Unconstitutional
Tweet
That word pops up a lot with George W. Bush.
MORE: the racial bigots over at Free Republic are swearing up and down that Michigan’s large Arab population had a hand in this. Its the new anti-semitism!
UPDATE: A Freeper weaves the conspiracy.
I’m beginning to think this is not Bush hatred at work – it is the Islam nation at work in our own country.
Why is all of this blamed on Bush hatred? What about the Muslim power in this country? Maybe we are seeing the under-the-table muslims at work influencing lawsuits, politicians, etc. It would really explain why no eavesdropping, all hinderances to the terrorist war and all attempts to wrest power away from the President of the U.S.
Just maybe we are seeing the takeover of our country by the muslims within our own country.
As offensive as that crazy whackjob stuff is, unlike so many other cons in on the blogs and in the media, this one is at least up front with his (or her) beliefs.
61 Responses to “Unconstitutional”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Yes, but King George will continue to wiretap without a warrant. Who will stop him? Pesky laws? Pshaw.
This is why we must have a Democratic Congress and Senate, to restore oversight of the executive branch from the “hear no evil, see no evil” Republicans.
1. Who died and made Judge Anna Taylor Commander in Chief?
2. Just exactly what the Democrats need right before an election: to argue against the aggressive wiretapping of terrorists just days after the London arrests.
Good luck, fellas!
3. Any guesses as to the odds of this ruling surviving past the Appeals court? Less than the odds that Hillary is defeated in 2006.
Many things that George W. Bush says are not really words, but I don’t think “unconstitional” is one of them. (Though I’d love to see video of him pronouncing “unconstitutional” that way.)
(feel free to delete once the headline’s fixed, OW)
So, can we start a betting pool on how many death threats Judge Taylor will now receive from Republicans by the end of the day?
And don’t forget, Lamont supporters are just like the Khmer Rouge!
Commander in Chief. That’s what conservatives respect about the office. Not his constitutional role, not his place in the checks and balances. Just his military title. It’s simply another facet of the juvenile, power worshipping nature of today’s conservatives — self-styled superpatriots who, perversely, don’t really understand what’s great about this country at all.
Oliver, When you throw around blanket statement like this, “the racial bigots over at Free Republic”, about people and or websites that don’t hold your political point of view, you cheapen your own opinion / argument.
Oh so they’re not racist bigots when they blame the A-rabs for controlling the courts?
And if Bush wants to exert Commander In Chief powers over American civilians, please tell him to go ahead and declare war. Until then, he’s still subject to these things we call laws. And give the “this is just what we want” argument a rest. You guys are sucking wind on this issue right now.
Farris,
So the UK (which, despite what some people seem to think is NOT part of the US) makes arrests, which have nothing to do with our laws, let alone wiretapping, is somehow proof of Bush’s brilliance?
Anyone who chooses to defend the hateful hivemind at Free Republic is in no position to lecture anyone about “cheapening” arguments, John. Have you read what they have to say about Martin Luther King and communism?
Man, reading some of those comments over there… I need a shower.
“Who died and made Judge Anna Taylor Commander in Chief?”
See how he had to say it? Its like he realizes his argument is crap but he needs to make it anyway. He’s basically trying to say “Who gave this judge the right to judge” but realizes that it sounds exceedingly, profoundly, mindbogglingly stupid. so rather than not spouting the ridiculous argument, he thinks that by rewording it he’s accomplishing something.
“to argue against the aggressive wiretapping of terrorists just days after the London arrests.”
One more time, slowly. No one is arguing against wiretapping terrorists. We’d just like it done legally and with respect to the Constitution, that’s all.
Let’s just hope this decision holds up. I want to see what other marvelous things the conservatives can do with straw.
But that would be … unConstitutional! See Article I, Section 8.
Heeey Farris, now you’re catching on!
Reasonable exertion of power. We have to get timely information in order to protect us against a different type of enemy, one that has no borders or uniforms. The NSA wiretapping program does have to be reauthorized every 45 days, so it is not an infinite, unlimited power granted to the executive branch.
None of us wants this to be the future of America, but neither did we want 9/11. Sometimes distateful extrodinary measures have to be taken that have a reasonable check and limit. I would like to see congressional oversight on this program.
I understand after 9/11 that terrorists have succeeded in eroding some of my rights to privacy. In that respect, they won a battle.
