Historians looking at Bush presidency may well wonder if Congress actually existed
 

We are about to experience a crucial end of the month, as far as deliberations in the US Senate go. Odds are, we'll get to see if Clinton and Obama take time away from their presidential primary campaigns to spend the time in the senate to support CT senator Chris Dodd's, probably futile attempt to block democratic majority leader Harry Reid's effort to push through a bill drafted by Cheney and Senate Intel Committee chair, WV democrat Jay Rockefeller.

<h3>(Note...on voting in the poll, I don't think I enabled multiple votes, so if you agree that this is an instance when you could consider violent protest, chose the third poll choice.... )</h3>

Unlike the bill passed late last year by the house, the senate bill Reid chose, includes immunity from telecom customer lawsuits for telecoms, except for Qwest Comm., deciding to cooperate with the government, without required warrants being issued, in turning over private communixations records and customer records, to government investigative and monitoring agencies. legal advisors at Qwest advised executives of that company not to cooperate with government request that did not include warrants authorized by judges, because it woild not be legal to do so without them,

Reid's choice...he could have selected the version of the bill which more closely matched the already passed house version, makes it necessary to achieve 60 votes in the senate to remove the telecom immunity provisions, instead of, as in the other version drafted by senate democrats, adding the telecom immunity as an amendment to the deomcratic senators' version.

I'll keep this simple...this bill, if passed, is even less protective of our right "to be secure in our papers", i.e. our fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search, than the temporary FISA "modernization",passed last August, without telecom immunity, and now set to expire in two weeks.

If Clinton and Obama do not join Dodd in the senate to speask and vote against passage of this bill, and with the democratic congress accumulating a legislative record as "Bush's poodle"...and, if you believe that sometimes violence is the only appropriate response to attempt to redress grievances against a government undermining the foundations of our constititutional bill of rights, would lack of firm oppostion to this bill by Clinton and Obama, and it's passage, be one of those times when consideration of responding with violent protest, in lieu of defense of our rights by either party's leaders and likely successors, be something you would consider, or....would you elect to wait.....for what, and for how long?

Host, it takes several decades for any kind of real historical consensus to form about any particular president. There are still reassessments of Eisenhower going on, fercrissakes, and we have had 50 years to digest his impact. We're now seeing some revisions among historians about even FDR. Truman is generally viewed positively by historians, but as you know, he declined to run for re-election in 1952 because most of the country thought he was a disaster.

This is a long way of saying it's way too early to speculate about history's verdict on GWB. We'll need at least 20-30 years of seeing how things turned out before we can make any real assessments, and even then they'll be tentative.

Then again, I'm one of those guys who think Zachary Taylor is very underrated as a president, and JFK vastly overrated. It also strikes me, looking at American history, how overall lucky we have been in the people who have ended up leading the country. It hasn't been uniform, but for the most part we have had genuinely talented and conscientious people as Presidents. The bad presidents have been more of the "nonentity" variety than the evil variety.

Congressional leaders who do not support President Bush for partisan reasons have put themselves in a very difficult position. It is politically popular to admonish Bush's policies, but from a practical point of view Bush's policies have not been that far out of line with what has been the right thing to do. Hence, you have votes for war, votes for funding the war, votes for tax cuts, etc., and basically Congress giving Bush almost everything he asks for in the name of fighting terrorism - all while being very vocal against Bush on those policy positions.

The leading Democratic Party Presidential candidates will do and say what needs to be done to get the party nomination, but once in office you will find their basic approach to being Commander in Chief will not be much different than Bush. Torture, spying, violations of civil liberties happened before Bush and they will happen after Bush. I am not saying it is right, but it is what it is, and sometimes you have to have the attitude of doing what needs to be done and risking the consequences. If the next President shows weakness and terrorists take advantage of that, the Bush Presidency will serve as a model on how to handle this new form of warfare.

Only if we tear up the Constitution and the concept of separation of powers upon which it was created and are willing to accept a chief executive who will resort to any illegal and unethical act to support an ideological agenda and justify those actions as necessary to protect us from the terrorist boogeymen.

Oh...and thanks for reminding us all that only Democrats are partisan with the rest of your less than objective and factually dubious observations. :eek:

****

as to the poll question, I assume "violent anti-government protest" means armed insurrection rather than acts of vandalism.

and my answer is NO, not on a FISA vote. There is still room for other forms of protest...particularly at the ballot box in November...or even better, finding a way to get the 65-70% of Americans who disagree with Bush's policies and actions off their apathetic asses and into the streets in massive, peaceful demonstrations across the country between now and November.

but YES, only under the most extreme scenario, like if one year and one day from now, Bush/Cheney refuse to leave the White House in the name of national security.

A statement like the one above makes me think that that you don't think there were any Constitutional issues concerning the separation of power prior to Bush. In my view there have been on-going power struggles and shifts in power between the executive and legislative branches of government. Many Presidents have tested the limits of executive power and some have crossed the line. History has given some of these Presidents a pass on their "transgressions' with executive power, i.e. FDR.

I did not write what you suggest here. The context of the OP is Congressional leadership, Democrats currently control Congress, are most vocal against Bush - yet give him what he wants. In addition Host specifically mentions Clinton and Obama.

Thanks for reminding me about how easy it is for some to take points out of context to create a straw man argument.

ace....the difference between us is clear.

As you have stated in the past, you think its ok to give the President the benefit of the doubt (and his actions are the "right thing to do" - as you stated above), in the name of national security, when he:

* allegedly violates the FISA law as he did for 2+ years by authorizing wiretaps without a warrant and demands immunity for telecomms for their illegal actions during that same period.
* issues a signing statement on the Patriot Act that unilaterally overturns the intent of Congress regarding several provisions of the law, including the FBI's use of national security letters
* unilaterally interprets US obligations under the Geneva Conventions, without consulting Congress or the Judiciary
* allegedly violates the Presidential Records Act by destroying 5,000+ e-mails during the time when the WH was discussion the outing of a CIA operative and the use of intel to justify the invasion of Iraq
*uses the executive privilege argument to withhold information from Congress resulting from conversations between two EOB aides, when in the past executive privilege has been limited to information/conversations between the President and an aide.

I'm not aware that FDR committed similar acts, without at least consulting Congress (your straw man argument)

And I still value the separation of powers and checks and balances.

My question to you:
Would you give Hillary the same benefit of doubt if/when she is President?

Please convince me that what it is at stake in the coming battle in the US senate concerning permanent modifications to "FISA laws", is so much different from what James Otis argued in Boston in 1761, in order that I will not continue my thinking that the poll results here, limited as they are, provide an answer as to why our fourth amendment protections are being eroded.

Originally the provisions of the bill of rights were insisted upon by representatives of a recenlty rebelious people, This citizenry had made it plain to authority that they viewed certain rights to be "inalienable", and that they were willing to take up arms against that authority to back their rhetoric.

After actually having taken up those arms, and fighting and dying to secure their independence from the former authority at great sacrifice to themselves, they were a credible force to be reckoned with by those attempting to draft a new consitution.

The poll results here, along with the general sentiment in this country, tell me that almost none of us are even willing to consider violently opposing efforts to weaken "our right to be secure in our papers", and in our homes, against search or seizure without "probable cause".

The authority also knows that, and since we project that we won't consider it reasonable to respond to the taking away of our bill of rights, by fighting, and if necessary, dying to prevent it, it is happening.

When you are "fresh from the fight", you have the most credibility, and means to intimidate without openly threatening. When you answer the poll question the way all of you, so far, have....you probably actually have to demonstrate a willingness to take up armed resistance, and then do it, to sufficiently intimidate authority to stop what the fuck they are in the midst of doing. They aren't concerned about our reaction, and it follows that they would dare to legislate our inalienable rights away from us....

OMG I voted with host on this one....

Despite all their promises to the contrary the democrats have done since taking control of both houses but rubber stamp a lame duck president's intrusive policies. This country truly needs a viable third party.

