64 Comments

1. MikeD:

No, it makes him a self-important, grandstanding idiot. I guess that, by any other name, is a show-off but it does raise a question. How/why do we elect these buffoons?

Mar 14, 2006 - 8:33 am 2. jedrury:

I used to think Feingold was bright and well prepared; too certain of himself but a far cry from the typical dunce in the Senate. This is a silly ploy for the Democrats because Frist will force a vote on his bill/resolution and the Dems will have to examine their underwear to decide where they stand on the NSA wiretap issues. Feingold should’ve counted the possible votes and its effect on the party, before he filed the bill in the first place.

But then again, he is trying to get “street cred” from the left for 2008.

Mar 14, 2006 - 8:38 am 3. AlanC:

Additionally this shows him to be a typical amoral Democrat, possibly the biggest hypocrite in a crowded and talented field.

This is the “man” who is the father of the most tyrranical law passed in the last century. He takes the right to freedom of speech away from millions and then complains about rights for Al-Quedaists?

To quote Daffy Duck “That’s dethpicable”

Mar 14, 2006 - 9:19 am 4. Roger:

“This is the “man” who is the father of the most tyrranical law passed in the last century.”

Er… AlanC… off your meds this morning?

Mar 14, 2006 - 9:34 am 5. David Thomson:

ìBut then again, he is trying to get “street cred” from the left for 2008.î

Russ Feingold knows who he has to please. No candidate for the Democratic Partyís presidential nomination stands a chance without the approval of the Daily Kos crowd. But doesnít that likely doom them in the general election? Yup, and this is why Iím been saying since early November 2004—the national Democratic Party is dead! The radical leftists possess the ultimate veto over the process.

Mar 14, 2006 - 9:52 am 6. markus:

I think that Feingold is standing on principle, doing what he believes is the right thing to do, based on his genunine horror that Bush thinks that he has a constitutional right as commander-in-chief to ignore laws he dislikes.

Politically, the prospect of a Democratic Congress spending 2007 holding impeachment hearings on GW is about the only thing that I can see driving Republican turnout next November. That being the case, one wonders if Karl Rove has the goods on Feingold, and is forcing him to do this.

David Thomson: “No candidate for the Democratic Party?s presidential nomination stands a chance without the approval of the Daily Kos crowd.”

Once again, David, this is bullshit. Hillary will be the Dems nominee unless Mark Warner runs over her with a truck, and neither will get much approval from Daily Kos, particularly once the campaign advances beyond Iowa.

Mar 14, 2006 - 10:19 am 7. David Thomson:

ì…and neither will get much approval from Daily Kos, particularly once the campaign advances beyond Iowa.î

A Democratic nominee cannot win if the hard core leftists stay home. On top of that, there is another issue which will haunt the Dems: their bigotry against Arabs! The recent events of the last few weeks will be a harsh reminder that Democrats will not hesitate to indulge in Pat Buchanan/ Michael Savage type of behavior if it helps them politically.

Mar 14, 2006 - 10:27 am 8. Shochu John:

So Roger thinks Feingold is a showoff because that is the only possible explanation for not dismissing the constitution as a relic of a pre-9.11 world? I am not entirely sure where this notion came from that the government should be allowed to do whatever it pleases without oversight or challenge, with only its word that it is for our own good, but it must be fought.

I would agree that Russ Feingold is no Liberal, that is unless other figures who fought against the notion that “Government knows best,” such as Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater, are to also be conisdered Liberals.

Mar 14, 2006 - 10:50 am 9. markus:

David — will the Republicans be haunted too by their bigotry against Arabs?

Mar 14, 2006 - 10:50 am 10. mrbones:

“[T]here is another issue which will haunt the Dems: their bigotry against Arabs! The recent events of the last few weeks will be a harsh reminder that Democrats will not hesitate to indulge in Pat Buchanan/ Michael Savage type of behavior if it helps them politically.”

It’s hard to tell, Mr. Thomson, if you’re kidding.

Nobody liked the deal! The issue wasn’t, as you might believe, that an Arab government was running the port, but that Bush — as is his wont — went about the deal is a sleazy, sub rosa fashion.

If he’d actually consulted congress, he’d never have gotten himself into the mess. And, consequently, he wouldn’t have had to back off (what happened to the veto, by the way?), thus pissing off the most modernized of Arab countries.

Which is why, contrary to your assertion that the Dems alone wanted to spike the deal, conservative congressmen were so pissed off. Or hadn’t you noticed?

Anyway, by your metric, 57% of Republicans are also bigots.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186634,00.html

Mar 14, 2006 - 10:53 am 11. mrbones:

It’s awfully easy to say “I’m confused by this nonsense,” Roger. It absolves you of actually having to consider the issue (Reynolds tried to pull the same stunt with the Plame matter; call it selective stupidity).

Consider what Feingold’s resolution actually says:

http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2006/03/14/ap2591995.html

“Resolved that the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, president of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required.”

His problem is not, as you pretend (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt) to believe, that the NSA conducts wiretaps. It’s that for no good reason Bush insisted on circumventing proper channels.

And FYI, Feingold is certainly a liberal, just as — protestations aside — you’re a conservative.

(Siding with the angels during the civil rights movement doesn’t not a non-conservative make, okay? Polishing apples for Powerline and Hewitt is a better indicator of your current inclinations…)

Mar 14, 2006 - 11:12 am 12. JK Ribera:

mrbones sounds like he has a personal grudge. In any case, he misses what I take it to be the point here – that normal court ordered wiretaps are no longer technologically capable. they are simply not fast enough for thecell phone world. And everybody knows that. But no one seems to be addressing that question.