However, we’re not interning people, we’re listening in on US or foreign originated calls to known foreign entities. I don’t think they’re listening in on me and my bookie, but I’m willing to take that chance for national security.
Eventually, though, it has to end, and a public accounting made available. Do I find it distasteful? Yes. Do I think it could help capture a terrorist or prevent an attack? Yes. It’s better than hearing no evil.
“We’d just like it done legally and with respect to the Constitution, that’s all.”
The distinction is lost on these idiots. If they cared about facts they’d know that intercepting calls between Britain and Pakistan without a warrant, as was done in the recent bust, is perfectly legal under FISA and not threatened by the judge’s ruling whatsoever. They’re just idiots.
“I don’t think they’re listening in on me and my bookie, but I’m willing to take that chance for national security.”
But you don’t know that, do you? And if they are, do they have a warrant? And if not, why not?
The NSA can tap your phone right now, and then they have 90 days (up from 60) to obtain a warrant from the FISA court. Most warrants go through without a hitch. So what’s the problem? That’s too much work for the govt? Come on.
And I would like to see Congressional oversight on this also. Another thing that the Bush admin has conveniently sidestepped. They are supposed to have oversight now.
Frame1: good point. Another little piece of fact that gets swept under the rug.
“I understand after 9/11 that terrorists have succeeded in eroding some of my rights to privacy.”
Wrong. The terrorists didn’t do anything. It was the Bush administration, in responding to the terrorist threat, that have eroded the checks and balances that protect our rights. The terrorists did not do this. Our fellow Americans did.
Now if you don’t give shit about giving up your Constitutional rights because you’re afraid of dying in a terrorist attack, fine. But don’t you think that’s a little short sighted? Not too mention craven?
You say it has to end sometime. Really? Tell me when you think the “War on Terror” will be over. It’s gone on five years now and terrorism is still with us. How long are you willing to live without your rights? 10 years? 20?
After some time has passed, when a politician finally stands up and says, ‘Hey, I don’t think we should review this for another 45 days’ are you going to back them up and give them political cover or are you going to attack them for aiding and abeting the enemy like so much of the knee jerk bullshit that comes from the right these days?
Please let us all know when you think it’s going to be convenient again to defend the Constitution.
“I understand after 9/11 that terrorists have succeeded in eroding some of my rights to privacy.”
Just to clarify my comments on this, we are the only ones who can erode our rights. The terrorists have no power to change our Constitution or our laws. The mush brains at Free Republic and elsewhere who think that we’ll all end up being forced to pray to Mecca some time soon if we don’t suspend the Constitution and nuke the Middle East NOW, are doing more to erode our rights than any terrorist ever could.
“The terrorists didn’t do anything. It was the Bush administration,…”
Call me a sympathizer all you want, the distinction is becoming blurrier and blurrier.
Well, I for one would like to know more about this case. Specifically, how it wound up in court in Detroit. Wouldn’t it be more likely for a lawsuit involving the President to be heard in Washington, DC? How does this case involve Detroit?
I also noticed this phrase in the AP report: “… which involves secretly taping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.”
Funny, I thought the NSA surveillance program used word recognition software to monitor voice transmissions, and then create a large database of keywords used in the calls, which was then ‘mined’ to look for frequent occurrences or other patterns involving keywords that might be related to terrorism. But hey, what do I know?
I’d sure like to meet the army of tens of thousands of Federal agents that it would take to manually listen and take notes on millions of telephone calls that were “taped” by the NSA.
Are we still at war on Drugs?
“…which was then ‘mined’ to look…”
Couldn’t be, the President said they don’t data mine.
No-one’s complaining about wiretapping terrorists.
Unfortunately terrorists don’t walk around with badges saying “I SEEK TO DESTROY OUR VERY WAY OF LIFE! ASK ME HOW!”. Which leads to governments – or this one anyway – wiretapping everyone in the country, as well as others. Which is more often known as “eavesdropping”.
“How does this case involve Detroit?”
Geez, Mike isn’t it obvious? The Islamofascists have infilitrated our court system! What an idiot.
Maybe the rubbish mid-80s Justice League were involved.
Thanks frame for once again trying to educate idiot con trolls on what is obvious to the rest of us that have two or more brain cells firing.
Mike isn’t to be taken seriously. All he does is post the latest Limbaugh talking points as “debate”.
Soldiers die for our freedoms like the Bill of Rights, so that the right can give them away.
