Echalon Under the Clinton Administration.

[sodaseller]

The Constitution gives the president (any president) the power to do this in times of war and according to his role as commander-in-chief. Other presidents have claimed this power (no, they have not actually done it) as the right of the president. In other words, previous presidents believed that the office of the president has the authority to conduct warrantless searches for national security purposes.

It does not. But presuming that it does, Kevin Drum addresses a key point of this argument

However, if you count the Cold War, as conservatives generally think we should, the tally shoots up to about 50 years of war. That means the United States has been almost continuously at war during the past 65 years — and given the nature of the War on Terror, we'll continue to be at war for the next several decades.

If this is how we define "wartime," it means that in the century from 1940 to 2040 the president will have had emergency wartime powers for virtually the entire time. But does that make sense? Is anyone really comfortable with the idea that three decades from now the president of the United States will have had wartime executive powers for nearly a continuous century?
Somehow we need to come to grips with this. There's "wartime" and then there's "wartime," and not all armed conflicts vest the president with emergency powers. George Bush may have the best intentions in the world — and in this case he probably did have the best intentions in the world — but that still doesn't mean he has the kind of plenary power Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt exercised during their wars.

During a genuine emergency, the president's powers are at their most expansive. The rest of the time they're more restricted, whether he considers himself a wartime president or not. Right now, if George Bush needs or wants greater authority than he currently has, he should ask Congress to give it to him — after all, they approve black programs all the time and are fully capable of holding closed hearings to debate sensitive national security issues. It's worth remembering that "regulation of the land and naval forces" is a power the constitution gives to Congress, and both Congress and the president ought to start taking that a little more seriously.

Oceania has always been at war with EastAsia

 

[sodaseller]

The point is there is bureaucracy, which is detrimental to the ever-changing world of terrorism intelligence gathering. Let's remember that for the vast majority of cases, the gov't seeks a warrant from the FISA court. This warrantless searching is a limited program needed for quick surveillance that other presidents have claimed.

No other President has made that claim. That is a falsehood being thrown around. It is not true.

And there is no doubt that any separation of power will cause some loss of efficiency. For that matter, trials are inefficient, presentations of eveidence take time. For that matter, legislation is cumberson

Your point would essentially create an unchecked monarchy and end 800 years of Anglo-American governance

 

[M:SteveO]

If you don't think we face a dangerous and serious threat from these lunatics, I can understand why you would think this is unconstitutional. But I would refer you to read an article in the Chicago Tribune today by a former Clinton deputy attorney general: http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0512210142dec21,1,2062394.story?coll=chi-technology-hed. Courts have upheld this power for years, even after FISA.

 

[momof2inPA]

The point is there is bureaucracy, which is detrimental to the ever-changing world of terrorism intelligence gathering. Let's remember that for the vast majority of cases, the gov't seeks a warrant from the FISA court. This warrantless searching is a limited program needed for quick surveillance that other presidents have claimed.

The Republicans control every branch of the government, now. They should change the bureaucray.

This program is "limited" by what? At whose discretion? By law, it should be limited by the Constitution, or nothing prevents them from spying on, say, Cindy Sheehan. The v.p. could decide she is a danger to the "war" effort and tap her phones, spy on her e-mails, etc. It's not right.

 

[dcentity2000]

True, but us conservatives advocate less gov't is good in all areas except defense (i.e. Reagan). This president has done nothing to curb spending and is really spending at a greater rate than his predecessor, a democrat, which is truy a problem in my mind.

You know, I'm no political theorist but I do find this all fascinating, absolutely fascinating.



Rich::

 

[sodaseller]

If you don't think we face a dangerous and serious threat from these lunatics, I can understand why you would think this is unconstitutional. But I would refer you to read an article in the Chicago Tribune today by a former Clinton deputy attorney general: http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0512210142dec21,1,2062394.story?coll=chi-technology-hed. Courts have upheld this power for years, even after FISA.