Mar 14, 2006 - 11:25 am 13. jerry:

Mrbones:

And you are a totalitarian if you think Roger is a conservative. Roger is a straight down the line Hollywood Liberal with the one key exception that seperates him from lunatic fringe that dominate show biz. He understands the GWOT is about protecting his way of life. He knows the Islamzoids won’t make exceptions for Hollywood sympathizers just because they help them accomplish their goals.

Mar 14, 2006 - 11:33 am 14. Inspector Callahan:

“and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required”

and

“It’s that for no good reason Bush insisted on circumventing proper channels.”

Excuse me? Just where, mrbones, did Sen. Feingold (or yourself) get that information? What, exactly, was unlawful? I don’t remember seeing any decision, by any court, charging the administration with anything unlawful. Even Congress voted against having investigations over this.

Does “innocent until proven guilty” only apply to those of your fellow travelers on the left? Or do those of us on the right get the same rights as you do?

Frist actually tried to give you guys what you wanted, but the Dem leadership have distanced themselves from Feingold, and an attempt at a censure vote was tabled by the DEMOCRATS, not the Republicans.

Looks like you guys are in the minority. Which logically explains why you keep losing major elections. I don’t see anything changing in the fall, as long as the left is going to harp over this, when an overwhelming amount of people see nothing wrong with it.

TV (Harry)

Mar 14, 2006 - 11:33 am 15. Insufficiently Sensitive:

Thinketh the shochu king, “that is the only possible explanation for not dismissing the constitution as a relic of a pre-9.11 world?”

Uh, it’s the Constitution which triggered the NSA activities, since the President as commander-in-chief has every right – and duty – to penetrate the communications of OVERSEAS blokes planning domestic mayhem.

Feingold’s cringeworthy red herring was calling the interceptions “domestic spying”. He knew that the MSM would parrot the phrase and never inject any context whatsoever, particularly the overseas connections being the target of the intercepts. Nah. Let ‘em think that it’s Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover, that’ll fetch a kneejerk reaction against the Administration.

Sucks, Mr. Feingold. Some of us rather like the idea of intelligence activity against the jihadis, politically incorrect or not.

Mar 14, 2006 - 11:40 am 16. Neo:

The grey area here seems to come from the notion of just who you are monitoring.
If you are monitoring the calls of some in the United States for foreign intelligence purposes (by FBI), you are required to go through FISA to get a wiretapping court order.
On the other hand, you are monitoring the calls of someone in a foreign country for foreign intelligence purposes (by NSA), and he gets or makes a call from someone in the United States the FISA procedure makes no sense, even after the fact, especially if it isn’t terror related but you have to listen to know that.

I mean, does the DoJ and FBI get separate court orders to cover the parties on both ends of mob wiretap ? No, they get just one.

Mar 14, 2006 - 12:00 pm 17. Richard Nieporent:

As usual, the Left resorts to ad hominem attacks when a liberal does not follow the party line. To paraphrase Senator Lloyd Bentsen mrbones, I know conservatives, I work with conservatives, conservatives are my friends and Roger is no conservative. Roger is an intelligent individual who is capable of making up his own mind about the issues of the day without having to be told what to think and say. Other than foreign policy, Roger is a staunch liberal. The fact that you actual think it would bother him to be called a conservative is laughable.

Mar 14, 2006 - 12:06 pm 18. markus:

FISA was passed into law in 1978. It is on the books. Bush himself admitted he did not follow FISA guidelines.

To those who are persuaded that he had a right not to follow this law because he thought it was a bad one, and not to get the law changed because it could give away unnamed vital secrets about the program.

To those who support the President’s position, I must ask them what other laws is it the president’s perogative not to follow? If a newspaper urges the U.S. to end a war, wouldn’t the commander-in-chief have a right to shut down that paper, as part of his mandate to lead the battle?

Mar 14, 2006 - 12:11 pm 19. Jim Rockford:

OK, let me get this straight.

Al Qaeda is issuing “final warnings” about some massive terrorist attacks on the US, as dis-information, bloviativing, or a serious threat, take your pick.

Iran has nukes and is ramping up the assembly line, while hosting a conference on a world with Israel and the US. And threatening us with Nukes.

Muslims worldwide are on a rampage over cartoons published in a Danish newspaper that have nothing to do with the US, and are burning American flags while holding up signs: “Islam will dominate,” “behead those who insult Islam,” “God Bless Hitler,” and “Freedom go to hell” etc. Meanwhile we have Muslims in this country going on individual acts of jihad in North Carolina, etc.

So Russ Feingold wants to censure the President for listening in to Al Qaeda plotting to kill Americans here?

Is there any more proof needed that Rove is no genius, just up against political idiots? Dems are simply insane.

Remember that Dirty Harry movie where the serial killer is protesting his rights (after he killed some girl)? Remember that one? And how the fawning Press and Liberal Mayor took Harry off the case?

If Dems deliberately wanted to cement in the Public’s mind that they can’t be trusted with the Nation’s security because they value PC and other articles of Liberal faith over the safety and security of the country, they could not do a better job.

Dems and Libs have said from the beginning they’d rather see terrorists kill Americans than violate the rather specious and ludicrous Administrative rules of the Liberal Judges who make up the FISA court (among them, you can’t use communications of Abdul in New Jersey talking to bin Laden in Waziristan on how to kill thousands of Americans generated by NSA intercepts to get a FISA warrant).

The technical term for that is stupid.

