57 Comments

1. Charlie (Colorado):

Okay, I’m confused. So Nancy is saying that she was aware that after 9/11 the NSA was sharing information with the FBI and thereby violating the “chinese wall” policy that everyone was clamoring to tear down after 9/11?

The policy that kept the FBI from “connecting the dots” before 9/11?

So she’s now appalled that NSA was violating the policy that led to the intelligence failures that (as I recall) she was appalled about?

Once again, I can’t decide whether it’s that she’s a moron, or just thinks we’re morons.

Jan 3, 2006 - 9:17 pm 2. ex-democrat:

that’s not necessarily an either/or proposition, charlie

Jan 3, 2006 - 10:33 pm 3. markus:

Who cares what Pelosi thought. What should be troubling is what Ashcroft and his top deputy, James Comey, thought. And indications are that they had grave doubts about the NSA data collection methods:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/politics/01spy.html?hp&ex=1136091600&en=51dcd73cfc5cb1a6&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Jan 3, 2006 - 10:55 pm 4. rastajenk:

And that once their doubts were addressed, they were on board.

Link

Jan 4, 2006 - 12:06 am 5. rastajenk:

Poop. It was supposed to be a link to Michelle Malkin’s link to Pete Williams on Hardball.

http://www.michellemalkin.com/mt/oct05-tb.cgi/3539

Jan 4, 2006 - 2:29 am 6. Terrye:

If this program is such a terrible thing why didn’t these socalled patriots go through the proper channels to let their concerns be known rather than forsaking their oath to secrecy and yapping to some reporter trying to peddle a book?

Jan 4, 2006 - 3:44 am 7. Oyster:

But see, Terrye, if they do that, then our illustrious Reps won’t be able to continue the meme, “We were tricked! We were lied to!”

Jan 4, 2006 - 4:08 am 8. David Thomson:

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Everything falls into place once you clearly grasp this principle. The problem with people like Marcus and those comprising the New York Times editorial board is that they refuse to believe our nation is truly menaced by Islamic nihilism. Deep in their heart of hearts, President Bush has messed up everything with his belligerent behavior. The current war on terror is an excuse for a Republican power grab. Fighting terrorism is mostly a waste of time. We are better off trying to understand why they hate us. It is our past policies which got us into this trouble. The terrorists are victims of American imperialism. We are experiencing a richly deserved blow back response. An olive branch should be extended so that once again the world will be peaceful. Terrorists merely need a little love and understanding.

Jan 4, 2006 - 4:32 am 9. Vulgorilla:

As soo as I saw the AP (Associated Phables) byline I quit reading, assuming it was mostly fabricated with intentional omissions to suport their anti-American, leftist view point. I have better things to do with my time than waste it on reading propaganda.

Jan 4, 2006 - 6:40 am 10. marianna:

The bottom line with surveillance is this: those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. If the NSA were to read all of my communication, email and phone, they would only learn that I love America and hate terrorists. Why whould I be concerned about that?

In the end, Klinton and Pelosi are the threats to our liberty. Bush will preserve our liberty.

Jan 4, 2006 - 7:04 am 11. markus:

rastajenek — I haven’t been able to read the link to Pravda that you provided. But according to the article I linked:

“some officials said that Mr. Ashcroft, like his deputy, appeared reluctant to give Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales his authorization to continue with aspects of the program in light of concerns among some senior government officials about whether the proper oversight was in place at the security agency and whether the president had the legal and constitutional authority to conduct such an operation.

It is unclear whether the White House ultimately persuaded Mr. Ashcroft to give his approval to the program after the meeting or moved ahead without it.

David Thomson — Who cares what I think.

I disagree with you and I vote Democratic, ergo, I’m a stupid idiot. That I understand. I don’t expect you to share my concerns about the domestic spying program.

But John freaking Ashcroft? Mr. Patriot Act? When evidence emerges that he and his deputies had significant concerns, I expect you to take him seriously, given your general agreement with him on most issues related to stopping terrorism.

marianna — “The bottom line with surveillance is this: those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.”

So why don’t we just get rid of the goddamn fourth amendment? After all, why should I care about why a police officer wants to search me, since I have nothing to hide? And why do we need the fifth? After all, only someone who has done something wrong can incriminate himself.

Jan 4, 2006 - 8:04 am 12. Roger:

“markus,” I rarely respond to comments, but you clearly have misundferstood ALL my posts on this issue - so let me spell it out. Via the Echelon program and similar things, the NSA (the most heavily funded of all US intelligence agencies) has been doing things like this for DECADES. If you have a real objection to what they are doing, you should have been speaking up years ago because this was going on under DEmocratic AND Republican adminstrations. This is what the NSA does. Read about it. You can start with the “Puzzle Palace.” If you don’t like what the NSA does, you should have been opposing it years ago. Failing that, all you talk about the Fourth Amendment is so much pretentious blather.

