’)Hail to Al Gore
Former Vice President Al Gore called Monday for an independent investigation of President Bush’s domestic spying program, contending the president “repeatedly and insistently” broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without court approval.
Where are the rest of our supposed representatives when George Bush annoints himself as our king?
Josh Marshall: “The basic structure of our Republic really is in danger from a president who militantly insists that he is above the law.”
Dave Johnson: “… an example of how this President sees himself as The President of the Repubican Party, rather than of the United States”
Steve Soto: “Nice try Scotty, but you are the last person in the world to talk about hypocrisy. But don t try and confuse physical searches with electronic searches, which are covered by the FISA and which you don t have the authority to conduct without a warrant.”
Think Progress: “The issue with the Bush s warrantless domestic wiretapping program is that it violates a federal criminal law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Despite what Gonzales is implying, the Clinton administration never violated FISA and never claimed they could violate FISA.”
I am watching the speech on CSPAN and I am impressed, however, where was this speech during his presidential campain? I find it particularly annoying that Democrats can’t find a spine when its needed. All this will be cast aside if it does not get major news coverage, which sadly missing.
Typical comedy from our opposition party, AKA- the party of “NO” (as in no agenda.)
Funny how Gore changes his tune about domestic spying when he’s outside the White House. I don’t recall him making a stink about it when his boss ordered it. Oh that’s right- he was FOR national security before he was against it. (Or was that your other Presidential candidate?)
No. Controlling. Authority.
Very funny.
Next thing you know, we’ll find Democrats with ties to Abramhoff. HUH? What’s that? Democratic Senators what? And Reid won’t give the money back?
Well, what about Judge Alito and that sexist club…..?
Owl Club? Whaddaya mean he’s still been paying his membership for 52 years? He named his dog “SPLASH”!?!?! WTF?
I can’t stop laughing!
Gore is a rabid partisan who is far out of the mainstream of American politics. Something happened to his head after the election and I truly wonder if he is mentally competent. Top me, he’s taking the Ramsey Clark path.
More evidence that Democrats aren’t ready to deal with the problem of terrorism. If Al Gore is your spokesperson – you’re in trouble.
Dugger
I happen to agree with the last paragraph of Leo’s post, although probably for different reasons.
As far as Gore, i find it interesting that he’s complaining about living in a police state, yet everyone knew in advance what he was gonna say and where he was gonna say it, yet the stormtroopers didn’t swoop in and stop it.
The digital brownshirts are going to have a field day with this one.
The mainstream of american politics is exactly the problem.
The reason Gore has found his cajones is he isn’t running for
anything that I know of.
If anyone is seriously considering a run in ‘08, the dumbing down
and emasculation has already begun. That is why we keep getting
mediocrity in Washington. All opinions must become muted and
grey, without color or substance. It becomes a contest of who
makes the fewest controversial public statements.
Nice try to dodge the issue. Gore gave a great speech. There is bipartisan momentum to investigate this NSA wiretapping scandal – Senators Specter, Hatch and Collins have made it abundantly clear that they need to look at this very seriously. Even Sens. Roberts and Brownback think something’s fishy. So please, Bushbots, keep trying your diversionary tactics. “Clinton did it too!!!!” (though not true) Because I have a suspicion that the real reason the Bush-Cheney White House broke the FISA law was not for national security purposes at all, but simply to accumulate all power in the hands of the Executive. This is not a partisan issue. No President, neither Republican nor Democrat, not in wartime or peace, deserves unfettered authority in domestic affairs. Bush never really consulted Congress in any meaningful way (telling 6 Congressmen about the program in vague terms and forbidding them from even discussing it with their staff doesn’t count as “consultation”). Unless and until the White House can show that the FISA law was a true burden to the necessary search for terrorists in this country, I remain unconvinced of Bush’s rationale for, what appears to be, breaking the FISA law.
Elrod,
IF this is not a partisan issue why do you say “BUSH” broke the law when there has been NO SUCH FINDING AT ALL (“real reason the Bush-Cheney White House broke the FISA law”). Would it not be more accurate to say that among those who hate George Bush there is a consensus that he broke the law (but then again many Democrats of that persuasion believe he knew about 9-11 ahead of time and even the rabid Gore said that Bush had the names of the some of the 9-11 miscreants – before 9-11).
And spare me with the ‘fact’ that some Republicans have ‘doubts’ and I will spare you a whole sh*tpot of Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman and Ed Koch quotes.
Dugger
Marty Says:
Typical comedy from our opposition party, AKA- the party of NO (as in no agenda.)
Funny how Gore changes his tune about domestic spying when he s outside the White House. I don t recall him making a stink about it when his boss ordered it.
Dugger:
To me, he s taking the Ramsey Clark path.
More evidence that Democrats aren t ready to deal with the problem of terrorism. If Al Gore is your spokesperson – you re in trouble.
PSU94 Says:
As far as Gore, i find it interesting that he s complaining about living in a police state, yet everyone knew in advance what he was gonna say and where he was gonna say it, yet the stormtroopers didn t swoop in and stop it.