FrameOne – I understand terrorists don’t make policy, our government does. Terrorists did attack us on our own soil, and plan further attacks.
In terms of intelligence gathering, something has to be done. I hear a lot of what policy we don’t like, but I rarely here what policy people would like to supplant that would be more effective.
I’m not partisan. If the Democrats were in power and effected this policy, I’d tentatively sign on…I think its a bad solution, yet, better than no solution.
I already wrote an article called “Hear no Evil”, essentially stating that laws are here to protect us, but we shouldn’t be such legal zealots that we can’t suspend certain elements of our constitutional rights to effect a greater cause.
There is historical precedent. Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus during the Sectarian Violence (aka Civil War), for a greater good. Now, whether you dislike the wiretap policy or just dislike the administration who effected the policy, only history will tell if this was the right course. At the time, Lincoln was vilified across the board. But the war ended and Habeas Corpus was reinstated.
As far as your other questions of timelines and extensions, I don’t have a crystal ball.
Post Note: I see in Wikipedia President Grant also suspended Habeas Corpus in 1870 in South Carolina as part of a federal civil rights action against the KKK. I think that would be considered a suspension of the consitution for noble purposes…
“Terrorists did attack us on our own soil, and plan further attacks.”
And it was their attack on the World Trade Center that caused current abuses of the Constitution. I’m sorry but am I missing something here?
Steve, your choice of language is important because it suggests that Bush “had no choice” but to violate the law and our civil liberties. The terrorists made him do it. Well, no they didn’t. He decided to do it himself. He was faced with a choice and he chose to violate the law.
Now you ask what policies we do support because, afterall, we have to do something. Steve, have you not been listening? I and others here support the use of every LEGAL means of surrveilance at our disposal. If the president thinks the law is too restrictive let him ask it to be changed and debate in Congress in open. During World War II there was an open, public debate about the legality of reading and censoring the mail. We had the debate in the open and we won that war didn’t we?
But we don’t have to wait for history to judge. It should be clear to all Americans RIGHT NOW that whenever a President sets himself above the law, for whatever reason, we are in travelling down a dangerous path.
Saving lives is an important and just cause but let’s be real here. There is no one American life that is worth sacrificing the Constitution. If you think there is I’d like to know the who and the why of it. Tell me the person whose life we must spare at the cost of the liberties which are our legacy to the world and generations to come.
But you go on to suggest that the War on Terror presents as great a threat to the existence of this nation as the Civil War. Are you kidding? You just wandered into wacko Freeper land again.
Here’s the thing. Bush has the White House, House, and Senate. If they wanted to make candy canes the official snack food of America, they have the power to do it. So why not just get the law passed? There’s really not enough Democrats to filibuster laws like that, so instead of breaking the law or pretending it away, why don’t they just change the law? To people like me, who are predisposed to find them suspicious mo-fos, this just makes them seem even slimier and more suspicious.
I feel again the need to clairfy. When Lincoln suspended habeus corpus his aim was to SAVE AND PRESERVE THE UNION. That was his greater good. What is our greater good now? To save lives? I don’t mean to be callous here but those you two wildly different things. Before you start putting the Constitution on the block you have to prove to me that Islamic terrorism poses an direct existential threat to the existence of the United States. I don’t think it even comes close.
Well, first of all, I want my right to privacy back when this is all done, and there will come a point in time very soon where people will demand a framework to the war on terror…which I don’t think is an abstract like a War on Drugs. The problem is, who here, or anywhere in the echoed halls of Ivy League Wisdom, can actually define what the end of terrorism is. There will always be somebody. However, I think there is a specific threat from a nebulous confederacy of [politically charged name for Muslims who want to kill Americans] right now that needs to be quashed.
That’s my real reservation for bending the constitution. If there was a definite enemy with a definite number, and finite borders, it would be much more palatable to accept limitations of our freedoms for a short and revokable time.
OW has a credible point that there is no opposition to…well…anyone, right now. So, I don’t dispute the law was greased through on rollerskates.
I don’t think I’ve presented myself as someone uneducated enough to elevate our current war on terror with the Civil War, but there is a real and imminent threat right now, and that can’t be ignored. Misinformation, speculation, punditry, comment debates like this serve to muddle the potential danger, not clarify it. But it’s a necessary conversation.
Also, the example I cited about Grant wasn’t wrending the fabric of America at its seams, but he revoked Habeas Corpus under the stiuplations of the constitution (it provides for civil unrest and riot).