That's a fundamentally dishonest argument:

The key nub is as follows:

The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.

There is no lack of clarity on this point in the statute. To claim that it is unclear as to whether the statute permits surveillance of US Citizens without a warrant is absurd and indefensible. Section 1802(a)(1) requires the Attorney General to certify, under oath, that the searches are only aimed at agents of foreign powers and that there is no "substantial likelihood" that communications involving a US citizen will be intercepted. Not only that, the AG must certify that appropriate "minimization" procedures are taken to ensure that no communication involving US citizens are accidentally intercepted. To argue that it is unclear whether the referenced language defining agents somehow renders all that language a nullity is utterly absurd and contemptible. No honorable person would make that argument.

But it gets crazier

The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.

To claim that the war resolution somehow abrogated FISA is equally absurd. That is just not how statutes are interpreted,. There are a hundred canons of construction that say otherwise. This is not an honest argument.

 

[M:SteveO]

A perfect summarization by Schmidt:

FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.

Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.

But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

In addition, I'm not sure why anybody would like to have seen the Brooklyn Bridge blown up. Without this program, it might have been. The gov't had no way to get a warrant on this guy, they simply overheard a lot of chatter about the possibility of an attack, alerted the police, and the appropriate action was taken. Combing the airwaves, without warrants, is a necessary part of terrorism prevention. The gov't had no name, no phone number, etc., they had no way to get a warrant, yet used the information to prevent an attack. Now, I don't know about most of you, but I think that's a good thing.

 

[sodaseller]

A perfect summarization by Schmidt:

And precisely contrary to everything this nation has ever stood for. Grant an executive unchecked power, just make sure you have the right executive.

Our whole constitution is founded on exactly the opposite - the proposition that all humans, no matter how originally virtuous, can be corrupted by and abuse unchecked power. This is really an argument that George W. Bush, alone among humans, is not susceptible to the temptation of unchecked power

 

[Mom2be]

Sorry I was offline all day at work today - crazy! And since it looks like Sodaseller has been on a roll with the legal terms and defintitions I'll just leave that ball in his court.

I thought long and hard about this today and a conservative friend and I talked about it over lunch today. And basically what it comes down to about my feelings is this. If Carter and Clinton committed the same acts as Bush then NO I don't agree with them. However I wasn't born when Carter was in office and couldn't vote when Clinton was in office so you'll have to excuse my lack of outrage.

However just because they "got away with it" doesn't mean that our Current President should. That would be like saying since OJ got away with murder we are going to let the rest of the murders off as well. It doesn't work that way. And in fact if anything we should send a clear message to our politicians on both sides that we the American people will not tolerate illegal acts by them. They are not above the law and therefore should face a jury of their peers as every other citizen is entitled to.

As far as having my priorities straight. I love my country and never want to see it attacked. I agree with Momof2inPA - our borders are a mess and in my opinion should be a higher priority. If Bush actually did a major overhaul of this I would put a W sticker on my car. That being said - I feel other priorities are out of whack as well. This attitude of "I'm doing nothing wrong I have nothing to fear." is crap. I didn't think I was doing anything wrong by taking on a 2nd job until I got pulled into HR one day and was told I was. We shouldn't let an abuse of power go by because we live in a state of fear. And I truly believe that is what some of you do - you live in fear and therefore you are willing to take any cost. There are many of us though that are not.

If we continue to swipe away the freedoms of American Citizens it may not be long before they are knocking on your door for some other reason. And your neighbor will say, "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I have nothing to fear."

There are laws for a reason - and everyone should follow them including the President.

~Amanda

 

[eclectics]

And precisely contrary to everything this nation has ever stood for. Grant an executive unchecked power, just make sure you have the right executive.

Our whole constitution is founded on exactly the opposite - the proposition that all humans, no matter how originally virtuous, can be corrupted by and abuse unchecked power. This is really an argument that George W. Bush, alone among humans, is not susceptible to the temptation of unchecked power

Isn't an executive with unchecked power basically a dictator?