I guess you dont count:

* Restoring the Constitution Act (to restore US treaty obligations regarding rights of individuals under detention....blocked by Republicans in the Senate)
* Habeas Corpus Restoration Act (similar to above, blocked by Republicans in the Senate)
* Open Government Act of 2007 (Democratic bill to ease FOIA restrictions imposed by Bush, with enough Republican support to make it veto-proof)
* Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (first meaningful Congressional ethics and lobbyist reform bill in years)
* Reducing Over-Classification Act of 2007 (introduced by 14 Democratic committee chairs in the House in response to Bush classifying practically everthing)
* National Security Letters Reform Act of 2007 (introduced by Democrats to provide procedural protections for FBI use of NSLs in response to Bush's signing statement on Patriot Act that expanded FBI power to use NSLs contrary to Congressional intent)

IMO, an objective review and analysis of the Democrats first year in the majority would give them a little credit for trying to reign in the excesses of the Bush administration and the previous Republican majority in Congress.

And how exactly are the Dems supposed to do much of anything with basically a 51-49 split and Bush's veto pen in the waiting?

The only thing the Dems could seriously do is shut down the governemnt. Something the GOP did for a while in the 90's. In the 90's we didn't have such a war going on with solders dying nearly everyday.

I would have done the same given the circumstances. I would not have risked asking Congress to publicly change the law letting those subject to the wiretaps become aware of our efforts. To date no American has come foward and shown any violation of their civil liberty.

Quote:

* issues a signing statement on the Patriot Act that unilaterally overturns the intent of Congress regarding several provisions of the law, including the FBI's use of national security letters

Intent of Congress??? Congress needs to be clear. When issues are open to interpretation the Judicial Branch can help sort it out. If there is an issue with intent - Congress needs to step up and exercise their power rather than sit back and complain. This is the kind of issue that has been at issue in many administrations with Congress throughout our history.

Quote:

* unilaterally interprets US obligations under the Geneva Conventions, without consulting Congress or the Judiciary

I think the role of the President is to interpret US obligations when it comes to treaties and international agreements.

Quote:

* allegedly violates the Presidential Records Act by destroying 5,000+ e-mails during the time when the WH was discussion the outing of a CIA operative and the use of intel to justify the invasion of Iraq

We know what happened with the Plame affair. If Congress thinks the President committed a crime, they should impeach him. Why haven't they?

Quote:

*uses the executive privilege argument to withhold information from Congress resulting from conversations between two EOB aides, when in the past executive privilege has been limited to information/conversations between the President and an aide.

I am not familiar with this issue.

You take my point out of context. Perhaps you don't understand the point or you just ignore it. I don't know which and don't know how to respond to you.

I do to. I think for the system to work all sides need to be active and be willing to fight to maintain the balance. Passivity will cause the system to fail, I think Congress has been to passive relative to their level of complaint.

Yes.

I gave that benefit to Bill Clinton. Generally, I have a bias to the Executive Branch, the place where 'the buck stops'.

It takes 60 votes to get something passed in the Senate, can you name something they democrats actually stopped rather than name something they failed to pass? If it takes shutting down the government to prevent any further losses of our constitutional rights don't you think it would be worth it? I think the Democrats failed to grasp it wasn't an anti-war vote in 2006 that allowed them to take control of both houses but rather a anti-Patriot Act and a gluttonous out of control Republican party that gave the majority to the Democrats. Instead of at least attempting to impeach Bush for lying about Iraq and locking the government down for a couple years until we could get real change in the oval office they attempted a bunch of anti-war and other crap that didn't fly and became really confused as to what the hell we sent them there for. They are still confused and spewing two year old rhetoric. Here's a clue, Americans want real change and not business as usual. Most Americans prefer the war to be fought across the pond rather than in our back yard. Most Americans want an economic package that includes some good paying manufacturing and high tech jobs. Most Americans are bewildered at the size of our governments debt load and we don't want to be taxed to death to pay it down. If that means downsizing the government and giving up a few government gimmes so be it. We realize there has to be taxes and we just want everyone to pay their fair share, no more no less. We don't want to have to prop up the economy by swapping houses and being able to get loans we can't afford. We want clean reusable energy and if that means we inconvenience, not obliterate, a few bugs, bats and other mammals in the process so be it. We gotta do what we have to do to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Most Americans are Christians and we would like a little morality in our government and by everyone in public places. Like it or not this country was founded by Christians on Christian values and most Americans like it that way. What you do in your own home we really don't give a damn but please quit trying to push this free for all do anything you want where ever you want way far left twist down our throats. And most of all we want our personal freedoms back and a check on big brother and if that means locking down government for a year or two until we get it back so be it. I could go on and on but I won't, it's useless.

Now you all can slam me and post your thousand links to disprove everything I've said and I don't care. Which ever party finally figures it out and gets their collective heads out of their asses before November will probably be the one that takes the oval office this year.

scout....I guess you really arent interested in reading the six links (hardly a "thousand") to Democratic bills I posted that attempt to restore some rights guaranteed in the Constitution, return more openness and transparency to the federal government and hold our elected representatives more accountable for their actions. Its easier to bitch that they are all the same rather than acknowledge that the Democrats have done anything positive.

It takes more than one year to undue seven years of Bush/Republican excesses in the name of national security, particularly with a razor thin majority. Thats not to say the Democrats do not share some blame and responsibility for not doing more.

But good luck in finding a candidate who supports locking the government down for a couple years, restoring Christian values (so much for imposing your values on other citizens), proposing an economic package that includes good paying jobs or a program to reduce out dependency on foreign oil (oh wait...you dont want big government involved in your life, so good luck with the "free market" accomplishing these things anytime soon). Smaller government....which "government gimme" are you willing to give up?

I honestly dont know what you want...perhaps Ron Paul? But then that would not support your claims about what "most Americans want"..since he is attracting about 5% of the voting public.

***
ace....correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds to me like you support the Gonzales interpretation of the Constitution....that Article 2 of the Constitution gives the President the sole Constitutional authority to determine the power of the Executive Branch under that same Article 2.

Sorry, but the Constitution does not have a bias to the Executive Branch. "The buck stops at the Executive Branch" is not a Constitutional provision or mandate, but simply a folksy saying by a former president to accept responsibility for actions of his administration, not to unilaterally determine the extent of Executive power....unlike "I am the Decider". Hardly what the framers envisioned in a system of checks and balances.

I will look forward to your support of Hillary if/when her EOP staff destroy millions of WH e-mails (including some that might be potentially incriminating of a criminal action), withholds documents and prohibits EOP staff from testifying under oath at Congressional oversight investigations on dubious claims of executive privilege, orders the Secret Service to classify WH visitor logs to keep the public from knowing when criminals (ie Jack Abaramoff) visit, issues more signing statements than the last 10 presidents combined in order to alter the intent of laws enacted by Congress, interprets other US laws and treaty obligations rather than leaving it to the Judiciary.......

I will be the one complaining about an Executive Branch that has overstepped its Constitutional authority.

Brandon Mayfield?


Congress is as divided, possibly more, then the population. The intent of Congress can't be defined anymore then the intent of the American citizen.


Granted I'm no expert, but aren't these treaties and agreements drafted much like legal contracts? You know in way that outlines the responsibility of each party, thus removing the need to interpret.


Numbers


I agree with you here... I think.

I would not and do not favor power loading the Executive Branch, regardless of the individual occupying the office. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Don't put words into my mouth, I'm not forcing anything or any sort of value system on you. I was merely pointing out what people want in all those blue states in between the eight or ten red states on either coast. As far as the government gimmes, I currently don't get any gimmes so you can take every single one of them and toss'em for all I care. By the time I'm old enough for social security and medicaid it will be broke anyway so why should I continue to be taxed for a failed system?

All depends on how you define "government gimme." Do you get a check in your account or mailbox once a month? I'm guessing by your comments that's a big NO. Are the Feds paying for your health? Again, I'm guessing no. But do you drive on roads you built? If you call will a fire truck come to your house? Police? Ever fly anywhere? Are you running your own sewage system? Water? Like the fact the military is able to defend you?

Regardless if we agree on specifics your point is on target.

That is not my view.

Yea, that is correct. And I agree that folksy sayings have no Constitutional value.


I respect the fact that a President has to make tough decisions under tough circumstances. Presidents will make mistakes. I have no problem with any President making a mistake when they are acting in the best interest of the country. I would support a Ms. Clinton under those circumstances. However, my original point is that you really won't find much difference in her approach to the Executive office and Executive power than Bush.

The issue is not a president making mistakes...it is a president willfully and unilaterally determining his/her own executive powers without consulting, or even informing, the other co-equal branches of government.