Markus: of course Kos will set the nominee. He got Dean the DNC chair; and controls the money. No money, no nominee. Hillary is a dead duck and won’t even get the nomination (which depends on Iowa and New Hampshire).

Mar 14, 2006 - 12:12 pm 20. Rick Ballard:

Jim Rockford,

The Dems are fiddling the early primary schedule to give Hillary a shot.

Feingold is providing a bit of cover for the coming indictments concerning disclosure by Rockefeller and Durbin of top secret elements of the NSA program. While Rockefeller and Durbin will probably not be indicted themselves, it is a reasonable bet that some of their staffers are going to jail. Rockefeller and Durbin may very well be subject to censure by the Senate and deservedly so.

Feingold is just another Copperhead, it’s really a bit difficult to pick him out of the crowd of Copperheads which constitute half of the Democrat Senate caucus. Aside from his mouth, of course. And the bright shiny faux principles.

Mar 14, 2006 - 12:30 pm 21. jerry:

Markus:

So far every court decision on the books supports the President’s Constitutional right to engage in this kind of intelligence collection. Congress cannot pass a law that negates these powers. FISA does not apply to Foriegn Intelligence collection until the Court rules otherwise. The Constitutional Scholars who take your view recently got shot down by the SCOTUS on another constitutional issue that they thought was a slam dunk. In that decision the SCOTUS acknowleged that we are at war and the Congress could not only force them to admit the recruiters in exhange for federal money, they could mangate their presence period. The SCOTUS clearly believes that we are at war and that gives the President wide authority to collect intelligence. FISA cannot negate the President’s warmaking powers.

Mar 14, 2006 - 12:34 pm 22. LarryD:

Markus, Mrbones, even the FISA court holds that the President has the Constitutional authority to order warrentless communication intercepts (including wiretaps) on hostiles during a war even if a US citizen is on the other end of the connection. FISA only applies to intercepts for law enforcement purposes, not foriegn intelligence gathering.

This means any law passed by Congress to limit such authority would be Unconstitutional.

Oh, and Roger, I believe what AlanC was refering to was the McCain-Feingold Act.

Mar 14, 2006 - 12:35 pm 23. Rick Ballard:

Jim Rockford,

Primary fiddling here.

An influential panel of national Democrats voted overwhelmingly yesterday to have one or two ethnically, economically and geographically ?diverse? states join Iowa in holding presidential nominating caucuses before the New Hampshire primary in January 2008

Gotta get a little Clinton “walkin’ around” money out to the right people.

Mar 14, 2006 - 12:48 pm 24. vegetius:

Politically, the prospect of a Democratic Congress spending 2007 holding impeachment hearings on GW is about the only thing that I can see driving Republican turnout next November. That being the case, one wonders if Karl Rove has the goods on Feingold, and is forcing him to do this….

God, how I hope so!!!
Very astute Markus, do you think mrbones or SJ understand? Methinks not. That’s why nothing will change in the ‘06 elections. The public is caught between the current Repubs and the propect of a hysterical left taking over in the middle of a war. The Repubs are salivating at the thought.
It’s their political wet dream.

Mar 14, 2006 - 12:59 pm 25. nittypig:

Markus,

Bush isn’t saying that he doesn’t like the FISA law. He’s saying that his constitutional war fighting powers include secretly intercepting enemy communications. Congressional statute says that Al Quaeda and anyone that POTUS deems aided or abetted them in the 9/11 attacks is an enemy.

Can you seriously argue that interception of enemy communications originating outside the USA has no part in the execution of a war? The constitution tells me that fighting a war, once it’s authorized by the legislature is the executive’s job.

Mar 14, 2006 - 1:00 pm 26. markus:

My understanding is that only the judicial branch of our federal government has the authority to rule that FISA, or any other statute passed by Congress, is unconstitutional.

I’m also curious why Bush never argued FISA was unconstitional prior to the leak. And why the previous four commander-in-chiefs also never claimed that it was unconstitutional.

And just to make sure we REALLY know who the copperheads are, I ask again: does the commander-in-chief have the authority to stop anti-war speech that he considers harmful to the war effort? If not, why?

I’m not setting up a straw man. I’m asking if there are any limits on a President doing whatever he deems is necessary in fighting a war.

I think reasonable people can differ on this without needing to call each other copperheads or fascists. I think that if a law specifically forbids an action that the President deems necessary, he needs to notify Congress IN DETAIL, and try to get it to change the law.

Mar 14, 2006 - 1:29 pm 27. Terrye:

The Bush administration has used the FISA law many many times, to say they have not is ridiculous. There are times however, given the technology available today that speed and secrecy are the priority and then the President has every right to do what he thinks is necessary to stop terrorist attacks.

Maybe Feingold is more interested in the civil liberties of AlQaida than he is in safegaurding the American public, but most Americans are not.

It is interesting to me that the same Democrats who were so worried about some A-rabs coming near freight terminals have no problem with terrorists calling their friends here in the US and chatting.

I think this is a dumb move on Feingold’s part. He is grandstanding and hoping he can take advantage of conservative angst to attack Bush.

Mar 14, 2006 - 1:35 pm 28. jedrury:

So let’s not decide the legality of the wiretaps here on this site.

But, was the move by Feingold astute or foolish — if Frist beings the resolution for a Senate vote before November? Mark your calendars for October 15. At least, Americans will then have focus as we move into the Fall silly season. No longer will the focus be on Bush, the effectual, Bush the warmonger, the spotlight will be on Bush,
the leader protecting the nation. Is this a replay of 2004, or am I dreaming?