Jan 4, 2006 - 8:17 am 13. markus:

So why don’t we just get rid of the goddamn fourth amendment? After all, why should I care about why a police officer wants to search me, since I have nothing to hide? And why do we need the fifth? After all, only someone who has done something wrong can incriminate himself.

I understood the point that “Roger” was making perfectly: that this is nothing new, it’s been going on for decades. I questioned why if that was case it also appeared that Ashcroft and his deputies had serious objections about current NSA spying efforts in spring 2004. Doubtlessly there is some explanation. Perhaps is is even a credible one. Instead, “Roger”, quote unquote, after reminding me again of how lucky I am, since he rarely he deigns to respond to the unimportant little people who read his blog and don’t live in Hollywood, accuses me of “pretentious blather.”

This is a generally inhospitable place for those who question the New Pravda party line. The attitude starts at the top, with the author of this blog.

“Markus”

Jan 4, 2006 - 8:57 am 14. David Thomson:

ìDavid Thomson — Who cares what I think.î

I am not so concerned about the conscious part of your thinking process. It is your subconscious motivations which must be addressed. Human beings who feel truly threatened instinctively want prudent steps taken to ensure their safety. Common sense dictates that you do not, in your heart of hearts, consider your safety menaced by Islamic nihilism. I therefore conclude that you do not truly believe that we are engaged in a life and death struggle with these thugs. No, you are instead convinced that the war on terror is something of a fraud.

Jan 4, 2006 - 9:06 am 15. marianna:

“I therefore conclude that you do not truly believe that we are engaged in a life and death struggle with these thugs.”

That is the problem with many on the left: they refuse to admit that we are engaged in a life-and-death struggle with the most dagnerous foe we have ever faced: Islamic nihilism. These people care about nothing but killing. They have no code, no beliefs other than “death to the west.” They will stop at nothing.

We must use every weapon at our disposal to fight them. Freedom isn’t free. At times of war, we must take prudent steps to guarantee victory. Allowing the NSA to monitor all of our communication is such a prudent step.

Markus: if you have nothing to hide, nothing illegal going on, then why are you so afraid of having your communication monitored?

Jan 4, 2006 - 9:45 am 16. Korla Pundit:

>if you have nothing to hide, nothing illegal going on, then why are you so afraid of having your communication monitored?

This in itself is not a good argument, as even people with things to hide are protected by the Constitution. But this falls into an entirely different category.

This is a special circumstance where the survival of civilization is at stake, as much as that sounds like a bad Stan Lee word balloon. It happens to be true.

If we fail to stop somebody from detonating a nuke or releasing smallpox or whatever, then all of those people talking on phones with their precious privacy rights fully protected will be dead.

And there is not much chance of non-terrorist info being used to prosecute some stupid petty pot smoker, as it would give away the classified top secret of the program’s existence… Oh, that’s right; now the cat’s out of the bag.

What is it with these modern-day Rosenbergs?

Jan 4, 2006 - 10:02 am 17. David Thomson:

ìThat is the problem with many on the left: they refuse to admit that we are engaged in a life-and-death struggle with the most dagnerous foe we have ever faced: Islamic nihilismî

At the risk of sounding like a 1960s hippie reject, I think that Marcus and his buddies are not ìin touch with their feelings.î When push comes to shove, they really do believe that George W. Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Osama bin Ladin.

An no, I am not even slightly exaggerating. I am being very cautious with my rhetoric. These folks blame ìWestern imperialismî for the rage of the Islamic nihilists. We make things allegedly worse by violently confronting them. Violence only begets more violence. Our efforts should instead focus on understanding their pain and anguish. We are, after all, supposedly responsible for their highly destructive behavior.

Jan 4, 2006 - 10:09 am 18. Korla Pundit:

> These folks blame ìWestern imperialismî for the rage of the Islamic nihilists. We make things allegedly worse by violently confronting them.

They should read about the Barbary Wars of the early 1800s. Things haven’t changed much since then in terms of unprovoked Moslem violence against infidel Americans, and in terms of kicking their butts with overwhelming military force as the only way of stopping the murders, piracy and kidnappings.