In the absense of this rigid definition of war, I feel more confident if the intelligence gatherers have the time to react swiftly to handle a potential crisis situation in a mercurial war without being bogged down by judicial bureaucracy.
Now, before you quote me in your response, I’m not saying the constitution -or due process- is an everyday roadbump that should be dismissed when inconvenient. I’m saying for this time, in this situation, I am willing to accept fastracking surveillence for a limited duration.
Do you have so little confidence in our government that the right thing won’t eventually be done? I would never put words in your mouth, but wouldn’t your conjecture be if the Democrats regained control of any branch of government they would fight tooth and nail to reverse warrantless wiretaps?
No, that wouldn’t be enough to trust the government. I think we all agree that no matter who has control of the govnernment, we are all skeptical enough as political observers that suspension of any measure of the consitution is unwanted, unhealthy, and any such action should be reversed as soon as measurably possible.
There, I am sure, other alternatives, but I haven’t heard any. We’ve had difficulty infiltrating radical groups, there are many barriers to human intelligence in the field, and this seems to be a necessary means to gather intelligence. If there were any other legal way that gave us real-time information and not force changing of laws, I’d be all for it.
The right thing might “eventually” be done? You must be joking, again. Not even the Founding Fathers had faith that the ‘the right thing would eventually be done’ which is why they built a system of checks and balances into our Constitution. And they certainly were’nt counting on man’s better intentions to “eventually” win the day. Not at all. They created a system in which one man’s avarice would check another. They understood the dynamics of power and once someone has it, they are loathe to give it back up without coercion.
So no, like the Founding Fathers, I have no faith that Bush or any president will eventually do the “right thing,” especially after they have already proven themselves so willing to do the wrong thing time after time.
But aside from your seeming total lack of familiarity with the principles behind the Consitution, you seem unaware of the basic facts of our current statutes. You wrote:
That’s a pretty good indication that you have no idea what you’re talking about. The Patriot Act revised FISA to give intelligence agencies three days to wiretap whoever the hell they want before they have to get a warrant if US citizens were involved. There simply is no “judicial bureaucracy” to get around. It’s tired right-wing cliche to suggest otherwise.
If you aren’t aware of even this most basic fact, why on earth should anyone take you seriously when you follow it up with this:
So now the President simply has no choice but to break the law otherwise we’re all going to die? Please. Again, that’s pure right-wing pablum. There are indeed many barriers to human intelligence but that’s no excuse for taking a short cut through the Constitution. To quote Charlton Heston in the movie Touch of Evil: “Police work is only easy in a police state.”
“… there is a real and imminent threat right now …”
Oh and can you be more specific. There’s a real and imminent threat right now to what, exactly? Just curious.
The key to all opposition and why the Bush Administration didn’t go through congress is there is no meaningful oversight of these programs. How do we know these political appointee headed programs aren’t targeting political opponents, reporters and peaceful groups? We don’t and we can’t. And there lies your problem, Steve, they aren’t asking for the law to grant them the power because they know oversight would come with it. Instead they have declared themselves to have the power.
Incidently, the data-mining portion of the lawsuit was dismissed because there wasn’t enough known public information on the program for the judge to make a ruling.
Do you have so little confidence in our government that the right thing won’t eventually be done?
In a word, yes. Dude, I think the executive branch already has too much power as it is. If we set this precedent now, there’s no way future presidents will roll it back – whether its Hillary Clinton or John McCain.
The solution to this is a declaration of formal war. Like the whole Barbary Coast Pirates thing, its not unprecdented for us to declare war on an organization. Relatively soon after 9/11 I’ve been an advocate of this. There’s no way a bill declaring war on Al Qaeda doesn’t unanimously pass in the House and the Senate. The “war on terror” is already squishy enough (It’s in Afghanistan! It’s in Iraq! It’s in… North Korea!). Declaring a formal war takes this conflict out of the “war on drugs” bracket which dooms it to failure.
I wrote, “How does this case involve Detroit?”
Frameone answered, “Geez, Mike isn’t it obvious? The Islamofascists have infilitrated our court system! What an idiot.”
Frame, I think the phrase you were looking for is “venue shopping.” If there is a better explanation, I’d like to hear it.