Mar 14, 2006 - 1:38 pm 29. Steven Mitchell:

“Can you seriously argue that interception of enemy communications originating outside the USA has no part in the execution of a war?”

No, he won’t go that far. That would put him Mr. Bones territory. But if he can recharacterize the issue to effectively say that without coming right out and saying it, he’ll try. See deliberate confusion in earlier posts about “breaking the law” versus constitutional authority. Correct him 100 times, he’ll find a different way to say it, hoping that the posters will have gotten too tired to correct him. Standard leftist debate tactics, right out of the Marxist playbook (though most of them don’t know where it came from).

“The Repubs are salivating at the thought.”

I know I am. Every passing minute since 9-11 settles me more firmly in the conviction that free speech is not so that all the good ideas are heard, but rather so that all the bad ones are. My only regret is that the longer the GOP goes without a credible opposition, the lower we will sink ourselves. Unfortunately, politics is usually a game of playing slightly over the ability of your opponents.

Mar 14, 2006 - 1:38 pm 30. Terrye:

markus:

You say you are not setting up a strawman and then you ask if there are any limits to what a president can do. sheesh.

Yes you are…. and… yes there are limits. Perhaps we can decide if there are any times when a Democrat might support a Republican president if he can see a personal poltical advantage to doing otherwise. Such as a time of war or protecting the American people from attacks by terrorists who are promising to kill them…or is it all just one big freaking game for the Feingolds of this world?

Mar 14, 2006 - 1:44 pm 31. Lem:

Somebody should do a study from the time presidential term limit came into effect to find out how much executive power has been transfered, leased and otherwise usurped by the legislative branch.

If my premise is correct second terms are a congressional defacto presidency.

Mar 14, 2006 - 1:49 pm 32. jerry:

Markus:

You asked: “And just to make sure we REALLY know who the copperheads are, I ask again: does the commander-in-chief have the authority to stop anti-war speech that he considers harmful to the war effort? If not, why?”

Lincoln stopped anti-war speech, Wilson stopped anti-war speech, FDR stopped anti-war speech. So the answer is yes. However, Bush has not stopped anti-war speech now has he? Bush has used his Constitutional Powers, which may not be limited by Congress to collect foreign intelligence during time of war.

I repeat that the unanimous decision handed down by the SCOTUS in FAIR versus the United States stated that under the current circumstances Congress, under its power to raise Armies, can compel military access to Universities for the purpose of recruitment because we are at war. The President has war making powers given to him in the Constitution. These may not be abridged by Congress under any circumstances.

Mar 14, 2006 - 1:51 pm 33. Inspector Callahan:

To those who support the President’s position, I must ask them what other laws is it the president’s perogative not to follow?

Any law that that is unconstitutional. Including this one.

Would you have said that black people should have just rode in the back of the bus, even if it did violate their rights? I mean, these folks used their prerogative, and decided not to follow the laws down in Mississippi and Alabama. Those laws were unconstitutional.

The FISA law was a congressional power grab, and I personally hope the president violates it until the cows come home.

TV (Harry)

Mar 14, 2006 - 2:10 pm 34. AlanC:

Hi Roger,

A) Geez there are a lot of replies in 5 hours…but, way back when…..
B) I’m not off my meds (Scotch is sufficient thank you and I am off that at the moment)
C) It’s afternnon back here.

D) Maybe (and you’ll have to persuade me) McCain – Feingold isn’t the MOST tyrannical law of the last century BUT IT’S DAMN CLOSE!!

The nerve of those arrogant twits to legislate what and when a citizen can say or publish facts and opinion on political issues gets my blood pressure WAY up.

Mar 14, 2006 - 2:20 pm 35. mrbones:

“Lincoln stopped anti-war speech…”

True enough, but to what end? I’m not sure that the Clement Vallandigham incident was one of Lincoln’s finer moments… He arrested a man for, essentially, having the temerity to call him “King Lincoln” and to exhibit a bit of bluster.

Is that where we want to draw the line?

Mar 14, 2006 - 2:25 pm 36. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

markus,

You seem to have ignored it the first time around…

The FISA Court of Appeals ruled, in 2002, that the president has the right to do these wiretaps without FISA approval – or more specifically, that it would be unconstitutional for FISA to be involved.

Furthermore, as you must know, the administration briefed 8 members of Congress (that includes 4 Democrats) a number of times about this program. They were patriotic enough to keep their traps shut.

This program should never have been revealed. That it was indicates extremely bad judgement on the part of the leaker and the New York Times.

It is not only Constitutional, as judged by both the Justice Department and FISA, but it was also briefed to Congress, with nobody making a squawk until the politics of an election year intevened. People are using this issue, at the cost of our security, to gain political advantage.

If anyone is to be censured or condemned on this issue, it is those who would put their political advantage ahead of our national security, and that includes the New York Times.

Mar 14, 2006 - 2:36 pm 37. AlanC:

One last thing about FISA.

It is NOT unconstitutional. It IS unapplicable!

This law, for all the reasons listed above, does not apply to this case. The SC has so stated, it’s now a non-issue except for the partisan flacks that are so self-absorbed and power mad that they verge on the traitorous.

Mar 14, 2006 - 2:36 pm 38. jerry:

Mr. Bones:

Markus asked about abridgement of First Ammendment rights not whether it was Lincoln’s finest hour. You also seemed to skip over the fact that Bush hasn’t touched anybodies First Ammendment rights. Using a cell phone with a US telephone number to contact Al Qaeda is not covered by the Bill of Rights.

Mar 14, 2006 - 2:52 pm 39. markus:

nittypig — “Can you seriously argue that interception of enemy communications originating outside the USA has no part in the execution of a war?”