Frank:
Ditto
Ditto
Ditto
Funny thing, Gore never said we are living in a police state, with no freedom of speech. You said it. One has to ask why YOU equate warrantless wiretaps with a police state. YOU were the one that linked the two concepts.
Elrod, the Republican trolls are well trained not to deal with the issue at hand, but to smear the messenger.
How long will it be until all the crimes and lies of the Bush administration finally penetrate the skulls of the wingnuts? It will be an ugly day for them, to be sure. How long until they have to confront that they have been lied to, and lied to others to protect their heroes?
PLEASE investigate this, please!
The best part is going to be when they get all the facts, and the democrats start mumbling into their shirts when asked about it.
A boatload of lawyers have reviewed this, and we know that the program has protected us against at least one attack, probably more.
So, the democrats can do one of two things. They can scream and rant about it, knowing full well it is legal, and hope it isn’t shut down. Or they can quietly walk away.
My guess is that with the current crappy record on national defense that the demos have, it will be option two. The guys picking option one are likely to be run out of town by their electorate.
Dugger, you have to understand that when we’re talking investigation, we’re talking Fitzpatrick, not “you’re doing a heckuva job, bushie!”.
Other than that: damn straight, bring on the investigation. In fact, why don’t you write your congressmen and ask them to ensure an independent investigation? Just make sure you stress “independent”.
Would it not be more accurate to say that among those who hate George Bush there is a consensus that he broke the law…
Only if that makes you *feel* better, and certainly if it helps curtail your sad apologism.
or former Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, and “a conservative who one of the capital’s biggest Clinton haters during the previous administration.”
A report by the independent Congressional Research Service has also cast doubt on the legality of bypassing FISA. But, according to some on this thread congress (especially democratic congress persons) should overlook potentially illegal spying on American citizens. I would think if the conservatives here had so much confidence in the legality of Bush’s actions they would welcome an investigation and be calling for one to happen immediately to clear up any ambiguity (and bad press) that is currently plaguing the admistration over this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010601772.html
One of these days, Democrats are going to figure out that a platform of “The President shouldn’t be spying on Al Qaida” is not going to win them elections.
So, the democrats can do one of two things. They can scream and rant about it, knowing full well it is legal, and hope it isn t shut down. Or they can quietly walk away.
That’s not what Alren Specter is saying.
I wonder how many people “outside of the mainstream” had 50 million of their fellow citizens vote for them as their leader?
Yes, it’s fortunate that those terrorists didn’t get to the Brooklyn Bridge with their blow torches.
Quickie,
“Dugger, you have to understand that when we re talking investigation, we re talking Fitzpatrick, not you re doing a heckuva job, bushie! .”
With all due respect, I believe when you guys are talking investigation you are really saying:
Find any way possible, any way at all, to get Bush. Scr*w the war on terrorism. Priority number one is get Bush.”
Lets face it. The entire emotional spectrum of the left, the deepest thoughts, the core angst, all revolves around Bush hate. I and most Americans think 9-11 and we think of 3,000 dead innocents, of those poor people perched 100 stories up on window ledges who are suffering terribly and will soon take their lives, of their loved ones knowing that, and yes we feel true hate for the people who did this, including their enablers, and want to fight back. Unfortunatelly, for way too many on the left, when they think 9-11, they think: this provides an opportunity to get Bush.
DaveM
Silly argument. If we are confident Bush is innocent, we should “welcome (????)” an investigation? Want to ponder that a bit? Clinton should welcome multiple rape investigations because his supporters are confident he is innocent. Etc. Harry Reid should welcome a bribery investifgation re Abramoff? Be honest. This is all about “get Bush”. Same as Plame. The left claimed they were worried about security re Plame. Bullsh*t. They wanted to get Bush. Witness the silence on the left re subsequent security violations (liberals scr*wed the NSA surveillance program, for instance). Who on the left is calling for an investigation of the Bush hating NY Times, Risen?. And if the NSA can’t now fight the WOT as well. Who cares, right? The object is and always has been to get Bush.
Don’t particualry like Bush, but I don’t think Bush hate should be rewarded.
ugger
Gore said,
Interesting…Richard Clark seems to recall that the practice of extraordinary rendition was encouraged by Gore while he was Vice President. I guess he must feel guilty about it now. Or he’s a hypocrite trying to score political points. You make the call.
Personally, I think Gore was making good arguments about excessive executive power. However, it would have more meaning if Gore had spoken up while he was in power.
I wonder how many people outside of the mainstream had 50 million of their fellow citizens vote for them as their leader?
Back in 2000, when all those Americans voted for Gore, he WAS mainstream. He isn’t anymore. He went off the rails sometime after 9/11.
Maybe those awful digital brownshirts did something to him…
Gore said unilateral presidential action is illegal and it’s legal. Leaks are bad and they’re good. Previous generations curtailed our rights and they didn’t. Which is it Al?
“The threat of additional terror strikes is all too real and their concerted efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction does create a real imperative to exercise the powers of the executive branch with swiftness and agility,”
“Moreover, there is in fact an inherent power that is conferred by the Constitution to the president to take unilateral action to protect the nation from a sudden and immediate threat, but it is simply not possible to precisely define in legalistic terms exactly when that power is appropriate and when it is not.”
One of these days, Democrats are going to figure out that a platform of The President shouldn t be spying on Al Qaida is not going to win them elections.
Serious question for Save Farris, Dugger, Pedro, etc.:
Do you really think that the bush-skeptics on this issue, Dem and Repub, are saying “the president shouldn’t be spying on Al Qaida?”
Or, are you just gleeful that that is the way it can be spun, truth be damned?
I think I know what the answer is, but go ahead: maybe you’ll surprise me.
Shorter Dugger, Frank, Pedro et al: If the President says it’s a matter of national security I will gladly give up all of my Consitutional rights no questions asked.
I am …….I want all you leftists to get way out in front in condemning this. Write your congresscritters, get them to get out in front too.
We need lots of good quotes, cause that is going to form the backbone for our next presidential win, I can see the ads already now. More quotes from democrats that won’t allow us to protect this country….
This is going to be better than Michael Moore…
Sweeeeeeeeettttttt……….
Let’s say it is Bush Hate. If it is as pervasive as many on the right
seem to think, from whence did it come?
Did it just spring forth like a dandelion through the asphalt with
no thought but getting at that sunshine of anti-love, Bush hate?
Is it some primoridial retrovirus that attaches itself to any cell called
“Republican”?
Is it baseless, thoughtless and without any logical primise, this Bush hate?
Methinks it was an egg, this hate, that growth-hormoned itself into
this giant, clucking, genetic mutation known as George W. Bush.
He epitomizes the corrupt nature of the leisure class. He has had
everything handed to him and believes he has the divine right to
keep it no matter what he needs to do to retain it.
That imperious state of mind has gone to his head as President.
Nothing is wrong if it serves his greater purpose. There is nothing
he won’t do, or have his minions do to keep his momentum going.
The key danger of continuing to assign him unbridled power is that
he may indeed go over the edge.
Call it Bush hate if you will, but it is not without some reason it is
felt.
IMHO that’s the way it is, the rest can take a whizz
Leaks are bad when they done for cheap political gain. When they expose governmental corruption or malfeasance they can be good.
I disagree. Leaks that threaten or negatively impact national security are always bad, regardless of whether there is governmental corruption or malfeasance going on. That is why there are special avenues for whistleblowers in the Intel community. And no, they don’t include the New York Times.
Dugger – Your Clinton comparison is the one that is silly and totally inapposite. Instead of calling for a criminal investigation here what is being called for is an independent investigation where republicans will be represented as well as democrats. If the results are that the spying is legal, then Bush wins. What you are proposing is that congress, in possession of an independent report suggesting that the president is illegally spying on Americans (I don’t think anything like that occurred in the Clinton era before an investigation was undertaken did it?) should simply ignore it. That would be a clear deleliction of their responsibilities to the American people. But, be clear where your argument will lead – to more speculation as to Bush’s motivations, to more speculation as to who exactly he’s spying on and to more speculation as to where it will stop. Are you really so afraid of what an independent investigation will reveal that you have to put up the preposterous arguments and misleading comparisons that you offer? Try again when you show where congress, in possession of a report they requested which suggests illegal activity by a president (or anyone else for that matter) fails to call for an independent investigation into the situation.
What are you talking about?
No. But I think it s the intensity that s so surprising. There were plenty of Clinton-haters out there, but there were nowhere near the same numbers or the same degree of hatred as there is for Bush.
I guess this winger never heard of the “Arkansas Project”.
Oliver : Are you conceding that President Bush is well within the mainstream, due to the number of votes that were cast for him ?
Gore said unilateral presidential action is illegal and it s legal. Leaks are bad and they re good.
unilateral presidential action in the face of an emergency can be good. A conscious decision to avoid any oversight over the course of three years is probably bad.
Leaks are bad when they done for cheap political gain. When they expose governmental corruption or malfeasance they can be good.
Serious question, Randy: Do you not understand these distinctions, or are you just happy to have something that you can spin and distort to the detriment of the democrats?
I disagree. Leaks that threaten or negatively impact national security are always bad, regardless of whether there is governmental corruption or malfeasance going on. That is why there are special avenues for whistleblowers in the Intel community. And no, they don t include the New York Times.
Alright, the $64 question- how did the leak negatively affect national security, considering that terrorists already had to know that the US was monitoring their phone calls? Was it ever a problem to get a warrant from the FISA court? Is it not a fact that warrants could have been obtained after the tap, for up to 72 hours?
Is it baseless, thoughtless and without any logical primise, this Bush hate?
No. But I think it’s the intensity that’s so surprising. There were plenty of Clinton-haters out there, but there were nowhere near the same numbers or the same degree of hatred as there is for Bush.
Why is this? Almost everybody can find things to not like about him. I voted for him, but I have plenty of things I fault him for, including his seeming lack of fiscal sanity and his moronic plan to address illegal immegration (an amnesty program? WTF?). But I don’t think that Chimpy McSmurkyburton is either the anti-Christ or trying to become the next Emperor Palpatine.
My take is that Bush is like a giant Rohrschat test. Everyone looks at him and sees something that they absolutely hate. Spoiled rich boy? Evil manipulator? Clueless cowboy? Power hungry dictator? He’s everything to everyone.
I think he’s also a lightning rod for all the Democrats’ anger and frustration at their declining power since the 2000 elections. They look at Bush and say “we’re in the minority and THAT’S what beat us?”, without trying to figure out just WHY he’s been elected… not just once, but TWICE. Instead we hear statements about how those idiots in flyover country (you know, “Jesusland”?) are just too stupid to see the benefits of voting Democrat… any Democrat, regardless of how bad a choice they might be. John Kerry? C’mon… is that the best you could do? I’m a conservative who generally votes Republican. But give me a decent Dem candidate and I will give them a fair shake. Hell, I voted for Clinton in 1996 because I thought Bob Dole would be a big mistake. It’s the issues, not the party.
But I digress. Sorry.
“Leaks that threaten or negatively impact national security are always bad, regardless of whether there is governmental corruption or malfeasance going on.”
Here’s yet another example of a wingnut asserting that national security trumps all else. If the NSA or the President violate the Consitution no one is ever supposed to know about it — and so they are never supposed to face any consequences — all in the name of national security. What’s so totally ridiculous is, as I think Gore pointed out, this country has faced far greater threats in the past without surrendering the kinds of checks and balances that Bush is demanding.
Here’s the truth: Islamic terrorism is not the existential threat that you wingnuts would like it to be. This country is in no danger of being “wiped off the earth” by Osama Bin Laden. Only in your fevered lizard brains is this “the greatest threat we have ever faced as a nation.” You all stand a greater chance of being hit by lightning than being killed in a terrorist attack but you’d let the President violate the law with impunity anyway.
I have no doubt that if it is determined that Bush broke the law in ordering warrantless wiretapping of American citizens you wingnuts wouldn’t care. You’d still say he had the right to do it. Why? Because of your own personal fear.
Is there some gigantic nation wide gas leak that only affects hard core Republicans, or do they give out Oscars for “Most Convincing Delivery of a Long Discredited GOP Talking Point?”
Dave,
We weren’t born yesterday right? An independent investigation. Is that phraseology supposed to make anybody feel better? The MO of the independent invesitgation is to give a publicity/fame hungry prosecutor (of either stripe) an unlimited budget to GO AFTER the target. An investigation has a TARGET. That target would be our president, the only one apparently serious about fighting terrorism. And how is the Clinton analogy wrong? Why would anyone ‘feel better” about being investigated -as opposed to not being investigated. Do you with a straight face deny partisan politics is not behind the call for an investigation? And even if there were an investigation, there would still be plenty of negative speculation about Bush, right? You understand that, I bet. Is there not speculation on the left that he had knowledge of 9-11. Didn’t Hodean take the fifth on that speculation rather than call it what it was – sick? Did’nt Algore just say Bush knew of two of the hijackers before 9-11?
No it will never be enough for the drooling haters. They live, sleep, eat and breathe Bush-hate.
Dugger
yes dave. AN independent investia
Shorter pedro: Unless you’re willing to let the President violate the Consitution you aren’t serious about terrorism.
Longer Pedro: Unless you approve of exploiting the deaths of 3,000 people to push everything from tax cuts to torture you aren’t serious about the war on terror.
I guess this winger never heard of the Arkansas Project .
And I guess this moonbat has never heard of “Moveon.org”. Or “World Can’t Wait | Drive Out the Bush Regime”. Or “notinourname.net” (A call to action to remove the Bush Regime! ). Ad nauseum.
VRWC,
12:19 post = good.
Dugger
Shortest Pedro: I piss myself at the thought of terrorist, and Bush promised me huggies.
Funny, for a “Bush hate site”, Moveon.org doesn’t mention him on their home page.
Do you wingnuts hate Osama Bin Laden? (Actually, that’s a real good question, considering that they don’t seem to care where he is) Does your hate for OBL make your criticisms of him any less valid?
You people call us “Bush haters” to avoid having to deal with the issues that lead you to call us “Bush haters”.
Calling us “Bush Haters” doesn’t dismiss the Fourth Amendment, does it?
Frame, go back to reviewing the newest barney movie will ya.
Just as I can lower my chances of being struck by lightning by getting out of the open, so can I lower my chances of a terrorist attack. And I am an idiot if I don’t do so. The democrats want us to walk around on the 18th green holding a steel pitching wedge over our heads during a thunderstorm…
The key is, we have no evidence that the president broke the law. In fact the chief law enforcement branch vetted the entire project, oh, as well as select intel comittee members.
You should definately try to peddle your “less likely to be hit by a terrorist than a lighting bolt” analogy to about 3000 families in new york and new jersey.
Dugger – not paranoid much are you? I for one would rather an independent investigation as to legality of what occurred (as Senator Spector is calling for – or has he also fallen under the influence of “Bush hate” and democratic partisan ideology?). Seriously, what would you expect someone in congress to do if they had received a nonpartisan report which strongly suggests illegal activity on the part of the president? Stonewall it? Ignore it? Throw it away? All your caterwalling and paranoid delusions don’t provide much of an argument against having the matter investigated. The fact that democrats are trying to take political advantage of the president’s potentially illegal actions doesn’t provide any logical argument against having an investigation.
Alright, the $64 question- how did the leak negatively affect national security, considering that terrorists already had to know that the US was monitoring their phone calls? Was it ever a problem to get a warrant from the FISA court? Is it not a fact that warrants could have been obtained after the tap, for up to 72 hours?
How do you know that they knew we were monitoring their phone calls? If the person in the US was believed to be unknown to Intel community (maybe someone who lived here a long time, keeping a low profile, or entered under a different name) they would likely assume it this person was safe to call, since the US doesn’t routinely monitor domestic calls. And if this person is believed to be below the Intel radar, why would anyone get a warrant to tap their calls via FISA?
I can’t say for sure that this leak damaged national security. But by the same token you can’t say for sure that it didn’t. None of us has enough information to make that determination.
Although it’s sure interesting to note that that since this program hit the news, there seems to be a demand for large quantities of disposible cell phones by men of middle eastern origin. Link here: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1499905
Again, the NSA already had the ability to monitor calls with US persons. WITH A WARRANT.
What if all you have is list of phone numbers taken from a terrorist hard drive or cell phone? Can you get a warrant for a phone number? You’re not targeting a person, you’re targeting a phone number.
If they were above the intel radar, why would that change with warrantless searches? Either we know about them or we don t. If we find out about them, we get a warrant. Period.
It was below the radar. What if Ahmed Smith is unknown to Intel, but a number he occasionally uses was found on a terrorist PC. If all we have is the number, but have no idea that this leads to Ahmed, how do we get a warrant under FISA to tap his phone?
I can t say for sure the leaks damaged security, unfortunately since your side is the one subverting the 4th amendment
Can you provide a link to the court decision that made this determination regarding the 4th amendment? I’m sorry, DU, DailyKOS or Eschaton don’t count.
YOU guys have the burden of proof.
I’m saying we don’t know. YOU’RE the one saying we didn’t. You are claiming something, you back it up.
Your little abc vignette has nothing to do with anything- wiretaps are and ALWAYS have been legal, even between two US persons WITH A WARRANT.
So reports about 2 separate incidents of middle eastern men buying large quantities (not 10 or 20, but 60 and 150!) of disposable cellphones have absolutely nothing to do with National Security and a possible change in terrorist tactics driven by exposure of the NSA program?
Curmudgeon, the question is, does Pedro consider himself the Jake Gyllenhall or the Heath Ledger in his Bush love fantasy?
“No. But I think it s the intensity that s so surprising. There were plenty of Clinton-haters out there, but there were nowhere near the same numbers or the same degree of hatred as there is for Bush.”
That’s because there’s never been an administration this shameful or immoral before.
Peedro said
And I am an idiot
First time he has told the truth on this blog.
terrorist = terrorists
Curmudgeon I was standing my post forward deployed with the US Navy on 9/11..my pants stayed nice and dry.
Stop with the 8th grade schoolyard bully routine, it only weakens your already weak (or in this case non-existent) argument.
Fact are you saying there is something wrong with homosexuality? So you are a racist AND a bigot….good to know.
Here s yet another example of a wingnut asserting that national security trumps all else. If the NSA or the President violate the Consitution no one is ever supposed to know about it and so they are never supposed to face any consequences all in the name of national security.
You need to work on your reading skills. What I said is “That is why there are special avenues for whistleblowers in the Intel community.”
See? There are ways to blow the whistle on questionable programs or activities without splashing it on the front pages of the NY Time. If the administration is doing something wrong, I agree they need to be held accountable. If an investigation determines that what they did was wrong, then of course the details will eventually come out. But not before then.
Think about this: What happens if a big, transparent, non-partisan investigation takes place and the final conclusion is that what Bush did was legal? What then? Do we pull an Emily Latella and tell the terrorists “Never mind, go back to what you were doing before”?
You d still say he had the right to do it. Why? Because of your own personal fear.
I’ve seen this meme a lot lately and I don’t understand it. It’s like people who support the WOT are somehow cowards, hiding under their bed. “Please make the bad men go away, Mr. Bush… I’m scared”. WTF? I know that the chances of a terrorist attack directly affecting me or my family is very low. I didn’t rush out and buy plastic tarps and duct tape when it was suggested. However, I don’t want to see American citizens hurt or killed. Nor do I want to see the inevitable hit the economy would take after another attack (which would affect me and my family, as well as everybody else). How does this make me a coward?
VRWC,
12:19 post = good.
Dugger
Thanks.
Again, the NSA already had the ability to monitor calls with US persons. WITH A WARRANT.
If they were above the intel radar, why would that change with warrantless searches? Either we know about them or we don’t. If we find out about them, we get a warrant. Period.
I can’t say for sure the “leaks” damaged security, unfortunately since your side is the one subverting the 4th amendment, YOU guys have the burden of proof. Also, at some level, the 4th amendment trumps security.
Your little abc vignette has nothing to do with anything- wiretaps are and ALWAYS have been legal, even between two US persons– WITH A WARRANT.
Now for VRWC, who actually seems to at least have normal levels of mercury in his system, I have to ask, what do you do when an administration has so thoroughly compromised the normal avenues for whistleblowers and has shown an almost maniacal zeal for ruining the lives of those that do come forward? Also try to remember that the NYT sat on the story for more than a year, effectively helping Kenneth Blackwell get Bush re-elected.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/03/1435201
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2005/12/17/181422/49
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=39653
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/fisher.php?articleid=5925
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_404.html
http://www.pogo.org/p/government/ga-050303-osc.html
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/2504/1/32/
And before anyone starts spouting about how Bush is trying to protect whistleblowers:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002052789_whistle03.html
To borrow a bit of the parlance favored by some, “Bush was against {insert anti-Bush/pro Democracy item here} before he was for it.”
You may feel free to insert, “9-11 commission,” “investigation into Plame leak,” or now “protection for whistleblowers.”
or add these to the list:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263
“I m saying we don t know. YOU RE the one saying we didn t. You are claiming something, you back it up.”
Should have been “YOU RE the one saying that the leaks DIDN’T hurt national security”.
VRWC, is it illegal for middle-eastern men to buy cellphones? If there is a problem, go to court and get a warrant.
“What if all you have is list of phone numbers taken from a terrorist hard drive or cell phone? Can you get a warrant for a phone number? You re not targeting a person, you re targeting a phone number.”
You can get a warrant for that, you get a judge to subpeona the info from the phone company. Happens every day. Next red herring, please.
What makes you think so?
saying that you found a phone number on a terrorist s PC or cell phone isn t likely to be enough.
What makes you think so?
Excellent question, Quaker. That’s the whole point: Bush never tried to get FISA to approve his program, not even retroactively as was allowed by law. He just decided at the beginning that he didn’t need no steenkin warrants, and operated on that assumption for three steenken’ years.
It ain’t that hard: you take your case to FISA, retroactively if you have to act in an emergency. If FISA says no, _then_ you can consider whether a limited and temporary circumvention of the act is necessary for national security purposes. Bush didn’t do that, he just followed the commands of his inner dictator. Again: for three years without any attempt at bringing his actions under some semblance of the normal system of checks and balances.
That bothers a lot of people on the Republican side of the aisle, but apparently not the crazies who post here. I’ve seen a lot of questionable positions put forward by our right-wing friends on this site, but this is undoubtedly the most craven and tawdry.
Divine Right
One of the most disturbing yet most undiscussed aspects of the rabid support for Bush and his lawbreaking from right-wing bloggers is just how much of it seems to be based on a personal affection for Bush and not actual…
Not for Bush, for a president that is unhesitantly and unapologetically fighting a war against islamofacist terrorists.
We remember the bad old days of the democrats lobbing a missile and then walking away, or at the first sign of difficulty cutting and running.
August makes an interesting point on his blog.
We seem to talk a lot about ‘Bush Hate’ when perhaps we
should be discussing ‘BUSH AFFECTION”.
… and we’re back
Wilbur, the answers are:
(1) People familiar with the process say the problem is not so much with the court itself as with the process required to bring a case before the court. “It takes days, sometimes weeks, to get the application for FISA together,” says one source. “It’s not so much that the court doesn’t grant them quickly, it’s that it takes a long time to get to the court. Even after the Patriot Act, it’s still a very cumbersome process. It is not built for speed, it is not built to be efficient. It is built with an eye to keeping [investigators] in check.”
(2) What if the Government misses the 72 hour window, or else gets the FISA application to a judge on time, but the judge has not yet signed the order when the 72nd hour expires. At that point, there is a forfeiture: the surveillance is to be terminated immediately, and information gained from the surveillance during that key 72 hour period cannot be used for any purpose–not even communicated to federal anti-terror employees–without a certification that it “indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.” Which they may not yet be able to confirm.
I guess you’re right… it’s a piece of cake… practically a rubber stamp. No reason why Bush should circumvent that process to get time-limited intel on possible terrorists in the US. Damn power hungry dictator-wanna-be.
“It is built with an eye to keeping [investigators] in check.
The real problem..
I didn’t realize we had so many legal experts on how FISA works over on this one site.
Two questions for you Wilbur:
(1) The “retroactive” part requires you submit the full paperwork package to the FISA court within 72 hours. Do you know how much paperwork this is and how long it typically takes to assemble?
(2) What happens if the full package is not submitted within the 72 hour window?
The answers… after the break
Wilbur,
I have no idea if the truth will turn out to be one of those 3 or something else entirely. I guess we’ll find out when the investigation is done.
drone,
then maybe you’d at least agree with me, and Gore, that there is good grounds for an impartial investigation into the issue.
and impartial would not, of course, mean by the justice department that approved Bush’s actions to begin with.
drone,
If the adminstration found the 72-hour requirement unduly burdensome, it could petition legislature for a change in the statutory requirements. It could do so without revealing a thing about the nature of any secret wiretap program it was conducting.
Bush had three years to do this, and both houses of legislature in its pocket. Piece of cake. He never even tried. He preferred to keep on circumventing the law.
I can think of three explanations for that:
1) Bush has been conducting surveillance that he thinks the FISC would not approve
2) Bush wants to reserve for himself the power to conduct domestic surveillance without oversight
3) Bush does not really take seriously his oath to be a faithful steward of the constitution, so can’t be bothered to try to maintain the constitutional checks and balances on his own authority.
All of these possibilities are disturbing to me. Can you say that they aren’t disturbing to you? Or maybe you can suggest another plausible explanation.
Wilbur,
I have no problem with an impartial, non-partisan investigation of this issue. Personally, I think the outcome will turn out to be a major non-event. Much like the Plamegate investigation (Karl Rove is going to be frog-marched out of the White House ANY day now…). But time will tell.
Along with that investigation, I would also like them to find and prosecute the NSA/CIA staffer who leaked the program to the NYTimes in the first place. As I noted above, leaks are bad and there was no excuse for it… there are legal whistleblower avenues for that person to pursue if they truly felt the program was illegal.
I think the outcome will turn out to be a major non-event. Much like the Plamegate investigation (Karl Rove is going to be frog-marched out of the White House ANY day now& ).
Anything short of jail time for Bush and his dog will certainly be spun as a “major non-event” by the right wing. Sort of like you’re doing here with Plamegate. Last I checked Libby was still under indictment and Fitz’s investigation is still open.
But by all means, lets investigate the leak too. Unlike you folks on the right, most of us think leaking classified information is very wrong, unless you’ve got a much, much better reason than the smearing of a political oppoent.
Re: “legal whistleblower avenues”, however, refer to Bill L.’s well documented post above, which (pardon for the reminder) you seem to have ducked completely.
Given the fact that over 20,000 FISA warrants have been approved. If all 20,000 took 72 hours to process each (assuming all were filed retroactively, which of course isn’t the case), that’s a whopping 1,440,000 hours, or 60,000 days, or 164 years. When was FISA established again? If only known al-Qaeda sympathizers were targeted, why not try to get warrants on at least SOME of them? Why no attempt in 3 years to revise the law if it was so cumbersome?
No rush was needed in 2003
In reference to FISA:
Government officials describe both ["national security letters" and "emergency foreign intelligence warrants"] as crucial tools in the war on terrorism that allow authorities to act rapidly in the pursuit of potential threats without the delays that can result from seeking a judge’s signature.
Apparently nobody felt the need to push the notion that FISA was too slow in 2003.
FISA FAQ
8. How is surveillance authority different under FISA?
Although orders issued under FISA are sometimes called FISA “warrants,” this is misleading because it suggests that the FISA order is like an ordinary search warrant or Title III intercept order — and it isn’t. Under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be based on probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is being committed. This is not the general rule under FISA.
In short, FISA issues warrants for montioring phone conversations and the like in cases where there may not even be any criminal activity going on. The probable cause standard is much lower for FISA.
Anyway, FISA and wiretaps are meant for monitoring communications over a period of time and not for detecting potential dangers by listening in on thousands, if not millions, of calls at once in the blind hope that you might hit paydirt. That’s blatantly unconstitutional and appears to be exactly what Bush authorized.
Besides, the whole effort was a complete dud
…More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.
…After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration.
Wilbur,
To date, Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with “outing” Ms. Plame. The indictment against Scooter Libby is for perjury and obstruction of justice relating to the investigation itself, not for anything he might or might not have said about Plame. Whether the reason Fitz is declining to charge anyone with outing Plame is because (1) Plame was no longer a covert agent, having been out of the field for more than 5 years or (2) Plame’s CIA background was already common knowledge within DC, as several of the reporters involved have stated, or (3) some other reason, is unknown. He may still decide charge someone, but I must say it’s been awfully quiet for quite a while now.
Regarding Bill L.’s post, I had completely missed it. I’ve noticed in the past that new postings can suddenly pop up between 2 other previous posts. Bill’s seemed to be one of these. Apologies to Bill, as he had asked for my response. I will check out the links he posted.
Bill,
I’ve looked over those links you posted. Here are some thoughts:
The normal whistleblower system is obviously badly broken.
Some of the cases (i.e. Sibel Edmonds, Jesselyn Radack, Russell Tice) seem pretty blatant. Although I have to question some of the people that were used as examples of punished whistleblowers (smear campaigns against Cindy Sheehan? Richard Clarke?).
I also found a another good story on this issue here which notes cases going back into the 90’s.
If the reports are accurate, it looks like Bush’s appointment of Scott Bloch, as the head of the Office of Special Counsel was a bad idea. Bloch sounds like a guy way too concerned with closing files to make his backlog reductions look good. Or he’s Bush’s henchman simply doing his bidding. I’m sure people here have their own opinion, but you just can’t tell for sure.
However, in all this, what isn’t clear is how much of this retaliation is at the direction of the administration and how much is pissed off and petty superiors wanting to get back at people who dare to rock the boat. You see this kind of crap in private industry as well. And not every complaint can be taken at face value. Not every person crying wrongdoing is doing it for altruistic reasons… some have their own agendas and axes to grind as well.
Continued below…
However, I have to note that with the current issue, the Office of Special Counsel wouldn’t apply anyways, since Intelligence agency employees can’t use normal whistleblower channels. Instead, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, provides them with a legal means to directly contact Congress and tell them that something is wrong. This allows them to bypass their dysfunctional agencies, unlike other whistleblowers whose complaints must be first processed by the very agency that their complaints are about. One of the sites above noted that this is being done in the Russell Tice case.
I thought these two entries from tomdispatch.com were interesting:
“In all, eight of Jimmy Carter’s cabinet members eventually resigned during his one term in office,” while “[o]ther top administration officials, including Carter’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Andrew Young, were forced out& because of unauthorized meetings with PLO leaders.” Analysis of their archives by Lexis-Nexis researchers found that Ronald Reagan “saw all but one of his cabinet positions change hands during his two terms in office from 1981-1989″ and that he had a total of “four chiefs of staff and six national security advisors.” Lexis-Nexis also determined that “[b]efore he finished his second term in office, [Bill Clinton] had 10 of his original cabinet members resign and several of their replacements also resign.” Further, resignations on moral and ethical grounds during the Clinton Administration included “top Department of Health and Human Services officials Peter Edelman, Mary Jo Bane and Wendell Primus.” In a 1998 article in the New York Times, a then-less-known Judith Miller reported that a then-less-known United Nations weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, had resigned& [from his UN post] charging that the U.N. secretary-general, the Security Council and the Clinton administration had stymied the inspectors& .”
And
“Over the years, many public servants from many administrations have been fired, forced out, or have quit their posts in protest. Unfortunately no one, to my knowledge, has bothered to catalogue them all. Despite a lack of precise figures, it also seems that no administration in recent memory has come close to the Bush presidency in producing so many high-profile public statements of resignation, dissatisfaction, or anger over administration policies, actions or inaction.”
Sounds like this has been an endemic part of government for decades, although they appear to be getting a much higher profile in the media now. Bottom line, the system is broken, has been broken for a long time and needs to be fixed.
Continued below…
VRWC,
Thanks for the reply.
There have been numerous documented problems with the U.S. government and its “protection” of whistleblowers going back for decades. Bush’s administration isn’t unique in this respect, just much more “accomplished,” if you will.
As for the Plame case, it’s hard to charge anyone with outing her identity if they are, as Scooter has allegedly done, obstructed the investigation. If Scooter is willing to take the fall, then the White House gets a pass and we may never find out what really went down.
However, there are some major misconceptions regarding her CIA status that keep making the rounds. First, regardless of her current CIA status, the program she was involved in was still operating. That means numerous individuals she worked with were potentially exposed by her outing. Some might be actual agents, but imagine what might happen if you had regular contact with Mrs. Plame and were nothing more than a local shop keeper or artisan or whatever? If your government is paranoid enough, they might be inclined to round up anyone who had contact with the now outed CIA agent. We round up those with “known” ties to terrorists. Wouldn’t a hostile government view contact with an american spy in the same way? That’s just one way her outing could have serious consequences, whether she was an active agent or not.
The CIA says she was active, though
Not everyone seemed to be in on the secret.
One reporter’s opinion on whether Valerie Plame’s identity was actually commonly known
Can anyone name any reporters who have come forward to say that Plame’s identity was commonly known? I have looked for some basis for that claim and I can’t find any outside of conservative blogs like The Nation and Townhall. There is also a claim by Republican activist Clifford May in National Review Online that he got her identity from an anonymous source. Of course, you have to wonder, why would her identity be common knowledge? Why would she be the subject of so much discussion? It seems a little convenient, doesn’t it, that out of the CIA’s ranks the one NOC whose identity is purported to be common knowledge just happens to be the wife of a man having a very public battle with the administration. It also strains credibility to think that the CIA would work so hard to establish Plame as a NOC, the deepest cover there is, and then go all chatty Cathy around Washington about it. It also contradicts stories that have the CIA calling reporters after it learned of the Plame story in an effort to get them to suppress her name (which Novak ignored).
It seems there is a lot of questionable reporting on her covert status:
http://mediamatters.org/items/email/200510260005
Again, Washington is not a good place to be a whistleblower
Bill, the law applicable in the Plame case says that you have to be an overseas NOC operative within the last five years. She wasn’t, so there could not be any illegality in that regard. All your other points are true, but from more than five years previously.