I'm having a hard time understanding your position. You say you dont agree with the Gonzales principle (a president can determine his own Constitutional powers), but based on your previous statements, it appears you support a president acting outside the law or taking action based on his/her own interpretation of the Constitution (eg warrantless wiretaps) if he/she believes it is in the best interest of the country.

I dont.

Of course, you have nothing to support this statement, other than personal opinion and, based on many of her votes, the opposite is closer to the truth.

In fact, if you take her at her word (I know thats hard to do regarding any of the candidates), she has clearly stated that she would not follow the Bush approach to executive power in several key areas:

Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?

No. The President is not above the law.

Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?

I have opposed the Bush Administration's abuse of signing statements, and as President, I would not use signing statements to disagree on policy grounds with legislation passed by Congress or as an end run around the veto. I would only use signing statements in very rare instances to note and clarify confusing or contradictory provisions, including provisions that contradict the Constitution. My approach would be to work with Congress to eliminate or correct unconstitutional provisions before legislation is sent to my desk.

Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

No.

Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?

Under our Constitution, they also are the law of the land, and the President has the same duty to comply with them as with any other valid law.

Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?

The Bush Administration has acted unconstitutionally in failing to comply with FISA, failing to adhere to Congress's prohibitions on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and attempting to hold enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo without review, to name a few examples. More fundamentally, I reject the basic premise of the Bush Administration's view that Executive Power is not subject to the rule of law or to constitutional checks and balances.

And other questions on which she agrees.....Boston Globe survey

But then again, as someone noted.....power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely....so there is no telling what she might do if elected.

And my concern is that the Bush precedent of determining his own Constitutional powers leaves the door wide open for similar excesses by any future president.

We generally live in, like, parallel universes, yours is a glorious place where everything is done by the rules, everyone cooperates and everyone gets along. And when that doesn't happen things get all screwed up. In my universe rules are made to be broken, everyone does what is in their best interest and you have to watch your back.

Hence, if I am President and I want more power, I won't consult those I am taking power from.

Hence, if I take an action that I think is right and others think wrong - I am right until I am made to suffer a consequence.

Hence, if I am will to go to a further extreme than others to stand up for what I believe in - my point of view will prevail.

I hope that gives you a better understanding of how my views are formulated.

ace...I get it now.

Expanding one'e power unilaterally in pursuit of "what you believe in" trumps the rule of law, Constitutional safeguards of checks and balances, and the Presidential oath of office.

In case you forgot:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It doesnt say "I will interpret the Constitution myself to support what I think is right"

I believe they have governments like this. They're called dictatorships.

http://youthinkleft.com/wp-content/u...nstitution.jpg

Dick: We must go to a further extreme than others to stand up for what we believe in

George: Fuck yeah....its only a piece of paper....after all, we ARE the president and we want more power!

I don't understand what is complicated about the concept of checks and balances.

If you have a responsibility to 'check' my behavior in order to maintain a balance and I have that same responsibility to 'check' your behavior - then if one of us fails in fulfilling our responsibility to 'check' the other, who is at fault? I guess you would say the one who took advantage of the one 'asleep at the wheel'. I would say the one 'asleep at the wheel' is at fault.

If Congress has allowed Bush to make a mockery of the Constitution and civil liberties I have a problem with Congress.

However, for the record I don't think Bush has made a mockery of the Constitution, the civil liberties of some have been violated but not to the degree where it would be worthy of impeachment or the descriptive term "mockery". In-fact like I said before I would have taken many of the same actions Bush has given the circumstances.

I can also separate my political views on an action taken by a President from the intent or motivation for an action taken by a President. Therefore I clearly understand the actions considered unconstitutional taken by a president like FDR even if I disagree with those actions politically.

ace, I gave you a good explanation, in post #8, here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=121564

...as to why Mr. Bush cannot be trusted concerning staying within the framework of the FISA law, you never replied. Post #1 in that thread, illustrates why none of Mr. Bush's statements can be trusted, although you disagreed...

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this thread.
It seems like dc_dux is channeling me.

My point is - I do not trust Bush. I do not trust you. I do not trust the Pope. I believe all of you will do what you think is in your best interest and if that conflicts with my interest I will get 'screwed' unless I stand up and fight for my interests. If my interests are aligned with Bush, you or the Pope then that makes us o.k., but I still wont trust you, Bush or the Pope.

So you argue the wrong point with me. I agree that Bush can not be "trusted" to act within the frame work of the FISA law. If I wrote the law or had the responsibility of checks and balances I would have a means to make sure the law was being enforced and carried out as I intended. If I found a violation I would make sure there were consequences for the violation. Assuming Bush violated the law, Bush pretty much gave Congress the finger and defiantly asked what they were going to do about it. What did they do? Pretty much nothing.

It like the penalty of holding in football. If you comit the infraction of holding on a play and your team scores, but the ref did not make the call - are you guilty of holding? Yes and no. You certainly committed the infraction, but your team scored. On the other hand if the ref calls the penalty, your team loses points, yards - you may be subject to increased scrutiny, you may lose your starting position, you may lose your 7 figure contract, you may lose you r super model wife, etc.

So there you have it. Consequence minimizes infractions. On the other hand if let people get away with what you think is wrong, they keep doing it. In the end, I actually think we agree, because I thought your point was more about the failings of Congress, I don't dispute Bush doing things to test the limits of what is legal or within his executive power.

dk....its a mad, mad world!

Me channeling you...(I have always been a staunch defender of the Constitution, we just differ on interpretation)

...and ace channeling his favorite despot, Hugo Chavez:

if I am President and I want more power, I won't consult those I am taking power from.

if I take an action that I think is right and others think wrong - I am right until I am made to suffer a consequence.

if I am will to go to a further extreme than others to stand up for what I believe in - my point of view will prevail.

I think you understand.

I disagree with Chavez's politics, but I respect him. He the kind of guy that has no hidden agenda, he speaks and acts with clarity.

ace....I understand.

I have less respect for thugs in office and more respect for the rule of law.

dc_dux, if Harry Reid's aide, really said what I've highlighted in the excerpt below, why would it be unreasonable to for me to dismiss, from any serious consideration as an advocate for our fourth amendment protections from unwarranted government intrusion, every democrat in the senate who does not openly call for Harry Reid to step down as majority leader?

DIdn't Harry Reid clearly have the option of selcting for introduction for senate debate, the version of the bill that most closely matched the version passed by the house, the version without immunity for telecoms, the version that would have required sixty votes to add the telecom immunity provision to, instead of the version Reid chose, the one requiring 60 votes to remove the immunity provsion from the bill?

If I have this wrong, and it is not what it seems...please explain, so I can stop making a fool out of myself for accusing majority leader Reid of looking like Cheney's sock puppet, instead of like the head of the senate majority opposing the lawlessness of the Bush administration. Remember, the telecoms were approached and asked to cooperate, outside the law,months BEFORE 9/11.

Host....I agree with you on Reid.

But I would still make retroactive telcomm immunity a bargaining chip with Republicans for a bill that ensures greater protections and oversight in the future.

I would have to think more about the best way to accomplish that within the framework of the competing Senate bills.

In any case, I think there is a strong likelihood that Dodd will challenge Reid again for majority leader next year, particularly if the Democrats pick up 3-4 seats (from among VA, NH, CO, NM, MN, OR)

With Bush's threatened veto of the House version that does not include tellcom immunity and the Senate debate over the two competing bills, the most likely outcome appears to be an 18 month extension of the Protect America Act (the short term FISA fixed passed last summer).

On further thought (after several hours):
A better alternative would be to just let the temporary Protect America Act expire on Feb.1 and not extend or attempt to amend it, but return to the pre-PAA version of FISA which had explicit requirements for warrants for any surveillance and did not need "fixing".....we simply needed better Congressional and FISA court oversight to ensure compliance by the Executive branch.

Rule of law: Have you ever violated the law? Remembering MLK - he violated a few laws during the civil rights movement, how do you put that into the context of your statement? IMO - violating a bad law for the right reason is a good thing. I would never blindly follow "the rule of law".

On the issue of respect: I respect rattle snakes. Primarily because they can inflict harm, not because I like them.

On the issue of Executive Power and rattle snakes: Hilary Clinton in my opinion will be the next President. She seems to be the kind of woman that will grab a man by his balls and squeeze until he starts singing like a 10 year old in the Vienna Boys Choir. :eek: I respect her, and would expect Republicans to do what needs to be done to make sure she stays in-line. I am betting she will be more aggressive assuming Executive power than Bush and certainly more aggressive than Bill Clinton.

Your comparison is total bullshit.

MLK did not take an oath of office "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Those who take such an oath have a legal and moral obligation that is above and beyond their rights as private citizens to participate in passive resistance to laws they believe are unjust....particularly if that resistance results (by intent or otherwise) in enhancing their own power as an elected official.

As I responded earlier with a link to her responses to questions on executive power, you have no basis for this. IMO, its a cheap excuse to rationalize Bush's immoral, unethical and in some cases, illegal behavior.

I completely disagree with you. I think given her statements regarding Bush's excesses she would have a hard time engaging in the same BS.

My point was in response to your morality stance on the "rule of law". You suggested that laws should be followed without question. I disagree.


I look at one of her responses from your link:

Her view is no different than most Presidents. In fact the Constitution provides no exemption for the Presidency from the legal processes of the other branches. As Clinton states executive privilege in the context above was an assumed power challenged and found in favor of the Presidency.

One area not covered by the source you gave is the use of Executive Agreements. These agreement are made by Presidents acting independently as a national negotiator and commander-in -chief. Dating back to the early 1800 these agreement have been used as instruments of foreign policy bypassing Congress' Constitutional authority to approve international treaties. Again as President, I doubt Ms. Bush would give this power away and strictly adhere to the Constitution. You can keep your head in the sand if you want.

Ironically, FDR used these kinds of agreements more than any President prior to his term.

ace....nice deflection after your MLK reference was exposed as irrelevant. My morality stance on the "rule of law" throughout this discussion has been directed at the nation's chief elected official, not private citizens....thus, my earlier reference to the oath of office.

The discussion here has NEVER been about a private citizens rights and the rule of law (on that issue, we agree), but rather the legal obligations and limitations of Congress and the president under the Constitution.


Again....nice deflection by cherry picking one response. I said earlier that she agreed with Bush on several of the questions...as do I.

Look at all 12 of her responses collectively and make the case that she would be more likely to unilaterally attempt to enhance her own executive powers than Bush as you suggest.

How about another deflection. US Presidents on more than 100 occasions have engaged in "military actions" (acts of war) against other nations without seeking Congressional authority for war. This includes former President Clinton. All of these acts could be argued as un-Constitutional and an abuse of Presidential power. Right? Or wrong because if politically you like a President, like let's say Bill Clinton - he gets a pass, is that the way it is? When one politically supports an abuse of executive power it is o.k., but otherwise, like with Bush, it is not?


O.k., I look at another:

Given her above position, it seems she would be at odds with the actions taken by her husband in 1998 against Iraq. Is she?

Why does she limit her concerns to Bush and Iran? Why not make a blanket statement say she would never to military action without Congressional authority?

What does "truly imminent threat" mean? doesn't that sound like a "Bush lie" that lead us to war in Iraq?

You have to admit the Ms. Clinton chooses her words carefully, an one can easily infer from what she says and what she doesn't say. No doubt she will fight to control as much executive power as possible. In Bush's case, Chaney was the driver on Executive power. In Ms. Clinton's situation she will be the driver on that issue.

Feel free to continue ignoring these great on target points, I have more:)

{added} I think I got my dates mixed up. Clinton bombed Iraq in 1993. A Sudan aspirin factory in 1998. He bomb others as well, not including interns.{added}

ace....you crack me up :)

I have said repeatedly in different ways and on different threads that a president has a legal and moral obligation to abide by his oath of office and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and should be held accountable for his actions (that does not necessarily mean impeachment in every case).

I would have applied the same standard to FDR and Nixon as I do to Bush and Hillary.

As I understand your position, you believe its ok for a president to break the law ("spy on a few people," for example) if he believes the law is wrong or unilaterally expand the powers of the Executive branch without consulting or informing the co-equal branches of government.

You can post all the examples of past presidents you want and I can respond with other examples that will clearly show how Bush has unilaterally expanded his powers far more than any past president.

We have a fundamental difference that wont be resolved.

It is clear that neither party is committed to upholding the provisions of the constitution defining our rights we have clearly, for 208 years, not ceded to government authority.

Why is it then, that it is not obvious that a discussion of the appropriatness, and the probable pitfalls, of taking to arms, for the purpose of protecting our bill of rights, ourselves, is not now timely or appropriate?

In chronological order, a diary of ultimatums, postponements, excuses, and finally, accountability is "off the table", in the interests of "bi-partisanship":

My position is that Congress has the responsibility to make sure the President does not abuse his power. To the degree that people like you believe Bush abused executive power, I would think you would have a problem with Congress. I expect Presidents to test the limits of their authority.

I don't understand how you or anyone disagree with my position, your rebuttals are not that clear.

Host...I, too, was pissed that the House Democrats are backing down on the contempt citation....at least temporarily.

I will also be angry if Congress does not act on the WH's destruction of 500,000 emails in violation of the Presidential Records Act, particularly during critical times like the outing of Plame and the fabrication of statements to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Because the posturing was political gamesmanship from the beginning. Democrats were never serious about holding Bush accountable for his acts as President. They generally have support his acts as President.

Host....I believe the bills I posted earlier as a result of numerous oversight hearings that were lacking for the first 6 years of Bush demonstrated an attempt by the Democrats to rectify some of the abuses of the Bush administration and provide for greater transparency and accountability. The Democrats have had only one year to correct six years of abuses.

These were not done as posturing or political gamesmanship, but I agree its not enough.

But Bush cannot be impeached for lying at press conferences...or for acts of subordinates..or without hard evidence (that has been destroyed by subordinates). Further, with the present numbers, Democrats have no control over Republican obstructionists in Congress who are unwilling to address the abuses of the last 6 years...and in any case, I just dont believe armed insurrection is the answer.

Women protested peacefully and lobbied aggressively to gain basic constitutional right in the 20s.....the labor movement did not take up arms to protect and expand workers rights in the 40s...African-Americans did not resort to violence to gain civil rights in the 60s.

They all "worked" the system and the system worked for them. Today, most Americans appear too apathetic to do even that much...forget an armed march on Washington.

I saw this on google news, just a few minutes ago:
and, when you click on "FISA Cloture, FISA Fictions", it resolves to this, and the poster's comment in response to the anti-constitutional, establishhment propaganda, asks the question we are all yearning to read the answer to:
If there are any "Fisa reform, telecomm immunity" advocates out there, why would you trust this president and his administration with even more, checks and balances "proof", i.e. unaccountable authority, or the telecomms that broke the existing law, cooperating with government "requests" without the paper work legally required to do so, before they cooperated in giving up our private records and communications?

The short answer is national security. Reasonable people don't want the records subject to discovery in open trial for trial attorneys to go on "fishing expeditions".

If specific people came forward with real damage claims I would support their actions to be indemnified for their damages and to receive punitive damages to the degree their was gross negligence or wanton violations of the law. I have not seen this and don't support subjecting telephone companies to millions of dollars spent defending pointless court cases.

ace, unfortunately, your opinion is completely contrary to the facts...the following sez so, and so does the federal judge who has so far allowed the civil litigation against the telecomms to proceed, within the workable and functioning framework intended for litigation such as this.

I think you've been peruaded to "buy into" solving a problem that the telecoms allegedly face, but doesn't, in fact exist.

Why, if they have broken the law and violated our rights and protections, as their customers, and as residents of the US, ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE COST OF THESE COMPANIES' LITIGATION? Your priorities seem a bit misplaced.....

What you posted did not directly respond to my opinion on this. Also, I don't get all 'weak in the knees' over a ruling by a Judge. Judges are people just like you and me, some have political agendas and rulings get overturned regularly by other Judges.

The bottom line on this issue for me is this: If the Bush administration willfully and without regard for the law violated the civil liberties of US citizens, the administration should be held accountable.

Congressional leaders with inside information should come to the American people and tell us if this issue is worthy of prosecution. If it is impeachment proceeding should start immediately.

On the other hand, if Bush acted in good faith protecting or national security and in doing so the administration slightly stepped over the legal line, then I say we acknowledge it, fix the problem, and move on.

There is no value to our nation in having hundreds if not thousands of trials on this issue.

I think our society is too litigious. I think our level of litigation has hurt or economy and has put our nation at a competitive disadvantage in the international market place. I have no problem with legitimate lawsuits, however, I do have a problem with excessive damage awards. In the end those costs come back to average working people. And generally a few trial attorneys walk away with a third or more of those judgments. That is wrong. I don't understand your lack of concern about that injustice.

Congress did not have inside information, because the White House withheld, and continues to withhold, the information from both Congress and the FISA court.

Congress is now in the process of compelling White House officials and others to testify on the so-called Terrorist Surveillence (warrantless wiretapping) Program in order to obtain such information as is its right and obligation as the oversight authority over the Executive branch.

Subpoenas have been issued and ignored.

Subpoena to Josh Bolton

Subpoena to Phillip Lago

Subpoena to David Addington

each served with Subpoena attachments

There are others, but I think these make the point.

The WH has not complied and the next step is to hold those persons in Contempt of Congress, which would require the DoJ to act if a contempt order is approved by either the House or Senate. Gonzales had said he would have refused to act to enforce a Congressional contempt order; its is uncertain if Mukasey will fulfill his legal obligation if/when it reaches his desk.

There is also an ongoing perjury investigation of Gonzales within the DoJ (Congress asked for a special investigator rather than allow the DoJ to investigate itself but Bush refused), for his testimony on the TSP.

Perhaps all of this fits your concern of "hundreds or thousands of trials" (or investigations) of a potential crime by persons in the Executive Branch.

In the interim, your suggestion of "slightly stepping over the line" is a novel legal concept.

The novelty of legal concepts aside, if I were in Congress and I felt the President violated the civil liberties of American citizens and had a blatant disregard for the "rule of law", willfully and defiantly violated the law - I would not rest until he was removed from office and held accountable. But that is just me, the pit-bullish side of my personality.

On the other hand if I felt the letter of the law was broken in a manner that was immaterial to the spirit of the law, I would fix the problem and move on.

This is not a complicated issue in my view.

If you are sincerely interested in the truth, I hope the pitbull in you will personally support the ongoing Congressional effort (blocked or stalled by the WH at every step) to get all the facts about the TSP and urge your Republican senators and congressmember to vote FOR the Contempt of Congress charge when it reaches the floor so that the WH is compelled to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" so that it can be determined in a congressional or judicial setting (as the Constitution provides) if the President's actions were a willful violation of the law and his Constitutional oath or just "slightly over the line."

Although I am still trying to understand how a president can slightly violate a citizen's constitutionally protected rights.

Unless you think of course, that it is just more Democratic political grandstanding as you have suggested about some of the recent Congressional oversight efforts in the past year.

Pardon me, but I find all this posturing about law and the legal process to be highly amusing.

Repeat after me: "motion to dismiss" is different from "summary judgment" which in turn is different from "trial." Got that? The issue here is subjecting actors to litigation risk (not liability) for good faith actions; it has nothing to do with immunizing intentional invasions of constitutional rights. The issue is how far into the discovery stage a plaintiff can get, or, put another way, what the pleading rules are for establishing a litigable claim for relief. This isn't a substantive readjustment of rights, and it's not elimination of an existing claim nor creation of a substantive right. If you get fucked by the phone company you can still sue, but you have to show that indeed you were fucked, not just treated shabbily, which is what phone companies do. What you can't do is fish around and make a PIA of yourself in the hope of getting a settlement.

loquitur: I would make a lawyer joke after reading that, but I am more concerned with the broader issue of the legality of the TSP - why it happened and how it happened, including the involvement of the telcomms - and ensuring that such actions by the Executive branch receive the proper checks and balances before being implemented in the future.

The DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel and the acting AG at the time advised Bush that parts of the TSP program were illegal. Bush chose to ignore the legal interpretation of the top law enforcement officials in the country and unilaterally determine that he had the right to spy on American citizens without a warrant.

In order to determine if Bush acted within or outside the law, there needs to be full disclosure to the appropriate oversight committees of Congress of the actions within the WH during the period 2001-2005.

As to the retroactive immunity for telecomms, Quest refused the WH request to assist in the TSP because they thought the program was illegal. Verizon and ATT acquiesced. There needs to be accountability here as well.

In any case, under the current law, telecom companies get immunity as long as they follow certain requirements spelled out clearly in the law.

The above is what I think is going on with this issue. I have not read/heard/seen anything that would change my preconceived view on this.

I also think Democrats have been politically grandstanding on many other issues since the beginning of Bush's term. My test comes down to a basic question: What would I do if I believed what Democratic Party leaders say they believe? On most of the issues my actions would be far different than what Democratic leaders actually do. To a degree the difference may be more about the nature of all politicians (and I am certainly not a politician or diplomatic) and because I generally support Bush, the actions of Democrats stand out. But like I wrote in the past there are things the Republican Congress did during Clinton's administration that I did not support and felt was political grandstanding.

ace....its a no win catch-22 for the Democrats in your world.

You said earlier in this thread (#40) that "My position is that Congress has the responsibility to make sure the President does not abuse his power..."

But if a Democrat controlled Congress attempts to meet that responsibility (after seven years of Republication abrogation of that responsibility)...they are politically grandstanding.

Your logic is flawed.

Honest disagreement on issues leads to real debate and often to real solutions that benefits both sides of an issue. I think I could have an honest disagreement and real debate with Dennis Kucinich, but I don't think I could with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Hilery Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, etc. On the Republican side I would put Mit Romney or even a guy like Rush Limbaugh in that category. Kucinich says what he believes and acts on it, the others are more about blowing hot air than being willing to take an unpopular stance or act on what they think is the right thing to do.

The 60 Minute interview with the FBI agent who spent months interviewing Saddam Husein was very interesting this past Sunday. He said that Husein never believe the US would invade Iraq. He thought the US would drop bombs like in the past but not invade. I guess nobody other than Bush, some in his administration and I would think that getting the authorization to use military force, and saying we would use military force, would lead to actually using military force. The war could have been avoided if he understood that Bush was not the typical Washington politician. That is really sad and truly depressing.

In my book there is no place for "grandstanding" - simply say what you believe and act on your beliefs.

ace....its not my logic, its your statements.

Tell me how I misinterpreted what you said SPECIFICIALLY about Congressional oversight and even more specifically about the oversight of alleged FISA violations by the President which you characterized as political grandstanding.

"My position is that Congress has the responsibility to make sure the President does not abuse his power..."

"The above (Democratic political grandstanding) is what I think is going on with this issue (Congressional oversight of warrantless wiretaps)"

The rest of your post is a diversion from the issue of Congressional oversight.

How do you get to the truth to verify or contradict your "preconceived view"?

You said there was a catch 22. There is not a catch 22. Saying what one believes and acting on one's beliefs is what I expect. If Congress is exercising their Constitutional responsibility, I don't have a problem with that. I may disagree with their actions but the disagreement can lead to improved checks and balances. Clearly there is no catch 22.

On FISA - if Bush violated the law Congress can, ignore the violation, fix the law or they can impeach the President. Given Bush violated the law, what do Democrats want?

Some want Bush impeached, others want to ensure that such alleged violations never happen again.

BUT first they all want to get to the truth that the WH continues to withhold....what exactly did Bush do (and authorize) ...when did he do it...and who was involved?

That is the Constitutional role of Congressional oversight that you characterize as political grandstanding.

Bush authorized the use of phone records to track and tap telephone activity between terrorists out side of the US with people within the US. He receive cooperation from some telephone companies.

The buck stops with Bush.

Unless you have access to information withheld from Congress, you (me and every other citizen and member of Congress) have no idea exactly what Bush did and the extent to which he did it.

It does not need to be made public if it would compromise national security, but Congress has the right to know (in closed session).

Thats why I hope you will support the Contempt of Congress charges if the WH does not comply.....to get to the facts and the truth! :)

Are you suggesting that you don't know if Bush violated the FISA law?

Or do you need to know what color tie he was wearing on the day he authorized breaking the law or what he had for lunch on the day he asked to read transcripts on all the phone calls a certain person who frequents TFP and goes by the moniker of dc-dux made in 2007?

I think this is the Executive Order issued by the President to bypass the FISA law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/1802.html

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Bush violated the law:

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2005/1...-are-legal.htm

Without being too presumptuous, let me interpret:

Bush is saying - yea, I broke the law. I think I had good reason. F-you guys in Congress.

Now, what is Congress going to do?

ummm...NO.

That is the codified language of the temporary FISA extension that was enacted last summer and that is currently under deliberation to be made permanent.

And my preconceived view is that Bush probably likes bolo ties.

I hate reading Executive Orders, do you know which one it is? regardless, the point is the same.

There was no Executive Order.

As I understand it, Gonzales made the case that Bush had the authority to bypass FISA as a result of the Resolution passed by Congress a week after 9/11...something about the whereas clause "the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism " even though the Resolution clearly applies to military force, not domestic surveillance:
What the House and Senate Oversight Committees are trying to do is get to the facts...all the facts.

I like one of the arguments made by Gonzales stating that the administration did not seek revision of FISA because they knew Congress would not support the changes they sought.

So, not only did Bush break the law, he knew he was breaking the law, and he had discussion about why he was going to break the law. I guess I will sit and watch as the folks in Congress investigate this some more. Or, perhaps they will just revise the FISA law on a Friday before a long weekend and let the issue just kinda fade awwwwaaaaay. Bush broke the law and we know it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffr...-_b_13522.html

The above is a good link laying out several legal arguments about Bush's violation of the law.

Host,

The Senate took a vote today on this issue it looks like the majority favor immunity for telecoms. It seems about 18 Democrats voted with Republicans on this issue.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1202..._us_whats_news

Do you think these Senators are all wrong the same way you think I am?

And perhaps DC can explain how this vote is not a purely political posturing given the level of rhetoric from Democratic Party leadership on this issue and their continued desire to investigate what really happened. seems like today many in the Senate know enough to support immunity for the telecoms.

Ace....which Democrats are posturing...the 18 who voted for the immunity or the 31 who voted against? or do all Democrats in the Senate posture on every issue?

Are the overwhelming majority of Democrats in the House posturing..their bill does not include retroactive immunity for the telcomms?

Of course, the Congressional investigation into the 5 years of unlawful surveillance activities by the Administration should go forward. Not necessarily for punitive purposes, but to fully understand how the processes in place failed to provide for proper oversight, allowed the executive branch to interpret its Constitutional powers without consulting the other co-equal branches, and failed to protect the rights of citizens.

That, along with a better FISA bill (like the House version) is the best way to ensure that future administrations will not take such liberty with the Constitution.

dc-dux, all politicians posture on every issue. It's what they do, part of their job description. The party differences dictate whom they posture for and what language they use.

Sometimes the posturing is even sincere, or a tool to get to a sincerely desired goal. Doesn't mean there is no posturing, though.

I don't know. But it looks like Fienstein, assume she voted her convictions, is headed for some trouble from some Democrats. The thought that she might agree with Bush on an issue?!? My goodness, what next?

It is easy for me to think that some in the Senate would vote their convictions on this issue while others may vote based on what may serve a political purpose, such as covering their a$$ or some other purpose than doing what is best for the nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/1...u_n_72342.html

Personally, I think it has been very clear that the rhetoric on the FISA issue has been "over the top". As the issue fades from the headlines, it seems Congress will do the right thing in spite of all the empty rhetoric.

Also, you think there should be more investigation into this issue, but I don't know what else you need to know and for what purpose - given a non-punitive goal. Seems like they would want to conclude investigative efforts before making law on this issue.

ace....you and I obviously place a different level of importance on Congressional oversight. You have said repeatedly in this and other threads that you think its political grandstanding and a waste of time and money. IMO, it is a critical responsibility of Congress equal to enacting legislation.

And IMO, this oversight investigation has a much broader reach and potential impact than just the FISA law. It goes to the issue of a president unilaterally determining his own powers under the Constitution and withholding that decision from the legislative and judicial branches.

What else do we need to know?

Most importantly, how about a detailed explanation from the WH on its legal basis or justification for determining that the 2001 "use of force" resolution gave Bush the power to conduct surveillance on American citizens without a judicial warrant. Did the WH ever plan to inform Congress or keep it secret until they got caught?

Other unanswered questions?

How about determining if there was a "quid pro quo" between the WH and the telcomms.....multi-million$ federal contracts in exchange for "voluntarily" assisting in a potentially illegal activity? or was their coercion by the WH?

How about the criteria used to determine which citizens' rights were worth violating the law? Was there "reasonable cause" or was it a "witch hunt"?

But I guess those are just "over the top" questions of little relevance.

Got a challenge for you, ace....point out example(s) that you believe are inaccurate in this description of what has "gone down", since the NY Times first published the reporting, in December, 2005, of illegal federal government wiretapping and datamining of US residents, and WHY it is inaccurate, and I'll "stand down" if the information you post justifies it, or I'll post my supported opinion why I disagree with you.

IMO, the title of the thread is even truer today than when I posted it....

I place a high level of importance on the role of Congressional oversight. I believe if a President is unchecked, he/she would ultimately try to assume total control of government. The role of Congress is the key to making sure that does not happen.

In this case:

I think we know what happened and why.
I think we know the legal arguments used by the Administration.
I think we know the Administration knew they were breaking the original FISA law.
I think we know the Administration wanted to keep the issue secret.
I think we know the Administration made a decision not to approach Congress to change the law.
I think we know the Administration got caught in this abuse of executive power issue.

And given all of the above, to me the question is: What is next? I think we fix the FISA law and move on. I know others have a different opinion, and that is o.k. with me. If the majority want to hold the Administration accountable, we should proceed with that. Bush is responsible and I am sure he would attempt to clearly communicate what he did and why in the proper setting at the proper time and take full responsibility. To me the key is that Congress needs to act, do something and stop talking about this.

I have written the above in different ways, but my points have been consistent. I think I am clear, but you don't seem to understand. Probably a failing on my part.

I have no issue with the factual information. However, some of the rhetoric is "over the top" in my opinion. For example: I don't believe I live in a "police state", do you?

ace.....if you know what happened, then you know more than Congress.

So tell me how many US citizens were illegally wiretapped and what test of "reasonble cause" was used to justify such action (FISA requires that this information be provided to Congress on a quarterly or semi-annual basis)

Tell me...what is the legal basis for keeping it secret?

And tell me the specific legal argument used by the Administration that gives the president the unilateral power to bypass existing laws...and not just that the 2001 Use of Force Resolution provided the legal authorization (there must be some language in that resolution that the WH believed provided this extraordinary presidential power).

And the most important question of all:

Since the passage of the 2001 Use of Force resolution by Congress, has Bush invoked this alleged presidential authority under the resolution in order to undertake or authorize any other activities beyond warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.

ace....do you know the answer to this question? Do you think Congress has the right to know if the WH is conducting other illegal activities based on its own interpretation of presidential powers?

Now that is a real leap of faith! :thumbsup:

Based on what, I cant imagine....particularly in light of the WH destruction of millions of e-mails, Bush's EO to effectively nullify the Presidential Records Act, unprecedented claims of Executive Privilege in conversations/documents not directly involving the Pres, WH blocking DoJ internal investigations by denying security clearances to DoJ investigators, etc.

I beleive he stated he "thinks we know" not "I know." Quite a bit of difference there.

But, yes I see no reason to think or believe Bush Jr. has any reason to come clean on this issue or any other issue. Maybe 80 to 100 years from now there'll be a ton of highly redacted documents released that answer no one's questions. Other then that I don't foresee any info coming from this Admin. But I could always be wrong.

I stand corrected, but that sounds like Rumsfeld speak :)

"...but as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

I don't believe I have made any claims on this subject that are not public knowledge and have been documented and discussed openly. If I have please correct me. There may be some who still have the belief that the Administration did not violate FISA or abuse his executive power. But I think most people understand what happened and why - if they agree with they why is a different question but we do know the stated explanation.

I don't know the number. I don't want to know the number because I don't want the information made public. I still believe it is a national security issue.

Agree or not, the reasonable cause in my opinion is "communications with known terrorists". I think it reasonable to "spy" on people who are communicating with known terrorists. In my view Bush should not have given authorization for this kind of "spying" unilaterally. However, I may have done the same as he did given the circumstances. Hindsight is 20/20.

Quote:

Tell me...what is the legal basis for keeping it secret?

It is no longer secret, I am not sure how the illegal "spying" was made public.
The motivation to keep the program secret was to make known terrorists think they could freely communicate.

I think the media played an important role in brining this to light.

Quote:

And tell me the specific legal argument used by the Administration that gives the president the unilateral power to bypass existing laws...and not just that the 2001 Use of Force Resolution provided the legal authorization (there must be some language in that resolution that the WH believed provided this extraordinary presidential power).

The President has no such authority. I have stated that I think the President broke the FISA law. Again the question facing us now is what do we do about it? In my view, we fix the law and move on. Some believe punitive action should be taken, I respect that view, I just don't agree with it.

But more directly answering your question, One of the links pointed out the legal arguments used by the Bush administration. I thought those arguments were pretty weak.

No. If Congress wants to investigate that question, they should. But you do realize it is a different question, don't you?
Yes.


Perhaps the Presidential Records act is un-Contitutional, I don't know. But if I believed it was, and I were President, I would destroy records as much as I wanted until I was challenged on the issue.

Checks and balances is not a passive activity. Perhaps Congress should investigate things like this rather than what was in the needle of what a trainer may of or may not of stuck in someone's a$$ - don't you agree?

The number of wiretaps (not the names) with a FISA warrant are made public and provided to Congress on an annual (not quarterly or semi-annual as I noted in an earlier post) basis....including the years, 2002-2005, when nearly all FISA requests were granted (LINK), yet Bush still went outside the law to authorize additional wiretaps of US citizens without a warrant. The new FISA law requires annual reporting as well.

So why shouldnt the number of citizens who were subject to warrantless wiretaps under Bush's illegal TSP program be held to the same standard and shared with Congress as well? What does the administration have to hide?

It was made public, through the media, by an NSA employee who had serious and justifiable concerns that the program violated the Constitutional rights of citizens.

The links you provided offered the opinion of legal scholars on what they assumed were the legal arguments of the Bush administration.

The Bush administration should provide a detailed legal justification describing in detail how the 2001 resolution provided this new extraordinary power for the president to ignore existing law. We should not have to rely on outside legal scholars to suggest what they "think" was the legal justification offered by Bush/Gonzales.

Because...the question of whether the Bush administration used the same rationale for other potentially illegal activities is NOT a separate question but gets to the heart of the issue of how Bush used the resolution to circumvent existing law and certainly is within the pervue of the Judiciary Committees.

If Bush believes the Presidental Records Act is unconstitutional, he should have the Solicitor General of the US file a case with the Federal district court or ask for a fasttrack for USSC review.

Until such time, destroying records is an unlawful act and should be investigated by Congress.

I agree with you on this last hearing.

But if you recall, the hearings on this subject initially also focused on the pervasiveness of steroids and HGH in non-professional sports (ie high school and college) and if there needed to be a stronger federal education and enforcement role in response to the growing use of such "performance enhancing" drugs by kids.

Here is my bottom line:

1) What was done was done. The best we can do going forward, in my opinion, is to make sure the President and Congress work together to make sure we have a system in place that accomplishes the goals on both sides of the issue.

2) On the issue of immunity - We will not be served if through litigation certain things related to this are made public. For example: If you have a neighbor (US citizen in the USA) who was innocently, in regular contact by phone with a known terrorist overseas and the administration tracked that activity but took no action - what happens if that is made public? How are we going to benefit? What is going to happen to your neighbor? In my view nobody wins, telecoms spend millions in defense costs, we are not made safer, and your neighbor's life may be ruined. Congress needs to put this issue to rest.

Thats cool....we clearly have different bottom lines.

It is evident by the fact that you have stated on several occasions that if you were president, you would willfully violate the law and your oath of office and spy on American citizens without a warrant or shred White House documents if you thought you knew better than Congress and the Judiciary or if you could get away with it. I would not.

(I have visions of the Ace Administration....the resurrection of J Edgar Hoover or channeling Nixon or perhaps a kitchen cabinet of Bush/Chaney as advisers on how to circumvent the laws of the land).

Again you seem to suggest that there would be no circumstance under which you could conceive of violating a law. "Bad laws", need to be broken, they need to be challenged. My first rule in life is to always do what I think is right. If I happen to break a law doing what is the right thing to do, I will accept the consequences but I will always be able to hold my head up high. If I were President and felt I needed to break an outdated FISA law, I would.

That's fine...for you, but hoiw is your philosophy compatible with this oath, taken by a person as a condition of assuming the office of President of the United States?
Doesn't this discussion come down to whether the current president honored his oath, or not....and not what your reaction, or the reaction of a congressional majority is? Isn't the issue here that the president is pushing hard to have his failure to uphold his oath of office, somehow retroactively legitimized, by a congress that should be instead, drafting articles of impeachment against him for said failure?

Congratulations, you've just committed an impeachable offense.

Of course, you could attempt to cover it up by having subordinates shred any incriminating evidence......oh wait, another impeachable offense.

I got it...make it known to all of your subordinates that if they lie under oath in the course of a Congressional hearing or FBI investigation, that you will commute their sentence. The cover-up is safe. :thumbsup:

Well get going, the Democrats did bury the Cheney impeachment hearings for 'some' reason. What are they afraid of, deal with this law breaker!!!oneone

I get it....because the Democrats havent proceeded with an impeachment inquiry, it makes the lawbreaking by the Pres/VP acceptable....at least in Ace's world. Do it for as long as you can get away with it - such upstanding moral and ethical standards for a chief executive.

I don't understand where you and DC want to go with this morality issue, and I don't know how to explain my view of right and wrong relative to what is legal in a manner different from what I have already done in this thread.

However, my approach to supporting political leaders is to first try to understand their core beliefs. Those beliefs that are inherent in a person's nature, how they would act under extreme pressure. When a person's core beliefs are not clear, I generally don't believe they have strong core beliefs other than doing what is convenient.

Personally my first "oath" could never be to the Constitution. I think if pressed, Bush would have to say the same. As I stated earlier, my first "oath" would be to doing what I think is right.

For example if I took an oath that included enforcing slavery, my taking that oath would be a "lie". However, prior to taking that oath I would make it clear that I did not support enforcing slavery. And that I would do everything in my power to not enforce slavery.

Getting back to FISA and the real world, Bush stated on many occasions that he would do everything within his power to defeat terrorists, and that was his top priority. I understood that every time he said it. I understood that he would take risks. I understood that he would do thing outside of the "norm". I was o.k. with it, as long as his actions were reasonable. I do understand how different people view "reasonable" differently and that is why I think it is fair to call Bush on his actions. However, Congress is simply playing political games with what I think is very serious.

You generally think Bush lies. I don't because I hear what he says. You and DC seem surprised - which may come down to they way certain people communicate. I often don't get "liberal" speak.

Yep. That is what it comes down to. Impeach Bush and get it over with, or move on. Why do we have to be in this state of limbo?

Yep, this is "liberal speak"

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

It seems if you were POTUS and you had the majority of the congress as members of your own party it wouldn't be that difficult to update an "outdated" law.

The sad irony of this entire illegal action was that, after the passage of the Patriot Act in 2002 which included some FISA updates, the Bush crowd said additional FISA updates were unnecessary.

Republican Senator DeWine proposed legislation to update FISA later in 2002 to give the administration greater flexibility in requesting FISA warrants...changing the "probably cause" standard to "reasonable suspicion"

The administration praised the FISA update that was included in the 2002 Patriot Act as "giving them the tools they needed" and said DeWine's bill was "unnecessary" and possibly unconstitutional:

The reforms in those measures (the PATRIOT Act) have affected every single application made by the Department for electronic surveillance or physical search of suspected terrorists and have enabled the government to become quicker, more flexible, and more focused in going "up" on those suspected terrorists in the United States.

The Department of Justice has been studying Sen. DeWine's proposed legislation. Because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues, the Administration at this time is not prepared to support it.

While all of this was occuring, they were already acting unconstitutionally by their actions outside of FISA.

The sordid details here.

True, however changing the law would have put the world on notice including the terrorists. You and I differ on how much weight we would put on the trade off.

DC,

What would you do if two laws were in conflict, and you had to take an action that would clearly violate one of the laws?

What would you do if violating a law would lead to a greater good?

What would you do to the person who violated a law to save the life of someone you loved?

Ace...please read my post above....but even beyond that, if you recall after the passage of the Patriot Act, Bush/Cheney/Gonzales/Ashcroft all spoke loudly and clearly, shouting to the world, about how the Act would put terrorists on notice!

ace...as a private citizen, I would do one thing.

As the president, having "solemnly" sworn to uphold the Constitution, I would consult with Congress over what I perceived to be conflicting laws and make my case for changes that I believed were needed and in the best public interest, particularly if my party controlled both houses of Congress. If that failed, I would take my case to the American people.

You're right we differ. I think the POTUS should follow the law, period, end of story. Claiming it's an outdated or "bad" law is a not a good argument. You can't swear to up hold and defend the US Constitution and then decide later you'll pick and choose which parts you'll actually defend.


In regards to your argument that passing or fixing the law would alert the terrorist- I firmly believe if the law needed changed and it would endanger the national security to do so with a press release there are ways in place to effect that change. I'd look to Senate Select Committee on Intelligence et el for a solution.

That is a bullshit answer.

Say you are Kennedy handling the Cuban missile crisis and you don't have time to "consult with Congress" or take your case to the American People. Let say you have to make a decision and do it in real time and there is a conflict, what do you do?????

If this is so clear cut, why waste your time with me (my mind is made up), you should be calling on Congress to impeach Bush!

ace....in the highly improbable scenario in which the threat to the nation was so great and so imminent that action needed to be taken at that very instant or in a matter of hours, I would have, at the very least, called the leaders of both parties in Congress into the Oval Office and said "this is what I am preparing to do..with or without your support." I would not have kept my actions hidden from a co-equal branch of government for three years.

Is that less bullshit?

But I wont waste anymore time :)

... other than to suggest you read up on Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis. He not only consulted with Congress, but with the Organization of American States as well, and gave a national TV address to the nation...all while in the midst of the "crisis"

O.k. Tully and DC,

Give me the names of three of your favorite Presidents who you think never violated their oath of office.

P.s. - To anyone innocently reading this and wonder why I don't throw in the towel. I have a personality quirk. There are times when I sink my teeth into something and I just can't let it go. I have been administering self-treatment and often use this forum to measure my progress. I have clearly relapsed. Because if Tully and DC give me three names I am going to obsess over the records of the Presidents they give to try and prove them wrong even though I know it won't make a difference. I often ask why, why was I born this way?

Sorry, ace.....I am not going to be an enabler and contribute to any further relapse.

Perhaps a humorous post will suffice...or at least bring the discussion to a close.
Happy Presidents Day weekend!

Ah, the old stand by favorite- "So? So what? Your guy did it too" defense.

Ethics 101, chapter one- two wrongs don't make a right.

Well...we may have enough new information to attract a few more informed voters to to post an opinion in this thread's poll, now.....

I've maintained that Obama, billed by the right as "the most liberal member of the US Senate".... is actually a candidate with the stamp of approval of the "Powers that Be".... a center-right "offering" intended to placate "the center", (they lean to the right, but they consider themselves "middle of the road"....), who will say and do anything he has to, to win this election. The PTB seems pleased with his performance, so far, and that is enough for me to remain a sadly disappointed skeptic of a once promising candidate looking more and more, to me....like an "empty suit", as David Sirota put it!

It's time to post again in this thread....

Here is the link to the first page, the thread title, and the poll:
Historians looking at Bush presidency may well wonder if Congress actually existed
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=130417

From the January 18, 2008 OP of this thread:

Quote:

....If Clinton and Obama do not join Dodd in the senate to speask and vote against passage of this bill, and with the democratic congress accumulating a legislative record as "Bush's poodle"...and, if you believe that sometimes violence is the only appropriate response to attempt to redress grievances against a government undermining the foundations of our constititutional bill of rights, would lack of firm oppostion to this bill by Clinton and Obama, and it's passage, be one of those times when consideration of responding with violent protest, in lieu of defense of our rights by either party's leaders and likely successors, be something you would consider, or....would you elect to wait.....for what, and for how long?.....

Yesterday, from dc_dux in another thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...65#post2470665

dc_dux, you left yourself a way out because, while you gave an impression that Rockefeller, Reid, and Hoyer had:
.....you posted "the party of", in front of their names, because you know they are, and have been working to retroactively legalize the Bush warrantless wiretapping, complete with provision for amnesty for telecomms cooperating with administration requests....documented in court filings to have begun with requests from the administration issued as early to some telecomms.....as nine months BEFORE the 9/11 attacks.

The choice seemed pretty clear as to who Obama should endorse in the Georgia congressional primary of rep. John Barrow on July 15. I believe you have to oppose the things John Barrow stands for, with a passion. I don't see that passion in Obama, or in his campaign handlers. I think outrage about this will buid to the point that denials of this endorsement of Barrow will be belatedly issued by Obama's campaign.

The point is that word from Obama could help mightily to pause Steny Hoyer's efforts in the house to move the democrats away from the FISA "reform" bill that they already passed, into a new version that gives Bush everything he demands.....at the expense of our rights and even knowing what the telecomms were told, when they were first told it, and what they did to cooperate, without receipt of warrants, signed by a judge, to monitor our communications and billing records......

.....not only is that "word", not coming from Obama, he is reported to be endorsing this DINO, republican sock puppet:

Watch Rep.John Barrow's (D-GA) campaign ad:
Background:

Targeting "Bad" Democrats:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ats/index.html

In february, rep. John Barrow signed this letter, with other "blue dog" democrats, urging Nancy Pelosi to support the Rockefeler-Cheney warrantless surveillance/telecomm amnesty bill that the senate was about to pass:
A democratic party member emerged to challenge Rep. John Barrow:
Update....and now, it's done....the "compromise" that the motherfuckers who lead the majority party in congress ...the party you so consistently defend, dc_dux, is exposed as the other right wing party. How much more are we going to quietly take from these bastards? Does anyone here have personal limits? All the house leadership had to do was to stand pat on the version of the bill that they had already passed. It wan't perfect, but it wasn't a sellout to Bush/corporatism that this is.

Host...

Here are my thoughts:

The Democratic majority in Congress, while not aggressively pursuing or achievieng the policy objectives of its most progressive/liberal wing, has agressively conducted numerous oversight hearings of the many questionable policies and practices of the Bush administration.

As a result, numeorus bill were enacted and the federal government is (marginally?) more open and transparent than it was pre-2006. IMO, that is a good first step.

A Democratic president and a larger Democratic majority in Congress are likely to expand that even further.

BUT FIRST THEY MUST GET ELECTED!

I believe an overly expansive progressive agenda would be destructive to the Democratic party as an expansive social/religious conservative agenda is to the Republicans. Most Americans do not want, and will not support either.

So....I fully support the goals of the Democratic party to become the "bigger tent" and to extend its outreach to be more inclusive, rather than to define itself so narrowly that it chokes on its own unpopular ideology.

The upside of that approach is bringing into the party guys like Webb in Virginia, Tester in Montana, and others, including more "Blue Dogs" in the South and expanding the Democratic majority. The downside is a requirement to be more pragmatic and open to compromise in order to fairly represent the interests of these "new" Democrats and not just the "liberal/progressive" wing.

I accept the compromises (so far) as a necessity in order for the party to maintain a position to grow and govern...and only by governing (with a working majority), can ANY of the party's policy and program goals ever be implemented.

I dont believe it is making a pact with the devil...rather it is accepting the realities of government in a divided and polarized nation.

I understand that you would rather hold out for a truly "progressive agenda" in the US...but I would suggest you might be holding out until hell freezes over.
-----

(and now I am off to a meeting with Wal*Mart, Wells Fargo, Verizon and Office Depot....to discuss common policy objectives...should be interesting :))

No, dc_dux. the democratic leadership in congress is aggressively selling us out:

Link to Hoyer's "compromise" bill:
http://majorityleader.house.gov/docU...RO_001_xml.pdf

Hoyer has a poll on the front page of his official site,
http://www.hoyer.house.gov/
...asking for opinions on Bushs' favorite failed domestic issue. This is the democratic house majority leader, carrying Bush's water on unconsitutional surveillance, and on Social Security "reform", too!

Two right wing dominant US political parties..... what else can one conclude is going on here?

....and, just to make that the democrats complete our tranformation into a Bush junta "poice state", as close to overnight as is humanly possibe:

Host there is another possibility, perhaps they were never with you. Perhaps, they knew what Bush wanted is the right thing for the nation, but they used empty rhetoric for political purposes. You folks already know what I think.