Frame also dropped this interesting little bombshell: “When Lincoln suspended habeus corpus his aim was to SAVE AND PRESERVE THE UNION. That was his greater good. What is our greater good now? To save lives? I don’t mean to be callous here but those you two wildly different things. Before you start putting the Constitution on the block you have to prove to me that Islamic terrorism poses an direct existential threat to the existence of the United States. I don’t think it even comes close.”
No one has seriously suggested suspending habeus corpus, so the argument is purely a straw man. But I could easily turn your words around and imply that you could care less how many Americans are killed by terrorists just as long as we keep the ACLU happy. That’s an *ahem* interesting point of view, and one that I suspect would not be popular with John Q. Public. Care to clarify that statement, Frame?
“Declaring a formal war takes this conflict out of the “war on drugs” bracket which dooms it to failure.”
Exactly. It is extremely dificult to aim at an intangible target.
“But I could easily turn your words around and imply that you could care less how many Americans are killed by terrorists just as long as we keep the ACLU happy.”
You could but it’d prove you’re a monumental idiot.
Let me ask you, dipshit, how many American lives are you willing to sacrifice to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States?
“I think the phrase you were looking for is ‘venue shopping.’”
Oh and as for this, here’s a brilliant comment from one of your fellow idiots over at Free Republic:
“Why Detroit?
Perhaps, because it’s also known as Detroitistan”
Morons.
Mike: “Frame also dropped this interesting little bombshell: “When Lincoln suspended habeus corpus his aim was to SAVE AND PRESERVE THE UNION. That was his greater good. What is our greater good now? To save lives? I don’t mean to be callous here but those you two wildly different things. Before you start putting the Constitution on the block you have to prove to me that Islamic terrorism poses an direct existential threat to the existence of the United States. I don’t think it even comes close.”
No one has seriously suggested suspending habeus corpus, so the argument is purely a straw man.”
Certainly, nobody has seriously suggested this. However, he was referring to what Steve Wasser had brought up:
“There is historical precedent. Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus during the Sectarian Violence (aka Civil War), for a greater good. Now, whether you dislike the wiretap policy or just dislike the administration who effected the policy, only history will tell if this was the right course. At the time, Lincoln was vilified across the board. But the war ended and Habeas Corpus was reinstated.”
That said, to me a lot of the stuff that’s been going on with regard to the War on Terror seems to be overstepping the bounds of the Constitution and international law. Torture (Geneva, 5th and possibly 8th Amendment), detaining prisoners without formal charges, warrantless wiretapping (4th Amendment), etc., all seems to be a gross violation of our rights, all for a “war” that Bush doesn’t even think we can win.
Why do Vixen, Vibe and Gypsy hate America?
“However, he was referring to what Steve Wasser had brought up …”
I was but more specifically I was referring to Steve’s suggestion that sometimes, “for a greater good,” we need to forgo our Constitutional rights. He cited Lincoln in this regards and I pointed out that saving the Union and saving a few thousand American lives are two radically different things.
We have always been willing to sacrifice the lives of men and women for the greater good of defending the nation from danger. But no one on the right has yet to convince me that Islamic terrorists pose an grave and serious threat to the existence of the United States. As I see it, the real threat to the surrival of this nation are the idiots who are so ready to give up our rights in exchange for an illusion of safety. It’d be a joke if it weren’t so dangerous.
frameone:
Fair enough, and I agree with you. My reference to what you were referring to (at least the mention of the “habeas corpus”) was more to illustrate that someone had, in fact, brought up habeas corpus.
Alright everyone, please refer to the paragraph after I ask if we should trust the government to roll back policies that circumvent the spirit of the Consitution:
“No, that wouldn’t be enough to trust the government. I think we all agree that no matter who has control of the govnernment, we are all skeptical enough as political observers that suspension of any measure of the consitution is unwanted, unhealthy, and any such action should be reversed as soon as measurably possible.”
It was kind of a setup-punchline deal. I don’t trust the government to do so, period.
It all comes down to if you believe terrorism is an an actual, imminent threat to the sovereignty of the United States. We can all take potshots, but none of us truly know the extent or falsity of the threat. I don’t know. Do you know?
I think that’s what the warrantless wiretap knee-jerk policy is trying to address. I said pretty clearly I don’t like the policy and would prefer a different course of action. Framone asked if I thought any American’s life was more important than the consitution. No, a life isn’t. Two lives aren’t. But what about 3500 and two 110 story buildings? Would that justify warrantless wiretaps? How about 30,000? Is that an acceptible number? At what point does the saving of X lives justify suspension of warrantless wiretaps?