I would not argue that. But I’ve never heard a credible explanation as to why this can’t be done under the FISA court, or why it amending FISA itself to allow such wiretapping is unworkable.

John Moore — “FISA Court of Appeals ruled, in 2002, that the president has the right to do THESE wiretaps without FISA approval – or more specifically, that it would be unconstitutional for FISA to be involved.” (my emphasis)

Sorry, I didn’t know the FISA Court told Bush that it was actually unconstitutional for the Court to investigate and approve wiretap requests! I confess I missed that one.

Also when you say the Justice Department proclaimed it was constitutional, you wouldn’t be referring to then acting AG James Comey, who objected and REFUSED TO AUTHORIZE ITS CONTINUATION, forcing Card and Gonzalez to lobby a hospitalized John Ashcroft to approve continuation of the program?

Steven — as someone who accuses me of practicing “deliberate confusion”, I gotta say that your words are pretty confusing themselves, though in your case, I’m sure this is entirely unintentional. I do recall reading, I think on the John Birch Society website, about how the Left tactics are straight out of Gramsci and the Frankfurt School. I find it hard to believe, though, that someone would seriously claim that sophistry was invented by Marxists.
You claim to want a credible opponent for the republicans, yet you seem to object to dissent on the most controversal issues of the day — mostly all related to whether or how to fight a war on Islamist terrorism. I would remind you that it is not just the Left that is divided on these questions of war and security — libertarians are too, as are many others on the political right.

Mar 14, 2006 - 3:00 pm 40. Bostonian:

Hmm:
“You claim to want a credible opponent for the republicans, yet you seem to object to dissent on the most controversal issues of the day — mostly all related to whether or how to fight a war on Islamist terrorism. ”

The fact is that we are at war, and have been so since 1979. The fact that you refer to this as “controversial” reveals to me your utter unseriousness about national security.

You can dissent on this point, as you can dissent on the color of the sky. It just means you won’t be listened to.

Mar 14, 2006 - 3:16 pm 41. Terrye:

mrkus:

If you have not heard one credible reason why FISA can not always be applied then it is because you have refused to listen.

I tell you what, call Jane Harman’s office, she is a Democrat and she says this program is a good one, is needed, and as far as she knows is completely legal.

Call her and ask why she wants to trample on your first amendment rights…since as you said there is no reason for Bush to do this. And of course you [like the rest of us here]..are an expert.

Mar 14, 2006 - 3:19 pm 42. jerry:

Markus:

You said that “But I’ve never heard a credible explanation as to why this can’t be done under the FISA court, or why it amending FISA itself to allow such wiretapping is unworkable.”

We intercept enemy communications all the time with various techniques. Are you saying that FISA prohibits NSA from listening on enemy radio communications without a warrant? How about placing a tap on an undersea cable as was allegedly done by the US during the Cold War?

Here is practical test. Under FISA you cannot intercept a US person’s phone calls even if he is overseas. You are presumed to be a US person if you are using a US telephone number. So are you saying that NSA would require a warrant to listen in on phone calls from OBL in Pakistan to Zarqawi in Iraq if they were both using US phone numbers even though neither party is in the US or a US Person?

An act of Congress can never override Presidential authority rooted in the Constitution. The fact is that the Congressional opponents of the NSA program will never take the President to court on this because they know that when it gets to the SCOTUS the FISA law will be at a minimum declared inapplicable and at worst declared unconstitutional. This is all about politics not about the Constitution.

Mar 14, 2006 - 3:43 pm 43. Steven Mitchell:

Markus,

I’m all for dissent that serves some useful purpose–such as informing the public debate about the issues. In such a context, even people that are wrong (from whatever their political angle), are helpful in their own way.

I’m not so hot for dissent where the only purpose is to confuse the issue. I’m especially not enamored of the kind of “dissent” that involves repeated, specious arguments.

In other words, dissent is not a primary virtue. It’s always relative to what the dissent is about, and what basis the dissent has.

It’s as if someone had gotten up in arms about the color of the ink that Bush used to sign a piece of legislation as a reason why the legislation was problematic. Then when told that “blue” or “black” was immaterial, started screaming about “red” or “purple”. Called on that, they come back tomorrow hollaring about “yellow”. For a little while, and from some people, this can even be cute. When it goes on and on, one begins to suspect that the purpose is to drown out discussion.

The first 5 or 6 times someone pulls this stunt, they can expect a civil response. After all, the speaker might not know any better. If the subject changes enough, one could get the benefit of the doubt for a long time. However, this tactic is ultimately trying to use the normal rules of civil behavior against other participants. “No matter how many slightly different ways I make a silly and unwarranted “point”, I expect to be fully engaged every time. Otherwise, you are trying to squash my dissent.”

This is a fundamentally uncivil act. It is to civility what “voting in a dictator” is to a free republic–the end. As far as I’m concerned, it makes trolling looks harmless. That it comes with a polite veneer, that only occasionally slips, only makes it that much more nefarious. So I respond in kind–except that I’m honest enough to say outright that I have zero respect for the practioners.

From here and posts at Totten’s site, I gather that you are smart enough to understand the distinction. That the distinction doesn’t inform your posting gives me reason to suspect less savory reasons than ignorance for ignoring it. Since you positions seem to align perfectly with certain talking points, one applies Occam’s Razor.

I haven’t paid much attention to the Birchers. “Marxists” was being nice. Actually, it was standard procedure for Stalin era propaganda. If you want to quibble about where the Stalinist got the idea, knock yourself out. Where ever it came from, that’s who you are aligned with. It was part of the basis for why Stalin thought that “useful idiots” in the West were both useful and idiots.

Normally, this is a no-win situation for sensible people. If they confront the problem at its source, they have let the distractors dictate where all the energy goes into the discussion. I’d be falling into the trap–except that this time it is actually relevant. This is precisely what Feingold is trying with his gambit. He *knows* better, but he does it anyway.

As John Moore said, you’ve been told all this before. And that ultimately is my biggest objection. You have the talent to be loyal opposition if you wanted to be. What a waste.

Mar 14, 2006 - 4:18 pm 44. Charlie (Colorado):

My understanding is that only the judicial branch of our federal government has the authority to rule that FISA, or any other statute passed by Congress, is unconstitutional.

Fine, but the Executive’s powers are not estabished by Congress and the powers inherent to the Executive cannot be limited by Congress. So it doesn’t necessarily follow that there must be an adjudication before it’s unconstitutional. Say, for example, Congress passed a law that made it a felony for the President to veto a bill. The President wouldn’t have to wait until it had been tried in court before vetoing a bill; if Congress was foolish enough to pass the law, then they’d have to find someone to bring a charge, and the bill would then be found unconstitutional.

This is a very exact analogy for the “inherent powers” argument for intelligence collection, which every president including Carter has asserted.

Mar 14, 2006 - 4:54 pm 45. Charlie (Colorado):

True enough, but to what end? I’m not sure that the Clement Vallandigham incident was one of Lincoln’s finer moments… He arrested a man for, essentially, having the temerity to call him “King Lincoln” and to exhibit a bit of bluster.

Is that where we want to draw the line?

You didn’t ask “would it be wise to?”, you asked “does the President have the power to?”

I might question whether the President ought to have the power to as well, but at this point it’s been pretty clearly adjudicated that he does.

Mar 14, 2006 - 4:58 pm 46. Rick Ballard:

“This is precisely what Feingold is trying with his gambit. He *knows* better, but he does it anyway.”

Which is why his name belongs next ot Vallandigham’s and every other damned Copperhead who gave hope to South. The same hope that Feingold gives to al Queada and the mullahs in Iran. The hope that there are enough disloyal son of a bitches working for political gain no matter what the cost to make holding on for just a while longer a worthwhile pursuit. Vallandigham’s betrayal killed soldiers on both sides of a war that would and could have ended in late ‘63. Instead the South took heart from the number of traitors in the North with the result that Sherman had to lay waste from Atlanta to the sea in order to finally break them.

Feingolds actions give that kind of hope to the Islamofascists and he has American and Arab blood on his hands. He has the morals of a snake and deserves no better epithet than Copperhead.

Let us hope for indictments on the NSA matter to come soon. It’s necessary for the American people to become very familiar with the craven politicians willing to put political advantage above country. Let’s hope that every one of them has the same political future that Vallandigham enjoyed after his conviction.

Mar 14, 2006 - 5:35 pm 47. markus:

Steven — you accuse me of REPEATEDLY and INTENTIONALLY putting forward specious, distracting arguments, the kind that make trolling look harmless. Yet you offer no example of such.

Put up or shut up. Call me on an instance of specious uncivility. If I can’t credibly account for myself, you’ll get my sincere apology, and a $20 donation to the right-wing nutjob candidate or organization of your choice from me. I’M SERIOUS ABOUT THIS.

Otherwise, as the kids say, “STFU”.

Mar 14, 2006 - 8:47 pm 48. flenser:

jerry

The President has war making powers given to him in the Constitution. These may not be abridged by Congress under any circumstances.

True enough, but its worth noting that these powers may not be abridged by the courts under any circumstances either.

Mar 14, 2006 - 9:10 pm 49. Terrye:

markus, you just made the man’s point for him, so maybe he is not the one who needs to STFU. [as the kids say]

Mar 15, 2006 - 3:53 am 50. markus:

Terrye — he just needs to back up his accusations. Not every liberal is a panty waist like Juan Williams, who plays a member of the Washington Nationals every Sunday on Fox, to Brit Hume’s Meadowlark Lemon.

You, on the other hand, need to learn to read better. I never said the program wasn’t necessary. I think it very possibly might be. I want the program to be legal. As in AUTHORIZED BY THE CONGRESS. The initial post-9/11 war authorization included certain exceptions to FISA, but it did not include activities on U.S. soil.

I agree with much of what Jane Harman says on this matter, from the Washington Post Feb. 13 article, “Spying Neccessary, Democrats Say”:

“Hoekstra said if Democrats thought Bush was violating the law, ‘it was their responsibility to use every tool possible to get the president to stop it.’

“Harman countered that John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the Senate intelligence panel, had voiced his concerns to Vice President Cheney in a classified letter in July 2003, but ‘if he had shared that letter publicly, I think he would have been in violation of the Espionage Act, the disclosure of classified information.’

“Harman said the briefings she received concerned “the operational details of the program,” which she supported. ‘However,’ she added, ‘the briefings were not about the legal underpinnings of the program.’

“She said it was not until Bush publicly spoke about the program, after it was revealed in the New York Times in December, that she was free to discuss it with House staff and constitutional lawyers.”

Mar 15, 2006 - 7:28 am 51. Charlie (Colorado):

You, on the other hand, need to learn to read better. I never said the program wasn’t necessary. I think it very possibly might be. I want the program to be legal. As in AUTHORIZED BY THE CONGRESS. The initial post-9/11 war authorization included certain exceptions to FISA, but it did not include activities on U.S. soil.

And there’s your mistake: you’re conflating “legal” with “authorized by Congress.” Bush — and all Presidents — have certain powers independent of Congressional authorization. Refer above to my hypothetical about a law making it a felony to veto a bill: such a law would not be enforceable, it would be unconstitutional. On the other face of the coin, Congress has never authorized the President to veto a bill, but vetoing a bill is still legal.

As things stand, the various courts seem to agree that the Executive has the power to do intelligence collection on communications that cross national borders, FISA or no FISA, as a part of the inherent powers under Article II. The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the precise topic, and there are certainly opinions among legal scholars on both sides (eg, Orin Kerr and Cass Sunstein, just to point out a “conservative” who’s doesn’t buy the argument, and a “liberal” who does.) But all the precedents right now seem to be on the administration’s side.

Mar 15, 2006 - 8:03 am 52. markus:

jerry, Colorado Charlie, flenser — thank you for your substantive responses on separation of powers. I agree that neither the Congress or Judiciary can limit the constitutionally defined powers of the President. But I don’t think a President should be allowed to unilaterally determine whether this is occuring. There has to be some non-executive branch overview. And I’m glad that in this case, at least, the New York Times has made this possible.

I think we disagree on the scope of Presidential war powers. I disagree with those who say that Bush didn’t really need the Congressional authorization to fight the Taliban, or to invade Iraq. Similarly, I think the tie vote that Tom De Lay engineered on on the warmaking authorization Clinton sought for Kosovo should have prevented us from engaging in that conflict, which I otherwise supported.

As I said, Bush tried to get some changes to FISA in the 2001 war resolution. He got some of what he wanted, but not all. If he feels strongly about the matter, he needs to keep trying. Sorry, but I want my Commander in Chief to get the people’s permission before he fights wars or implements domestic spying operations.

Mar 15, 2006 - 8:09 am 53. Steven Mitchell:

“Put up or shut up. Call me on an instance of specious uncivility. If I can’t credibly account for myself …”

See any post in this topic, sans the last one (and the last couple of sentences in that post you were trying to steal a few bases). For that matter, see pretty much anything you have written here that isn’t, “Hey look at this link”. Do you really want me to go through post by post and pick them out?

“I think we disagree on the scope of Presidential war powers.”

This is the first place that I recall since the NSA was revealed, that you have even acknowledged that the point was made, and thus required an answer. You could have saved a lot of trouble by merely going there first. So I’ll play along now. If you disagree, there must be some reason for the disagreement that we can discuss, right? But no, you promptly turn around and dismiss the point, ending with:

“… Sorry, but I want my Commander in Chief to get the people’s permission before he fights wars or implements domestic spying operations.”

If you disagree with the scope of Presidential powers (war or otherwise), then you’ll need something stronger than that, with some supporting arguments. Twisted characterizations of “domestic spying operations,” or ignoring the constitutional basis for war powers resolutions, are not helpful in convincing anyone that you have any supporting arguments. Of course, it’s hard to say for sure since *you have not provided any argument yet*, nor really addressed the arguments presented to you by jerry, John Moore, and the others.

“I disagree with X” are not points. They may give us some *insight* into your thinking, but do not *explain* your view of how things are, nor provide a logical argument for how they ought to be (in your view). As such, they really can’t be discussed, only rejected or accepted. Not surprisingly, most people here have rejected them.

Also please keep in mind the distinction between the Constitution and other current legal arrangements versus your preferences for same. When hurling charges of unconstitutional or illegal behavor against Bush (or anyone else), it hurts your cause if the logic behind the accusations actually indicates that you really think unethical behavior is the problem. OTOH, if you think the behavior is illegal or unconstitutional, then the bar is relatively high. Is this difficult? Yes. It is the work of the loyal opposition.

Mar 15, 2006 - 10:19 am 54. markus:

Steven – your last post finally gives me a little bit to work with, in contrast to your previous one. Thanks. I shall parse it ASAP.

Can someone tell me the best way to format a reply to an earlier post, so that there is a line going down the left hand side of the text of the original post, along with my reply to that text, which is not lined?

Mar 15, 2006 - 11:49 am 55. jerry:

Markus:

I wish I had seen this earlier. It looks like the Special FISA court has already ruled in the President’s favor in 2002 and the SCOTUS declined to hear the case. The Special FISA court affiremed the President inherent right to conduct Foreign Intelligence collection without securing a warrant.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp

Mar 15, 2006 - 12:16 pm 56. markus:

Jerry — Yes, “Useful Fool”, with no elaboration, link or reference, mentioned this same ruling as an example of something that “I had already been told before.” Steven Mitchell concurred.

Glad to know someone else missed it, too.

I appreciate the link to the Byron York article, which I will be reading. I am utterly perplexed by Steven Mitchell’s criticism of posts where I say “hey look at this link” Linking to a relevant document on another site is the major way of supporting ones argument in an Internet-based discussion. So, thank you for your “hey look at this link” post.

Mar 15, 2006 - 1:46 pm 57. Rick Ballard:

Jerry,

Just a minor point but it was the FISA Court of Review which, per statute, acts as an appeals court, if necessary, for FISA court decisions.

The Court of Review’s decision regarding ‘In re: Sealed Case’ can be found here.

The seditionist blather concering the NSA surveillance of contacts between terrorists and their potential allies within the US has not had a shred of legal authority since day one.

Feingold damn well knows it, too. It’s not “a matter of opinion”, it’s a matter of settled law.

Mar 15, 2006 - 1:55 pm 58. markus:

Steven Mitchell — I said I’d parse your last post but frankly upon second reading there’s not much for me to say. I asked you for specific examples of speciousness and you point to “pretty much any post”, my tendency to leave a lot of links, and the fact that I don’t offer supporting evidence for what you call “argument x” None of this holds up in court, so if you don’t have the energy for a better indictment, I’ll save mine.

Byron York’s article is the first substantive response to Feingold’s allegations that I have seen. ANYWHERE. I missed it in last month’s National Review, and it appears to have been posted on the web for the first time TEN HOURS AGO. Thank you, Senator Feingold, for moving the debate forward, and forcing the Administration’s supporters to say more than “under the Constitution, the Commander in Chief can do whatever he thinks he needs to do.”

I note that according to York the Administration’s appeal to the FISA Court of Review was prompted by the main FISA court’s attempt to block expanded surveillance that was authorized by the Patriot Act. This contrasts with the program that is the subject of current controversy, which was not authorized by that Act or by any other act. In any case, I will study In re: Sealed Case closely, as well as any responses to it from those patriotic Americans that Rick Ballard labels “seditionists”

Mar 15, 2006 - 2:59 pm 59. Luther McLeod:

“patriotic Americans that…labels “seditionists.”

Which, regardless of spin, you, essentially are, marcus, seditionist that is.

Clever, intelligent and o so nuanced. Staunch defender of the “Constitution.” “Ultimate arbiter of the “American Way.” The most patriotic of patriots. Yes, you to a tee.

A comment from Roger’s 05 Memorial Day post;

“You’re missing a photo of some 20 year old missing a limb after a tour of duty in Iraq.

You’re also missing a photo of Bush attending a funeral of one of the soldiers who perished under his command in Iraq.

The first type of photo exists and is easy to find.

The second type doesn’t exist: Bush hasn’t attended any funerals for Americans killed in Iraq.”

Your first post here marcus. Tells me everything I need to know. You can dress it up in all the intellectualism you like, all the links you like, but in the end, I wouldn’t trust you, nor your opinions, beyond a spit in the wind.

Mar 15, 2006 - 7:59 pm 60. markus:

Luther — I hope you’re also willing to acknowledge that while Americans you consider seditionist may be reprehensible people, they have the same right to freely express their views as you do.

The point I was trying to make back then was that we should NEVER lose focus on the death and permanent injury that is the incalculable cost of war. Maya Lin’s Vietnam Memorial doesn’t flinch from this, which is why it is the most powerful monument in Washington, in my opinion, more powerful even than the Lincoln Memorial.

If you said that I didn’t make this argument very well back then, and was more interested being provokative than persuasive, I’m afraid I’d have to agree. However, there is no basis for thinking based on what I wrote that I welcome the death or injury of American soldiers.

My prayer today is to stop wasting my time with blogging, at least for the next week. If you don’t hear from me, you can surmise that God exists.

Mar 16, 2006 - 7:24 am 61. Mark Poling:

“We will hunt the terrorists where they live…”

Unless, of course, it happens to be New Haven….

Mar 16, 2006 - 10:43 am 62. Luther McLeod:

marcus

Of course I acknowledge you have the right to say what you will. But…as with many things in life, just because a right exists doesn’t mean it should necessarily be exercised. And, no, I don’t believe you intentionally welcome harm to our troops. But IMO, the left side of the coin (of which Feingold is a perfect illustration) in this country has unnecessarily prolonged the war in Iraq. It caused us to lose in SVN and is hoping for the same in Iraq. I was with some of the men named on Maya Lin’s wall when they met their end, and, believe it or not, they died in an effort to make the world a better place. And, had they been given the proper support from their countrymen would have succeeded in doing so. Just one last thing, I don’t believe anyone who has/does post here has ever lost focus of the sacrifices we have asked of our military. The focus on that Memorial Day thread was exactly in appreciation for those sacrifices. Sorry for the harshness of my first post, but you have an unique ability to piss me off on occasion.

Mar 16, 2006 - 11:31 am 63. markus:

No problem, Luther, appreciate the opportunity to respond, and your gracious followup. I don’t doubt the motives of those who died in Vietnam. Nor President Bush’s motives for that matter. (Cheney’s another story.)

I’m too perplexed to say much about who is to blame for what’s going on in Iraq.
I see a lot of invasion supporters piling on Don Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks, like David Brooks does in today’s the NY Times.

Mar 16, 2006 - 12:06 pm 64. Steven Mitchell:

“I am utterly perplexed by Steven Mitchell’s criticism of posts where I say “hey look at this link” Linking to a relevant document on another site is the major way of supporting ones argument in an Internet-based discussion.”

If you go back and read again, you might notice that my criticism was of all the posts *except* the ones that consisted of mere links. It’s hard to include vacuous editorials with mere links.

But since everyone seems tired of playing, I’ll cut to the chase: You don’t get to say something such as, “illegal, domestic spying,” — then not back it up with any reason why the spying is illegal or domestic. Or rather, you might get to say that once, but then when someone says the syping is legal and international, and explains why, you are best to drop the “illegal, domestic” cracks until you have something to back them up.

It was explained here well before York’s column, if not that comprehensively. That is, it was explained well enough that someone ought to think twice before making unsupported accusations of “illegal, domestic spying”. Otherwise, people are free to assume that the comments are partisan sniping. Given that these particular comments are objective aids to our current wartime enemies, don’t be surprised that they are ill-received. That they happen in a topic about a Senator acting pretty much the same way makes them more illustrative and amusing than annoying.

Mar 20, 2006 - 6:15 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: