Go to A Distant Drum of the Coming Revolution
- Add a comment
- Go to FISA Eavesdropping Hearings a Farce from the Start
Wow, did this get the gang buzzing!
Thanks for commenting, everyone!
Blogflogger, thanks for the compliment!
Scoop, Specter is one of those wonderful RINOs - Republican in Name Only. Rush has had lots to say about him over the years, believe me. So has your good buddy Hannity. As for Rush "only giving the liberal side of the story," Specter is on the left side of moderate, so he fills the bill. Specter is entitled to his opinions, as are all the rest, even when they are wrong.
Blanche, I knew you couldn't stay away. You raise a very interesting question , but you overlook the obvious. The surveillance was top secret, until it was leaked to the New York Times. Since those who leaked the program itself found such a willing partner in the Times, would it not stand to reason that innocent victims of surveillance would be just as eagerly leaked? One more time: The surveillance is of telecommunications to known al Qaeda operatiives, our enemy in time of war.
FW, I confess to not being that well aqauinted with Sessions and Brownback. Thanks for bringing them to my attention. I will check them out.
Professor, I think Corbin took care of your argument, but I have a question: By your reasoning, would not the use of FISA surveillance by Carter, George H. W. Bush and Clinton also have been grounds for impeachment? And what of Clinton and the Echelon program, by which millions of phone calls and e-mails were surveilled without court order or warrant?
posted by
WriterofLight
on February 12, 2006 at 8:29 PM
| link to this | reply
Actually it's the 9-11 resolution that grants the powers
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on February 7, 2006 at 7:22 AM
| link to this | reply
Article II
Corbin, are you sure he said Article II? I gave it a quick read, and didn't see anything about inherent powers.
FISA is "black letter law"; President Bush's "interpretation" of the use of force resolution is just that, an interpretation. Do not hold your breath on iFISA being ruled unconstitutional. Ain't gonna happen.
Has anyone actually read the UOF resolution? The President's arguments are thin as tissue paper:
HJ Res-114 (10/10/02)
Resolution authorizes use of military force in Iraq
The resolution authorizes President Bush to
- Use the armed forces of the United States as he determines necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq (2) enforce all United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
So I ask; is the NSA part of the military or armed forces? Is this spying being done in Iraq?
Legal technicalities, to be sure. But the law hinges on legal technicalities. You can define "national security" any way you like, and justify anything you want. But you're on shaky legal ground hanging your hopes on the UOF resolution.
I fearlessly predict that among the 5,000 or so Americans rumored to have been eavesdropped on (I don't know if it's really 5,000 but you don't know if it's not) there will be a lot more Cindy Shehans, Ted Kennedys, Michael Moores & "quaker grandmas" than al-Qaeda moles. And if any, and I do mean any of those being spied upon turn out to be just political enemies, impeachment is in order and all your arguments about "protecting us from terrorists" flies out the window.
Resolution from About.com Italics added (obviously)
posted by
Professor_Peabody
on February 7, 2006 at 12:03 AM
| link to this | reply
I guess all the Republicans who questioned the legality of the program ...
are RHINOs to you, right. Or are you calling Jeff Sessions and Sam Brownback liberals????
posted by
fwmystic
on February 6, 2006 at 8:37 PM
| link to this | reply
Scoop - Yes, and I for one despise biased reporting. So many people
get all their news from limited sources. Or 20 minutes of network news per night. There were also Republicans during the session today who initially endorced everything the President has done, then summarized their stance by saying they'd like all of the monitoring activities brought in under the FISA court in the future.
posted by
blogflogger
on February 6, 2006 at 7:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Now wait, you can use one statement from the Senator as evidence of wrongdoing...and a counter statement from the same Senator which shows why he thinks the law may have been violated isn't part of the point.
I had no idea this was a post about Rush....I though it was about the goings on in the hearings....my mistake, Scoop. Sorry for missing the point........
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on February 6, 2006 at 7:12 PM
| link to this | reply
Writeroflight,
Once I got past your rhetoric and biased stance, I read one point that stuck out: name one Quaker granny yor nun who's been targeted for surveillance. How would we know? All surveillance is top-secret, obviously for good reason. The FISA court is the only guarantee that the average citizen has of due process being followed.
I'm proud to belong to a country that still cares about DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
posted by
Blanche.
on February 6, 2006 at 7:10 PM
| link to this | reply
That wasn't the point Corbin, Rush is one sided and only gives his
listeners the liberal side of the story
posted by
scoop
on February 6, 2006 at 7:06 PM
| link to this | reply
Scoop....
He also said: "It may be entirely legal because of powers granted the president by the Constitution." Specter said there's an involved question here as to whether the president's powers under Article 2, his inherent powers, supersede a statute.
That's what Specter said on Meet the Press yesterday. "If the FISA statute is inconsistent with the Constitution, the Constitution governs, and the Constitutional powers predominant."
I predict the the net result of the investigations and law suits will be that the statute is found to be unconstitutional.......
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on February 6, 2006 at 6:59 PM
| link to this | reply
You lost me when you started the name-calling again "Flaky Lahey"
posted by
Blanche.
on February 6, 2006 at 6:53 PM
| link to this | reply
I wonder why Rush didn’t say anything
about the Republican who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter, who said the program "is in flat violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act," and that its legal justifications for the program were "strained and unrealistic."
posted by
scoop
on February 6, 2006 at 6:50 PM
| link to this | reply
WriteroFlight - This post fills a much needed void.
posted by
blogflogger
on February 6, 2006 at 6:50 PM
| link to this | reply