 

[M:SteveO]

Isn't an executive with unchecked power basically a dictator?

And that's exactly what Bush is - a dictator. You're right.

 

[momof2inPA]

.. bang opposite the notion that Al Queda is a two man band with no ability to terrorise whatsoever



Rich::

I wanted to acknowledge that this is the funniest thing you have ever written, Rich.

 

[M:SteveO]

However just because they "got away with it" doesn't mean that our Current President should.

~Amanda

They didn't get away with anything. What they did was legal, according to court decisions through the decades. This president isn't getting away with anything. What he's doing is making it easier for the gov't to detect terrorist attacks. I seem to get no answer from the fact that this program is now known to have prevented at least one attack, and may have actually prevented 9/11 from happening (see my earlier posts). The gov't is not coming into your home and reading all your emails, unless your doing something bad.

 

[M:SteveO]

And to those of you who think the US gov't ruthlessly spies on its own citizens for no good reason at all, the British gov't now has a program in place to monitor where every single car in the country is. Now do you liberals find this troubling? http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece

 

[Mom2be]

They didn't get away with anything. What they did was legal, according to court decisions through the decades. This president isn't getting away with anything. What he's doing is making it easier for the gov't to detect terrorist attacks. I seem to get no answer from the fact that this program is now known to have prevented at least one attack, and may have actually prevented 9/11 from happening (see my earlier posts). The gov't is not coming into your home and reading all your emails, unless your doing something bad.

And while I'm happy those attacks were avoided I would prefer them done through legal channels. And that is what I seem to get no answer about. If there are legal means to do this then why did the President not take that road? Why take the chance of doing it illegally when there is a perfectly legal road that the Patriot Act allows him to take?

And because this went unchecked we have no idea of knowing who was tapped and why. That is why there is a checks and balances system in place between the three branches of government - Bush for some reason doesn't feel that applies to him. That to me is troubling and yes sets a precendent for future Presidents to abuse the same power.

~Amanda

 

[Mom2be]

And to those of you who think the US gov't ruthlessly spies on its own citizens for no good reason at all, the British gov't now has a program in place to monitor where every single car in the country is. Now do you liberals find this troubling? http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece

"Frankly Scarlett I don't give a damn."

~Amanda

 

[Puffy2]

And to those of you who think the US gov't ruthlessly spies on its own citizens for no good reason at all, the British gov't now has a program in place to monitor where every single car in the country is. Now do you liberals find this troubling? http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/tr...ticle334686.ece

Yes, I find that deeply troubling and the Brits ought to also! I would find it even more so if I lived in the UK.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Please confirm, if possible, that there is any factual dispute as to whether the Administration sought a warrant either in advance or even after conducting these searches.

USA Today

If you are aware of any other source for the proposition that the Administration indeed sought judicial approval, I would like to see it.

Thanks for proving my point about this thread being just a rehash of each day's talking points.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Oh, I see, so if you want the Constitution upheld its because you must be guilty of something.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I don't listen to talking head shows, don't read political websites or blogs, I don't even have extended cable. I read a few newpapers and listen to the News. Then I form my OWN opinion. Why is that concept so difficult to grasp? Hmm. It's a pity.

I understand your claim that all these posts are original thoughts. It's just hard to swallow after hearing or reading these same thoughts -- practically word for word -- from various talking heads, their guests or reading blogs, transcripts, etc. posted all over the Internet.

I'm sure you form your OWN opinions and that nothing you've said has been influenced in any way, shape or form by anyone else's political leanings or by your own.

And whether or not I have done or may have done something worth investigating is for a court to decide, not an individual member of any president's administration. There is a system of checks and balances to protect your rights and my rights. Why give up that protection so easily? Think about it. These are your rights you want to give up.

The old "you're giving up your rights" diversion. My rights are perfectly in tact and I have no fear of losing any of them. But thanks for your concern.