The problem is, we’re arguing hypotheticals because none of us (I assume) a) are lawyers and b) have clearance. We’re distilling information that is publically available, and I agree 100% if the threat isn’t there, get rid of the policy.
Two final points, since I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one, and I’m at work right now.
First, Bush isn’t listening to the calls himself. There are dedicated non-partisans in the intelligence agencies -grunts, and anaylsts- who are doing the work to protect our country. It’s not Rove or Cheney listening in on cell conversations to see what the Democrats are saying. Maybe they are, then I’m wrong and we have Nixon all over again, but maybe they’re not. We can’t be so paranoid to always assume nefarious intent by fellow Americans, just like us, who signed up with NSA or CIA hopefully to protect us. I grew up with people who ended up in service of some kind, they’re good people. They would question a questionable order.
Lastly, the framers of the Consitution build a living and robust document. If the foundation of our laws and country is so weak that a warrantless wiretap executive order will cause our society to crumble, we’re in bigger trouble than from terrorists. I have faith that the Constitution is guarded from all sides by three branches of government, Federal and District Courts, The ACLU, and many, many other activist organizations. We are a strong country with a strong constitution, and all the slippery slope arguments haven’t changed that in over 200 years.
Yes, there are challenges, and when ruled unconsitutional, they have and will be reversed. It’s only for us to debate, we aren’t constitutional scholars. Sometimes, like Jon Benet, what seems evident to the public on its face, turns out be something completely different when exposed to all the facts behind closed doors. We’re theorizing how the law was pushed through, who reviewed the law, how it was challenged, and yet, only yesterday was it ruled unconsitutional…and even that will be challenged.
Ultimately it will come down to nine people who will tell us whether it is or it isn’t. If it is ruled consitutional, all we can do is gnash our teeth and grumble about the gross miscarriage of justice if we disagree.
Don’t forget, there is a large segment of the population that deems a current constitutional right -abortion- to be unconstitutional. Up until the late 1800′s, a black ‘person’ was only considered ’3/5ths a person’ under our constitution.
See, the consitution isn’t a rigid, unchanging wall. It’s a living, evolving, document, open to interpretation, just as the Framers wanted it. We just want it to evolve the way we want.
There are dedicated non-partisans in the intelligence agencies -grunts, and anaylsts- who are doing the work to protect our country.
This may be true, but we’ve witnessed some serious politicization of previously nonpartisan elements of government in the last 5 years. Lest you forget, Porter Goss was appointed CIA chief in order to purge non-administration friendly elements in the agency.
Oliver – what you say is true. I can’t vouch for every last analyst (shit, some are moles and spies for all we know). I’m betting, though, that the agencies as a whole are nonpartisan. Political imbalance and questionable policy by agency heads usually comes out in the wash. For the most part, our system of oversight works, especially in conjunction with a dedicated press.
“It all comes down to if you believe terrorism is an an actual, imminent threat to the sovereignty of the United States. We can all take potshots, but none of us truly know the extent or falsity of the threat.”
Oh please. By what stretch of imagination is Osama Bin Laden is a threat to the sovereignty of the United States? Does he have an army big enough to occupy the country? Or even one of its major cities? The only threat to the country is ourselves, responding like mindless, fear-based hysterics to every news story about terrorism. Our response to terrorism is entirely within our control. It is the aim of the terrorists to so fill us with fear and irrationality that we tear down our liberties ourselves. That’s precisely the path this president and his supporters has started down, I don’t care who’s listening to the calls. You seem to forget, Steve, that a court just declared the domestic side of this program illegal. That means that otherwise good people were breaking the law because the President said it was okay.
And please don’t use the example of slavery to suggest that the our Constitutional civil liberties may have to “evolve.” I’m absolutely certain that the Founding Fathers would be aghast to hear someone arguing times had so changed that the First and Fourth amendments were no longer in our best interest. Ya, I’mno Constitutional scholar but Give. Me. A. Break.
“…our system of oversight works, especially in conjunction with a dedicated press.”
Where do we get one of those?
Or by “dedicated”, do you really mean “loyal to the administration?”
Guys, then we have no real debate here if there is no common ground. If you feel there is no great threat to America, and I do, our words have no meaning to each other. We’re not arguing within the same framework, so this will go on interminably.
“Is America threatened to the extent we need warrantless wiretaps.” I say yes, you say no. Since we don’t have that basic agreement, I’ll concede the point and meet up in the next comment debate.