Jan 4, 2006 - 10:13 am 19. RogerA:

At the risk of misusing bandwidth, I think it might be a good idea to review precisely what the fourth amendment says, to wit: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Please note the use of the qualifer “unreasonable.” As I have read constitutional scholars (that is law professors, not politicians and talking heads with law degrees) there is considerable jurisprudence that suggests exceptions are appropriate and within the powers of the President. Kerr and Volokh, both of whom post frequently on http://www.volokh.com are worth reading on the subject.

I for one am quite willing to surrender this portion of my rights for a heightened degree of security.

Jan 4, 2006 - 11:56 am 20. markus:

David Thomson — “Common sense dictates that you do not, in your heart of hearts, consider your safety menaced by Islamic nihilism.”

Actually, I do. I am concerned about this matter, perhaps as much as John Ashcroft is.

marianna — “Markus: if you have nothing to hide, nothing illegal going on, then why are you so afraid of having your communication monitored?”

Not afraid. Indignant, as in “don’t tread on me.”

Because I might be heard saying something that, while completely legal, is also foolish, embarrasing, controversal, shocking, impolite, politically incorrect, or compromising in any one of a multitude of others ways.

Because it invades my privacy.

Because a government employee that has the power to invade my privacy in this way, without meaningful judicial oversight, is a government employee that has TOO MUCH POWER over his or her fellow citizens.

Jan 4, 2006 - 12:08 pm 21. Korla Pundit:

>Because it invades my privacy.

Only if you were communicating directly with a known terrorist overseas.

Were you?

If not, then your embarrassing comments are only being intercepted by people reading this blog.

Jan 4, 2006 - 12:21 pm 22. Jim Rockford:

Markus your attitude and those of Kos, Howard Dean, Pelosi etc are why the Dems will fall right over the cliff.

We have a situation where terrorists and terrorist supporters are in communication with known Al Qaeda terror masters. For example, Iyman Faris, a then unknown US citizen, was conversing with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the architect of 9/11 based in Pakistan, on the best way to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge to maximize casualties.

Your argument, and Pelosi’s, Kos, Dean’s, and most other Dems is that these casualties are the price we must pay to preserve civil liberties absolutes. Never mind the fundamental civil liberty not to be murdered.

It’s a fool’s argument, because Dems already are proposing here in California and Oregon an Orwell-esque Big Brother surveillance system to put GPS identifiers in all cars to track where everyone is at any time, assign tickets, and assess mileage fees. Moreover Choicepoint or TRW will sell your most intimate details in the private sector for a fee. Video surveillance cameras record your every move on the Westside. Or the Mall. Or the local convenience store.

I’d support Pelosi if her reaction was, “we need some oversight independent of the President to remedy abuses while giving the executive freedom to prevent terror attacks.” Something along the lines of an annual report, heavily redacted, presented publicly on any outstanding abuses by an Independent, non-Partisan, IG appointed by the President and approved by Congress. That would prevent abuses (something awful like COINTELPRO) while giving the President the Freedom needed to prevent another Beslan. Or Bali. Or Jakarta. Or New Delhi. Or Istanbul. Or Amman. Or Sharm-el-Sheik. Or Bangladesh. Or Thailand. Or Tunisia. Or Madrid. Or London. [All these places and more were Al Qaeda terrorist atrocities since 9/11]

What Dems are telling ordinary people is that their kids don’t matter, and deserve to be slaughtered as in Beslan because they’re “little Eichmans” in the words of Ward Churchill. What Dems are saying is that ordinary back office workers are part of the “imperialist fascist war machine” and must be killed. Ordinary people know this very well, and are reacting accordingly. The only question is if we go back to pre-9/11 walls in contravention of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, or take limited, balanced, and oversight-involved steps to stop terrorists.

What distinguishes Dems and Terrorists from ordinary people is that both hate modern life where people are free to live their own lives (exceptions: Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, a few pitiful remaining Centrist Dems). Terrorists use murder and brutality to destroy ordinary life and Dems/Libs cheerlead the violence. This is why you had Lib Icon Norman Mailer free Jack Henry Abbott and celebrate the 9/11 attacks “more beautiful than the towers.” It’s why Pelosi and Reid are unwilling to enter the debate on what the oversight process should be and instead actively aid terrorists by stating that we should not eavesdrop on conversations between bin Laden’s top aides and people in the US.

Jan 4, 2006 - 12:37 pm 23. markus:

Jim Rockford — I’m curious how long you and others can keep up the pretense that that the only ones who disagree with the Administration on this matter are people like me, Kos, Dean, everyone else you’ve managed to tar as an appeaser (in your own mind at least), instead of with reputable conservatives, including I note for the third or fourth time, Mr. Patriot Act John Ashcroft.

Korla — your comment that my privacy would be invaded only if I was “communicating directly with a known terrorist overseas” makes absolutely no sense. Obviously that would be an instance in which invading my privacy would be justified.

Evidently you have no appreciation for the value of your own civil liberties (and mine as well). I think that people like you are a greater threat to the future of the Republic than any unhinged anti-American leftist screeching slogans at a rally.

According to the article I am linking, the President currently has the right to eavesdrop on someone for three full days before going to the FISA court to get an order. And from 2001 to 2004 this FISA Court received 3,888 requests to eavesdrop. All but four were approved. http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/powerplays/archives/002287.php

If in fact, the President or NSA needs even more leeway than it currently has, then as even Charles Krauthammer acknowledged in a recent column, the right thing to do would be to go to Congress and request that additional legal authority, in closed door sessions with the relevant Committees if necessary.

From Krauthammer’s December 23rd column: “Contrary to the administration, I also believe that as a matter of political prudence and comity with Congress, Bush should have tried to get the law changed rather than circumvent it. This was an error of political judgment.”

Jan 4, 2006 - 12:59 pm 24. markus:

Jim Rockford — “What distinguishes Dems and Terrorists from ordinary people is that both hate modern life where people are free to live their own lives.”

In response to this point, ignoring the obnoxious way it is stated, and hoping that my buddy HA is reading, I bring people’s attention to the 2006 Index of Freedom, published by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, and detailed on today’s WSJ Editorial Page. And I note the following social democratic nations that fall into the highest “free” catagory, all of whom have high or extremely high tax rates: Iceland, Denmark, Canada, Finland, Netherlands, Germany and Sweden. Social democracy and freedom CAN and DO co-exist.

Jan 4, 2006 - 1:09 pm 25. RogerA:

What Jim Rockford said!!!

I do appreciate Markus’ comments as one of this blogs most articulate and civil commenters from the left–and I can even understand the reasons he lays out to argue against surveillance. I guess my problem is that I see in the issue the clash of two “rights.” I would prefer not to be murdered; I rather cling to the idea that life is one of my inalienable rights–and I am simply not interested in sacrificing that right if some of my fellow travellers on this planet, may mean me harm–and quite frankly, IMHO, my right to life supercedes their right to have their murderous schemes listened to–this is a trade off that isnt even hard.

And, I believe most Americans see that as the choices and thus the President’s initiative will be a winner, and continue to paint the democrats further in a corner. You dont have to have an IQ much bigger than a rutabaga to see how this issue is going to play out.

Somehow I am glad the government is pointing radiation detection instruments in the direction of mosques, rather, than say, monitoring what his happenening in the Sons of Norway lodge! Like DUHHHHHHH

Jim Rockford’s post above also points out how technology is already there to genuinely permit round the clock surveillance–Wal-Mart and others, including Governments as in the UK–use RFID technology right now–if civil libertarians are TRULY interested in preserving a society free of such devices, they really need to become luddites and toss their sabots in the centers of modern technology.

Jan 4, 2006 - 1:10 pm 26. RogerA:

Markus–please go to http://www.volokh.com and read what legal scholars say about the 4th amendment–

Please also recall the Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of Habeus Corpus, and ignored Roger B Taney’s opinion that directed him not to ignore it; please also note that Lincoln closed down newspapers and clapped editors in jail.

I am reasonably sure you will argue that that was the Civil War and that isnt comparable to the current situation–but IMHO, the war with Islamo-facism is quite comparable.

Jan 4, 2006 - 1:16 pm 27. markus:

RogerA — great, so does this mean you would support shutting down newspapers critical of the commander in chief? If not, why?

Jan 4, 2006 - 1:25 pm 28. Bostonian:

I think the day when papers can be shut down is long, long gone.

There are just too many ways for information (and lies) to spread. It would be silly and counterproductive to attempt it.

Having said that, I do think it would be appropriate to take legal action against a media outlet who has endangered national security.

I would like to see some reporters serving jail time for endangering us by revealing secrets.

The market, though, is going to punish them a lot more than the government would ever do.

Jan 4, 2006 - 1:33 pm 29. Korla Pundit:

> does this mean you would support shutting down newspapers critical of the commander in chief?

No, but I would drag a reporter, editor or publisher who intentionally disclosed our top secrets for the whole world to read during a war to the firing squad.

That doesn’t mean the paper has to be shut down, although I wouldn’t miss the Times. But they’re doing a fine enough job decimating their readership by becoming known as a pack of disinformation and propaganda. Oh, and treason.

