reilly claimed that the NSA’s domestic surveillance “wasn’t a secret program” because “the Bush administration did keep key congressional people informed they were doing this.” The claim was also featured in a December 21 press release by the Republican National Committee (RNC).
In fact, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have said that the administration likely did not inform them of the operation to the extent required by the National Security Act of 1947, as amended in 2001. Members of both parties have also said that the objections they did have were ignored by the administration and couldn’t be aired because the program’s existence was highly classified.
As The New York Times reported on December 21, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have stated that they did not receive written reports from the White House on the surveillance operation, as required by the National Security Act:
The demand for written reports was added to the National Security Act of 1947 by Congress in 2001, as part of an effort to compel the executive branch to provide more specificity and clarity in its briefings about continuing activities. President Bush signed the measure into law on Dec. 28, 2001, but only after raising an objection to the new provision, with the stipulation that he would interpret it “in a manner consistent with the president’s constitutional authority” to withhold information for national-security or foreign-policy reasons.
[...]
[I]n interviews, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Graham and aides to Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Reid all said they understood that while the briefings provided by [Vice President Dick] Cheney might have been accompanied by charts, they did not constitute written reports. The 2001 addition to the law requires that such reports always be in written form, and include a concise statement of facts and explanation of an activity’s significance.
Further, Rockefeller recently released a copy of a letter he wrote to Cheney on July 17, 2003, raising objections to the secret surveillance operation. As the Times reported on December 20, Rockefeller said on December 19 that his concerns “were never addressed, and I was prohibited from sharing my views with my colleagues” because the briefings were classified. The December 21 Times report noted that House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she too sent a letter to the Bush administration objecting to the secret surveillance operation, and that Graham alleged that he was never informed “that the program would involve eavesdropping on American citizens.”
3: Warrantless searches of Americans are legal under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
Conservatives such as nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh and American Cause president Bay Buchanan have defended the administration by falsely claiming that the administration’s authorization of domestic surveillance by the NSA without warrants is legal under FISA. In fact, FISA, which was enacted in 1978, contains provisions that limit such surveillance to communications “exclusively between foreign powers,” specifically stating that the president may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order only if there is “no substantial likelihood” that the communications of “a United States person” — a U.S. citizen or anyone else legally in the United States — will be intercepted. Such provisions do not allow for the Bush administration’s authorization of domestic surveillance of communications between persons inside the United States and parties outside the country.
FISA also allows the president and the attorney general to conduct surveillance without a court order for the purpose of gathering “foreign intelligence information” for “a period” no more than 15 days “following a declaration of war by the Congress.” This provision does not permit Bush’s conduct either, as he acknowledged that he had reauthorized the program more than 30 times since 2001, and said that the program is “reviewed approximately every 45 days.”
Here is the applicable FISA law without filtering it through a “Media Matters” talking point sheet….
“Here is the applicable FISA law:
The term electronic surveillance is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by intentionally targeting that United States person”
Done
Res Ipsa Loquator
yes, but they aren’t “intentionally targeting that United States person”, they are targeting the guy on the other end of the line in the Hindu Kush…
That IS exactly the point Quaker….congratulations….See the “AND” in the paragraph is very important…remember our lesson? Words have meanings….
Uh, isn’t this exactly what Mr. Bush has acknowledged he has ordered the NSA to do?
Rhetorical question: is such minute semantic parsing going to forever remain “Clintonian” if Bush and company manage to do it more often?
Pedro, not trying to be argumentative, but what about this:
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that …
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;
MJB points to the operative requirement as I understand it — if the surrveillance involves a US person period, a judge has to approve it. That’s the law simply stated. What Pedro and other disphsits on the right keep forgetting is that not even the White House is bothering to suggest that acted within the law. Their whole argument is that the President has the authority to break the law when it comes to national security. Of course he doesn’t unless we all want to live in a dictatorship for the remainder of the war on terror which is expected to last forever. Idiots.
If the issue ever goes in front of a judge, that might be one of the points debated. Does the word “targeting” refer to the target of the wiretap or the target of the investigation. The difference matters.
Let’s say the government wants to find out where Osama bin Laden is (don’t laugh, they might.) Can the government put a tap on Jennifer Aniston’s phone because Osama might call her for a date? After all, Osama is the “target,” not young Jen.
“The term electronic surveillance is defined to exclude interception….”
MJB read the rest of that sentence above. In essence they don’t even consider it electronic surveillance if it is done outside the US and they aren’t targeting americans. That is why your quote doesn’t matter.
I am not an attorney, but I suspect that if her phone number showed up on a captured Al Qaida operatives computer in Afghanistan, and they vetted it past the DOJ the answer is probably yes, they could tap ms anistons line.
Or yours….
That’s precisely what’s prohibited by the law you quoted.
No, pedro.
The quote you gave us describes when interception outside the U.S. is considered “electronic surveillance.”
Characteristically, you’ve destroyed your own argument.
Arguing back and forth over a blog ain’t gonna change shit. You’re right, he’s wrong, I ‘m right. Get off your asses and DO something about it. Bunch of mumbo-jumbo bullshit.
Sorry Quaker but your just can’t read. It is “defined to exclude” ie it doesn’t include in the defination. Unless they are actually trying to gain info on a US person, it doesn’t fall under FISA
Again, the POTUS has the entire DOJ looking at this, and he would not announce on national tv that he was doing it unless he was on stable legal ground….if he thought it was illegal he would simply deny it and end up saying some flunky at the NSA did it withou his knowledge.
Yes, I’m can.
It is “defined to exclude…unless…”
In plainer English, intercepting a communication outside the U.S. isn’t included in the definition of electronic surveillance unless the comunication of a United States person is intercepted. If that happens, then it is included in the definition.
No UNLESS the communications of a united states person is the TARGET of the intercept.
If OBL calls j. aniston, they can listen without a warrant, as they aren’t interested in the J. aniston, they are interested in OBL
Nice try though, and I stand corrected, you can read, you just can’t comprehend .
We’re back to the meaning of “targeted.” I think we’re placing that word in different contexts. You’re using it to refer to the target of an investigation; I’m using it to refer to the target of the surveillance.
Either way, I’d bet that the lawyers would argue about it in front of a judge.
Here we agree. Most of this argument is predicated on the fact that this walks a thin line…I totally agree. What we disagree about is which side of the line it walks on.
I for one am looking forward to congressional oversight. I think this is an important question and one that needs to be reviewed. The difference is I think that the bush admin has done their homework and will be found to be on the correct side of that line.
Tutored by Miers and Gonzalez.
Happy traillllllsss to youuuuuu………