Don’t get me wrong, debate is healthy, and its good that people with opposing views are discussing this with [mostly] civil language.
“If you feel there is no great threat to America …”
But wait a second, you have yet to even define or describe the threat. You think Bin Laden is a threat to the “sovereignty” of the Unites States? Really? Explain how. Give me the scenario that, in your mind, justifies the fear that Islamic terrorists could overthrow America. All you’ve done, like so many on the right, is simply say “They’re a threat.” But how? To what? What’s the terrorist scenario that forces America to submit to Sharia law or whatever?
“We’re not arguing within the same framework …”
Great so how about if you accept my framework and we’ll go from there? Common ground is not the basis for civil debate. It’s common ground that we’re arguing about.
Or rather, to clarify, the common ground we have is that terrorism is a threat and we care about this country. We’re debating the extent of that threat and the proper, proportional response to it.
If you think Bin Laden has the ability to overthrow democracy in America and force us all to pray to Mecca, well, I can see why you’d be in favor of radical measures. I, personally, wouldn’t go as far as you even if that scenario was true because I don’t think that the Constitution that’s making us unsafe.
Then again, I don’t think the terrorists have half the power that the righ wing would so haipply and speedily grant them.
If I accept your framework there is no real threat, then the Executive Order is dung, reverse it.
If you’re asking me to hypothesize a threat, I think numerous scenarios exist, and if you want me to enumerate them, I’ll have to get at it this weekend.
Again, you’re frameworking me into a corner by limiting my argument that consitutional changes are only legitimate if the entire existence of America is threatened. We know this isn’t true, and I’m not going to debate under those limits. If we can’t accept that temporary modifications to law can be justified by anything less than the very destruction of America, our conversation can’t go anywhere. I cited a specific example that where Grant suspended Habeas Corpus to silence KKK rallies. There was certinly no threat to the existence of America for that one.
We’re veering far into the ad absurdinum fallacy, where my argument is only legitimized if I accept your language as you define it. I doubt you would want to argue a point with the same limitations put on you, and I wouldn’t ask that of you.
If you’ll concede that there is a threat that has a gradiency from several hundred people in many planes, to several thousand people from a dirty bomb or nuke, then the posture is more reasonable to argue. Who knows what they are planning? Maybe 9/11 was all they had and everything else is sound and fury. Can you be so sure? What, in your mind, is reasonable to prevent another attack? I’ll grant you the ‘Publicans are using fear to make political hay, no question about it. But that ain’t me.
Common ground is like speaking the same language. If ‘apple’ or ‘threat’ doesn’t mean the same thing to both people, there can’t be discourse until the definitions are agreed upon.
In terms of defining the threat that’s what the intelligence is trying to determine. We don’t know the threat unless we investigate it. I think it would be dumb, in a post 9/11 world, to cup our hands over our ears and hum loudly.
I asked before, assuming America isn’t toppled, how many American lives are worth saving? I wouldn’t want to stomach another 100 if I knew warrantless wiretaps could have prevented it. Maybe your threshold is way higher than mine.
Slippery-slope arguments rely just as much on emotive prediction of the future, as much as emotional appeals to further terrorist attacks are given for the reason behind warrantless wiretaps. The unproven assumption is if we allow unwarranted wiretaps, then next they’ll be placing cameras in our bedrooms.
For now, this argument seems moot. A judge ruled it unconstitutional, and I’ll accept that.
“I asked before, assuming America isn’t toppled, how many American lives are worth saving? I wouldn’t want to stomach another 100 if I knew warrantless wiretaps could have prevented it. Maybe your threshold is way higher than mine.”
Even assuming the false quid pro quo you state, tens of thousands of American soldiers have died for the Constitutional rights that you would throw away to save 100 lives.
BTW, you still haven’t told us why warrantless wiretaps are necessary, given that retroactive wiretaps warrants can be obtained under FISA.
“If the foundation of our laws and country is so weak that a warrantless wiretap executive order will cause our society to crumble, we’re in bigger trouble than from terrorists. ”
If the foundation of our national security is so weak that without warrantless wiretaps our society will crumble, we’re in bigger trouble than from terrorists.
I don’t have a hardon for warrantless wiretapping. Frankly, it’s getting harder and harder to type. Too much alliteration. I’ll remind everyone for the zillionth time I don’t like the idea. America will be just fine either way.