SubscribeOne F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
...the documents, coming after the Bush administration's confirmation that President Bush had authorized some spying without warrants in fighting terrorism, prompted charges from civil rights advocates that the government had improperly blurred the line between terrorism and acts of civil disobedience and lawful protest.Amusingly (or not) Condi asserts that the Attorney General is, "the highest legal authority in the country..." No word of any response from the Supreme Court about their move in the Nation's orgchart.
One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
QUESTION: I wonder if you can tell us today, sir, what, if any, limits you believe there are or should be on the powers of a president during wartime.
And if the global war on terror is going to last for decades, as has been forecast, does that mean that we're going to see, therefore, a more or less permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive in American society?
BUSH: First of all, I disagree with your assertion of unchecked power.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
BUSH: Hold on for a second, please.
There is the check of people being sworn to uphold the law, for starters.
There is oversight. We're talking to Congress all the time.
And on this program, to suggest there's unchecked power is not listening to what I'm telling you. I'm telling you, we have briefed the United States Congress on this program a dozen times.
This is an awesome responsibility, to make decisions on behalf of the American people. And I understand that. And we'll continue to work with the Congress, as well as people within our own administration, to constantly monitor a program such as the one I described to you, to make sure that we're protecting the civil liberties of the United States.
To say "unchecked power" basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
BUSH: I just described limits on this particular program, and that's what's important for the American people to understand. I am doing what you expect me to do and, at the same time, safeguarding the civil liberties of the country.
The Supreme Court spoke at the height of the Korean War on the president's authority to override Congress. In 1952, President Harry S. Truman ordered a federal takeover of the steel industry to prevent a strike that would have disrupted the supply of weapons to troops at the front. He cited his authority as commander in chief.via WaPo
By a vote of 6 to 3, the court rejected Truman's claim. In an influential concurring opinion, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote that the president's power is "at its lowest ebb" when he "takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress."
"With all its defects, delays and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations," Jackson wrote.
Funny how in the old days we were a representative democracy where our elected officials at least gave lip service that they represented our interests. Now the President goes on TV to tell us that he does what he believes is right, even though that might contravene what we think.Pollomacho, I'm sympathetic with your frustration but I think there's a danger implicit in your statement. We elect representatives because, to some extent, we trust them to make good decisions when faced with questions and challenges. If everyone wants free money, and the president refuses to promote Free Money For All legislation, he is doing what he knows to be right even though 100% of the electorate disagrees with him.
Conservatives on Foreign PolicyThat was the line up on the Diane Rehm Show last night. Listen to it. Not one of them thought what the President did was legal. They were incredibly harsh. When. after being asked pointblank by two callers in a row whether this was an impeachable offense, it was a bit startling to hear Norman Ornstein agree, compared to Clinton's lying about sex under oath, that *mumble mumble* well, yeah, what Bush has done is a far graver offense. An impeachable offense. The other two agreed when Rehm asked their opinion.
A panel joins Diane to discuss President's Bush Oval Office address, U.S policy in Iraq, domestic eavesdropping, and U.S policy on torture.
Guests
Bruce Fein, former associate deputy attorney general, Republican counsel during the Iran-contra hearings, and founding partner with the Lichfield Group
David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union
Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
The fundamental issue here is security, but it's not the security most people think of. James Madison famously said: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Terrorism is a serious risk to our nation, but an even greater threat is the centralization of American political power in the hands of any single branch of the government.
Ours is a government of laws, not of men. That means if the President disagrees with a law or feels that it is insufficient, he still must obey it. Ignoring the law is illegal, even for the President. The President may ask Congress to change the law, but meanwhile he must follow it.
Our President has chosen to declare himself above the law, a dangerous precedent that could do great harm to our country. However, without substantial effort on the part of you, and I mean you, every person reading this, nothing much is going to happen. The rule of law will continue to decay in our country. Future Presidents will claim even greater extralegal authority, and our nation will fall into despotism. I mean that sincerely. For the sake of yourself, your children and your children's children, you cannot allow this to stand.
In the National Review, Byron York has an article called “Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches.” In it, he cites then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick’s July 14, 1994 testimony where she argues “the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.” (This afternoon, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) quoted her testimony on the Senate floor.)
Here is what York obscures: at the time of Gorelick’s testimony, physical searches weren’t covered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It’s not surprising that, in 1994, Gorelick argued that physical searches weren’t covered by FISA. They weren’t. With Clinton’s backing, the law was amended in 1995 to include physical searches.
York claims that, after the law was amended, “the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.” That’s false. Neither Gorelick or the Clinton administration ever argued that president’s inherent “authority” allowed him to ignore FISA. (...the full text of Gorelick’s testimony here).
The Clinton administration viewed FISA, a criminal statute, as the law. The Bush administration viewed it as a recommendations they could ignore. That’s the difference.
"SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: [In] 1994, Jamie Gorelick, on behalf of the Clinton Justice Department, testified that they considered -- that President Clinton considered it within his constitutional authority to order wireless surveillance of potential terrorist operatives from a foreign power. And, you know, it goes back to an executive order signed by Ronald Reagan and others....
WOLF BLITZER: And just after the interview, we contacted the former deputy attorney general under Bill Clinton, Jamie Gorelick. She said she didn't know what Senator Cornyn was talking about. She went on to say this and she gave us this statement -- 'During the Clinton administration, the Justice Department sought from Congress the extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, to include physical searches. Congress granted that authority. The Justice Department did not seek authority to wiretap without a warrant.'
And Jamie Gorelick went on to say this. She said that as an employee of the Justice Department, she never asked for authority to obtain a warrantless wiretap."
"A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.
U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John D. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.
Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work."
"Unwilling or unable to obtain the power they seek though the legislative process, this administration has made up the law themselves....It highlights the hypocrisy of this administration in regularly attacking judges for their open efforts to enforce constitutional protections, while it engages in anti-democratic secret efforts to undermine constitutional protections. Bush is an Executive Activist. Spread the word."
“Foreign power” means—Subsection 1802, which outlines warrantless wiretapping regulations, says
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor
"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 thatWanna try that one again?
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
« Older Little Urchins... | "CivilWar@Smithsonian... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by chunking express at 7:29 AM on December 20, 2005