Jan 4, 2006 - 1:34 pm 30. Bostonian:

So markus, here’s a question for you:

Do you think it is right for unelected people with access to only part of the data to be second-guessing our elected government on how best to protect the people who chose that government?

Jan 4, 2006 - 1:34 pm 31. RogerA:

Markus–I will answer you first: YES

but NOT for the way you posed the question–Perhaps Abraham Lincoln was smart enough to understand the difference between his personal policies, and the importance of maintaining the union–and just perhaps, he acted to shut down copperhead newspapers because they were subverting the value of maintaining the union. Please also recall that Lincoln won a second term against, inter alia, the historical predecessor to Gen Wesley Clark: then General McClelland–In short-Lincoln saw his purpose as maintaining the union, the majority of voters in the Northern States in 1864 had a chance to review the actions he took in the first four year term-AND AGREED WITH THEM

I believe I answered your question–I actually would have shot them as General Sherman urged, but that is why Lincoln is Lincoln and I am a blogger.

Jan 4, 2006 - 1:46 pm 32. Charlie (Colorado):

Markus, here’s what Pete Williams said:

There does appear to be something here where both deputy AG Comey and AG Ashcroft were concerned about technical aspects of it and concerned about how it was being carried out–the sort of pretext that the NSA needed to start monitoring someone.

But once those things were worked out, my understanding is from talking to current and former Justice Department officials that they then agreed to the program and one former associate of the deputy attorney general’s said today that at one point Comey was among those officials urging the NY Times not to run the story, that he ultimately accepted the legal basis for the program after his initial objections were resolved.

And here’s what the article you referenced says:

The audit examined a selection of cases to see how the security agency was running the program. Among other things, it looked at how agency officials went about determining that they had probable cause to believe that people in the United States, including American citizens, had sufficient ties to Al Qaeda to justify eavesdropping on their phone calls and e-mail messages without a court warrant. That review is not known to have found any instances of abuses.

So the Times article you quote says “not known to have found any instances of abuses”, and MSNBC reported Comey “ultimately accepted the legal basis for the program”.

Next?

Jan 4, 2006 - 1:47 pm 33. Charlie (Colorado):

I disagree with you and I vote Democratic, ergo, I’m a stupid idiot.

I think you’ve got your causality reversed.

Jan 4, 2006 - 1:48 pm 34. RogerA:

And Markus–you still have not commented on the possibility that the 4th Amendment may contain an exception clause (the qualifier “unreasonable”)–I am assuming you reject those arguments out of hand and take, what I call, the slippery slope argument?

I did you the favor answering your direct question–I really expect the same courtesy.

Jan 4, 2006 - 1:49 pm 35. Charlie (Colorado):

Sorry, I was in a hurry and screwed up the blockquotes. The second paragraph is a quote from Williams as well; the emphasis is mine.

Jan 4, 2006 - 1:51 pm 36. markus:

Roger A — I will read your link from Volokh tonight, until then I’m afraid I have to defer on answering your 4th amendment question. In general, I think we all live on slippery slopes, and I try not to trot out that trope to often.

bostonian — “markus, here’s a question for you:

Do you think it is right for unelected people with access to only part of the data to be second-guessing our elected government on how best to protect the people who chose that government?”

I want the commander in chief and those under his command to follow the law while they are protecting me, including the 1978 FISA law. If the FISA law needs to be changed in order for them to do their job, I want them to try to change it. And I want those under the chief’s command, as well as the press and (most importantly) the other branches of the federal government — to watch the protectors like a hawk, and blow the whistle whenever they see possible misconduct, unless doing so presents a CLEAR threat to our national security.

Jan 4, 2006 - 2:14 pm 37. RogerA:

Markus–I apologize for not providing a specific link–but scroll down Volokh and there will be an interaction between Professors Volokh and Kerr–the bottom line is, that the President’s powers in this situation are not well defined.

Let me propose an entirely different tact: much of the consternation about this particular issue really comes with the Congressional abdication of its War Powers, to wit: “Congress shall have the power to declare war…..” I think that both the left and right could agree that when the Congresses (both democratic and republican) abdicated that right, the nation is worse off for it–Frankly, congressional pusillanimity has provided the justification for Presidents to assert more and more powers–In some situations that is good, in others, not so good.

So, perhaps, the real question is: how will Congress grow a spine?

Jan 4, 2006 - 2:30 pm 38. markus:

RogerA — I think that our founding fathers made a mistake that short hot summer of 1787 when they didn’t forsee the need to be more specific on war powers. No one argues about whether 34 year olds can run for President — the prohibition is explicit. Yet it is not clear at all about when we are actually at war as a nation. Also, its not clear whether, if ever, Congress has an OBLIGATION, as opposed to a right, to declare war under certain circumstances, or whether the commander in chief is obliged to listen to Congress in the event it refuses to declare war. I think all this cries for more clarity — otherwise Congress will always tend to give in to the temptation to pass the buck in calling for war, then complain and second guess the Administration when it asserts itself.

Jan 4, 2006 - 3:19 pm 39. Bostonian:

Markus,

Cass Sunstein (http://www.igl.net/wwwcurr/messages/789.shtml) doesn’t think any laws have been broken and he’s hardly a Bush fan.

But that isn’t quite the point. Legal scholars are pointing out that this is a distinctly gray area and they’re not all in agreement.

With that context, I am HORRIFIED that some two-bit NYT reporter decided to pretend he “knew” it was illegal and then second-guess our elected government.

Are you still sure you want reporters with an axe to grind and no accountability to be making national security decisions?

If so, you are in a distinct minority.

Jan 4, 2006 - 3:34 pm 40. Bostonian:

More on what Sunstein says, from that same link (interview with Hugh Hewitt):

HH: Professor Sunstein, have you ever been contacted by mainstream media about this controversy?

CS: A lot. Yeah.

HH: And have you spent a lot of time trying to walk the reporters through the basics?

CS: Yes.

HH: Who’s contacted you, for example? The New York Times?

CS: Well, I wouldn’t want to name specific ones. It’s a little bit of confidentiality there, but some well known ones. Let’s just say that.

HH: Let me ask. Have you been quoted in any papers that you’ve seen?

CS: I don’t think so.

Jan 4, 2006 - 3:35 pm 41. RogerA:

Markus–I think you and I are in agreement on the role of congress in its responsibilities toward war powers–and I do not agree with you, however, when you suggest its powers are blurred–the Constitution is explicit about congressional power–Regretably Congress abdicated those powers very early when Adams conducted an undeclared naval war with france in the 1790s–it really speaks to the impotence of congress thus defaulting to the executive the real power to make war in the executive’s role as commander in chief.

I, as a libertarian, would LOVE to see the congress declare war–but that isnt going to happen–the last time historically was Pearl Harbor–the world is more complex now, and it really has defaulted to the executive to do it–and as long as the executive can win national elections, he or she will make war in the manner of his or her choosing–Sad, but true

Jan 4, 2006 - 4:08 pm 42. Syl:

Seems to me that markus does not believe in the balance of powers. He believes that the legislative and judicial must be more powerful than the executive.

The legislative and executive have been battling for years. The supreme court has never settled the issue but lower courts assume that the executive has the power to conduct warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. (see Truong)

There was someone who uses the same types of arguments that markus uses at another blog. And he states his reasons for doing so:

We are under threat, but it is not existential. This is not an enemy which could realistically destroy this country. It’s a few thousand whackos.

Just like Iraq!

And this commenter sent us to Patrick Lang’s site (I will not post a link) who said in his piece about civil liberties trumping what Bush is doing:

There would be a lot of dead people as a result of such attacks, but the country would survive.

I thought I read somewhere about ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’. I guess I was mistaken.

So much for the protections of the individual.

The Executive is responsible for the lives of all citizens, not just the lives of those who survive a terrorist attack.

Now, unlike the commenters quoted, I’m sure markus realizes that Islamic terrorists are a threat. But he cares for his illusion of privacy more. No matter that dots which he complained weren’t connected before 9/11 are being connected now it doesn’t matter because Congress didn’t specifically rewrite FISA.

But the mere act of writing, discussing, and voting on the legislation would have revealed the sources and methods the NSA is using. And the Democrats in Congress (remember they controlled the Senate and the Intelligence Committee at the time) were not ready and willing to take the step. But they obviously went along with the program. Rockefeller and Pelosi are simply ass-covering now.

So the President did what he had to do.

Aren’t you a bit relieved to know this is being done?

Jan 4, 2006 - 4:10 pm 43. Syl:

Markus

I think all this cries for more clarity

I think it does not! I think it was left purposely vague so the nation could adjust to changing circumstances. I think our nation is stronger because of the dynamic tension that is inherent in the fights between the branches.

Some questions should never be settled definitively forever and I think this is one of them.

Jan 4, 2006 - 4:15 pm 44. Charlie (Colorado):

Markus, I’m even (abstractly) on your side on the notion that a government that has that much power has too much power. But, practically, there’s at least one issue, that being that Bush is not asserting any power that other, previous Presidents back to at least Wilson haven’t asserted; in fact, both Wilson and Roosevelt asserted rather more significant power (look up “Eugene Debs”.)

Clinton, Carter, Bush_0, and Reagan all made essentially the same assertion of Article II power; Nixon, Kennedy, Eisenhower and Truman had significantly more flexibility. (And, if you look into the history of “black bag jobs”, you’ll find that Nixon’s primary failing was not that he did anything different, but that he got more press for it.)

With all that in mind, the sudden discovery of ECHELON-like programs, and subsequent hair-on-fire hysteria, seems a little, erm, disingenuous .

Jan 4, 2006 - 4:17 pm 45. Bostonian:

On the subject of keeping us (relatively) safe…

Michael Moore & his fellow travelers argue that the chances of danger befalling any individual are relatively small, so why do anything? But our society (any functional society in fact) is predicated on the idea that we will look out for each other, not the all-for-self view that Moore suggests. The most basic implication is that an attack on one of us is an attack on all.

And more importantly, thinking like Moore’s assumes some kind of linearity of human actions, that subsequent attacks would be no worse, that the terrorists would not step up their actions, that the future would be predictable.

Of course, 3000 deaths in one attack is hugely out of scale with previous attacks, and that ought to be a sign right there, that something very nonlinear is occurring.

I’m not sure I’ve expressed what I meant to. I hope it comes across a bit.

Jan 4, 2006 - 5:22 pm 46. markus:

Guys — appreciate all your responses. If in fact revealing the existence of the program has seriously and incontrovertably compromised our national security, it should not have been done. If it is impossible to get FISA amended in Congress to allow warrentless domestic spying in some instances, as Krauthammer recommeds, without somehow renendering these vital new spy tactics inoperable, then this should not be done either.

In either case, however, the burden should be on the Administration to show that these extraordinary circumventions around the oversight our Constitution normally accords to Congress, the Judiciary, and the Press are necessary. I don’t think this is what happened. But to know for sure, I’d need to know of what the Administration, and the NSA, told the NYTimes when they urged they hold off on printing their article, and the reasons why the NYTimes decided to go forward with it anyway. I don’t believe that the NYTimes would knowingly compromise national security, though I am willing to look at SERIOUS evidence to the contrary.

Beyond that, I’m a first amendment absolutist when it comes to political speech. That means advocating the violent overthrow of the US government is absolutely fine and dandy. (Though acting on such views is not.) Actively opposing an ongoing war, even cheering on the enemy, is OK. (Materially aiding and abetting, however, is not.) Eugene Debs’ rights were horribly violated when he was jailed in WWI, as were the rights of the Trotskyites jailed in WWII, and the Communist Party USA leaders jailed in the early fifties. All of these acts were constitutional abominations that cry out for Presidential and Congressional apologies today.

Jan 4, 2006 - 9:21 pm 47. Charlie (Colorado):

In either case, however, the burden should be on the Administration to show that these extraordinary circumventions around the oversight our Constitution normally accords to Congress, the Judiciary, and the Press are necessary. I don’t think this is what happened. But to know for sure, I’d need to know of what the Administration, and the NSA, told the NYTimes when they urged they hold off on printing their article, and the reasons why the NYTimes decided to go forward with it anyway. I don’t believe that the NYTimes would knowingly compromise national security, though I am willing to look at SERIOUS evidence to the contrary.

Markus, I was just re-reading USSID18, which is the implementing regulation on this stuff. It really looks to me like the Administration followed the appropriate procedures.

As I say, I’m sympathetic with you in the abstract; the assertion that the Bush Administration violated the law, however, is not an abstract question: it’s a question of whether they violated the law as it stands. It just looks really really hard to support that notion, based on the information we have now.

Jan 4, 2006 - 10:09 pm 48. marianna:

“I think the day when papers can be shut down is long, long gone.”

I hope that you are wrong, but I fear that you are right. When the press undermines the war on terror, it needs to be reprimanded. When papers gave aid, comfort, and vital information to our enemies, they need to be shut down.

We are at war, as I said earlier, with the most dangerous enemey we have ever faced. We cannot afford to pull our punches. If that means shutting down the New York Times, so be it. But I fear that even if we do shut down the Times, other left-wing media outlets will continue to spew anti-American filth. The press has developed a level of autonomy that it was never meant to have. I fear greatly for the havoc it may wreak upon this nation.

Jan 4, 2006 - 10:14 pm 49. markus:

Charlie — “It really looks to me like the Administration followed the appropriate procedures.”

You, Sunstein, others may be right. I’m too tired to read it myself, and too unqualified to judge.

Marianna — “The press has developed a level of autonomy that it was never meant to have.”

What is it about Congress being unable to pass ANY law abridging the freedom of the press that you don’t undertand? The Press has complete autonomy. (Revealing government secrets that are classified for security reasons is another thing entirely.)

Jan 4, 2006 - 11:09 pm 50. Buddy Larsen:

Unflattering-to-the-left irony by the bucketful here–the 90s, when not a soul heard nary a peep from the markus party re ‘big brother’, were also a time of actual justice dept abuse of American’s rights (criminalization of political views, intimidation by IRS and Justice), and were also a time when a little of today’s lefty-bete-noir ‘big brother’ could’ve perhaps killed the jihad in its crib, long before 911, and OEF & OIF had to be mounted to prevent another.

Markus typically knows a little about a lot of things, and uses it to make one little thing into a big thing, while ignoring the huge disaster his party has been for everything it has touched for two generations now, to the great detriment of all the people on the planet.

The current beef is like a person swept out to sea worrying about his socks being wet.

And there’s no small amount of ingrate in a person who, having been helped, not only refuses to acknowledge that help, but claims that he never needed it, didn’t want it and shame on you for providing it. This is cheap politics and feel-good opportunism.

Jan 5, 2006 - 1:10 am 51. Buddy Larsen:

Unflattering-to-the-left irony by the bucketful here–the 90s, when not a soul heard nary a peep from the markus party re ‘big brother’, were also a time of actual justice dept abuse of American’s rights (criminalization of political views, intimidation by IRS and Justice), and were also a time when a little of today’s lefty-bete-noir ‘big brother’ could’ve perhaps killed the jihad in its crib, long before 911, and OEF & OIF had to be mounted to prevent another.

Markus typically knows a little about a lot of things, and uses it to make one little thing into a substitute big thing (since the *actual* big thing can’t be admitted: the huge disaster his party has been for two generations now, for everything it has touched, to the great detriment of all the people on the planet).

IOW, the current beef is like a person swept out to sea worrying about his socks being wet.

And there’s no small amount of ingratitude in a person who, having been served, not only refuses to acknowledge the service, but claims that he never needed it, didn’t want it and furthermore shame on you for providing it. This is the cheapest feel-good opportunism in the political realm, and it’s rude, besides.

Those high-tax/high freedom nations in the Freedom House report all have extremely homogeneous populations numbering about equal to an American second-tier city. Of course they work as differntly to the USA as a family does to the state government. Gross comparisons alone, are about as sensible–as analogy–as monkyboy’s, comparing the elapsed time of GWoT to WWII. Please, such analogies need to be a little more substantive than a virtual “Oh, yeah?” It seems important to keep in mind, when constructing clever verbal formulae, that words are a derivative reality–derived from the actual objective actions, relationships, and physical objects.

Jan 5, 2006 - 1:40 am 52. Buddy Larsen:

Oops, posted my work-in-progress. I feel so naked and vulnerable now. \;-D

Jan 5, 2006 - 1:43 am 53. PeterUK:

Somewhat OT,but “social democratic nations that fall into the highest “free” catagory, all of whom have high or extremely high tax rates: Iceland, Denmark, Canada, Finland, Netherlands, Germany and Sweden. Social democracy and freedom CAN and DO co-exist”,all these countries are in decline demographcally, they will not exist by the end of the century,some like Sweden will be gone before.

Social Democracy ,a wonderful thing,so wonderful the inhabitants stop breeding,a bit like a Zoo.

Jan 5, 2006 - 10:35 am 54. PeterUK:

“I’d need to know of what the Administration, and the NSA, told the NYTimes when they urged they hold off on printing their article, and the reasons why the NYTimes decided to go forward with it anyway. I don’t believe that the NYTimes would knowingly compromise national security,”

The New York Times is not a charitable institution,it is a business,one which has falling circulation,massive layoffs and loss of profits,the last few years has seen damaging journalistic scandals,this is a killer story,this is “All the news that is fit to sell”.

They are in the selling newspapers and advertising business.

Jan 5, 2006 - 10:42 am 55. PeterUK:

Buddy,

That reminds me of the old caution our mothers used to give “Make sure you have clean underwear on,just in case you get run over”.

Jan 5, 2006 - 10:49 am 56. Buddy Larsen:

har–right–post a rough copy, and so much for the illusion that posts just jump from head to screen–without the laborious concentration of a two-year old playing with blocks.

Jan 5, 2006 - 12:10 pm 57. PeterUK:

The wet socks were right on,Buddy

Jan 5, 2006 - 1:31 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: