Hmm, I think there was a little someting called "The Watergate Scandal" I don't know, all I know is that GW has "supposedly" given the NSA the right to spy on Americans...what does everybody think of this.
As for this whole incident...honestly, I'm kind of upset. Certainly, there's the opportunity for the power to be abused. However, directly after 9/11, I can understand the reasoning behind such a move. Plus, take these two paragraphs.
Quote:
The sources, who demanded anonymity, said there were conditions under which it would be possible to gather and retain information on Americans if the surveillance were part of an investigation into foreign intelligence. But those cases are supposed to be minimized.
And...
Quote:
The sources said the actual work of the NSA is so closely held that it is difficult to determine whether it is acting within the law.
Define 'minimized' for me, will you? The author admits there are conditions under which this sort of surveillance can be done and then he fails to show or even indicate the conditions were not met. Plus, given the War on Terror, the fact that not a single specific charge has been made, AND given that several members of Congress on both sides were made aware of this before it began indicates that there have been no problems...and if so, very little. This order of Bush's was done with the knowledge and approval of Jay Rockefeller, other Congressional leaders and at least one federal judge.
Plus, if this story were as big as it's being made out to be, where are the citizens saying that their rights were infringed upon? Come to think of it, give me an example of surveillance within the past four years that infringed upon someone's rights in a way that merited complaints.
And just for the record, the NY Times (the original source of the story) held onto this story for a year. If it was so big that everyone needed to know, why wait for so long?
One more thing; have there been ANY widespread violations of someone's civil rights since the Patriot Act and this order were authorized? Can you tell me?
Even so, there's always the possibility of abuse. And doing these activities without a warrant (as per the 4th Amendment) is also troubling; if there was evidence or proof that the time needed to gain the warrant would delay an investigation, then that's an exception. But cases where no warrant was pursued at all? Nuh-uh.
Also, I'm reminded of a quote from Benjamin Franklin.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I'm kind of split on this issue, although I'm leaning more toward the NSA's side on this one. What are your thoughts?
Unless you hate the Constitution, you think this sucks.
Quote:
given that several members of Congress on both sides were made aware of this before it began indicates that there have been no problems
That means nothing. People in both parties can agree to things without it being in what most may consider to be their best interest. Ever heard of the fact that they don't have problems giving themselves pay raises all the time yet don't have time to fix the AMT? ;p
Quote:
Plus, if this story were as big as it's being made out to be, where are the citizens saying that their rights were infringed upon?
How are you going to know that someone spied on you? They're not going to tell you unless they end up finding out that you're "a terrorist." ;p
Quote:
And just for the record, the NY Times (the original source of the story) held onto this story for a year. If it was so big that everyone needed to know, why wait for so long?
Supposedly because it was in the interest of National Security until they dug a little deeper. ;p
Quote:
Unless you hate the Constitution, you think this sucks.
And I said this where?
For the 'parties in agreement' bit, that's also true. However, considering how quick Democrats (and some Republicans) like to snap at the Bush Administration, you'd think they'd be a bit more ferocious about it.
Quote:
How are you going to know that someone spied on you? They're not going to tell you unless they end up finding out that you're "a terrorist."
And if you've done nothing against the law, you don't really have anything to fear, now do you?
Also, look at this report from the ACLU. Spefically, the following paragraph:
Quote:
According to the report, this spying occurred without any court order and was focused on telephone and e-mail communications of "hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States" with persons abroad.
Emphasis mine.
Quote:
Supposedly because it was in the interest of National Security until they dug a little deeper.
The 'news break' was tied in with a book release.
Quote:
;p
Your tongue has such a lovely color. 😛
Quote:
And I said this where?
I'm trying to figure out what this is in reference to. The first post asked for comments and I gave mine. I don't get it.
Quote:
However, considering how quick Democrats (and some Republicans) like to snap at the Bush Administration, you'd think they'd be a bit more ferocious about it.
Only a FEW Democrats & Republicans knew about it and those that did were required by law not to talk about it with others. The whole confidentiality of information is something that the Congress members do respect. If it weren't for the news articles coming out now about it, many that know about it now would still be clueless (like the rest of us were). Also, either you've been living in a different country for the past 4+ years, or you see attacks where there aren't any. With the exception of a few liberals (and that is NOT equal to Democrats) and a few economic-centered or isolationist conservatives that hate "spending & deficits" or "nation-building" (and that is NOT equal with Republicans), until Bush's ratings took a dive, he's barely been touched or questioned. The only other period where anyone could say Bush dealt with "ferocious" attacks was during the 2004 Election cycle.
Quote:
And if you've done nothing against the law, you don't really have anything to fear, now do you?
That line of thinking is contrary to the Benjamin Franklin quote you provided (and that quote I whole-heartedly agree with). I believe in the idea that you are not ever to have your privacy invaded unless you are under investigation for a crime. There are plenty of provisions created that allow for getting any necessary warrants to do so--and judges almost never say "no" (especially the secret court ones). I don't buy into the idea that just because someone isn't a criminal that it's okay for their privacy to be invaded. If you think it's okay for the government to listen into your private conversations--good for you. Those of us who believe in the privacy that the Constitution provides will disagree with you.
Quote:
Also, look at this report from the ACLU.
That's the same stuff that was reported in the NY Times. That's nothing new. Your emphasis also reflects that you don't know that once a person is identified that every correspondence they make within the U.S. (not just abroad) becomes fair game. As I noted earlier, the government is required to get a warrant to spy on U.S. citizens. Also, as with prison abuse, torture, rendition, etc. that has gone on, I seriously doubt what we've been recently told is the end of how deep this goes. Either we're a nation of laws or we aren't. Either we're going to keep the "moral high ground" (believe that there are things too sacred to be sacrificed) or we're going "act like the terrorists" (believe that the ends justify the means). This is starting to be another case of where the government officials seem to believe that they're above the law. ;p
Quote:
The 'news break' was tied in with a book release.
That would actually mean something if the book had already been published or if it had been created a year ago. That doesn't negate the claim that there was further investigating of whatever was originally learned over a year ago. Of course, the Drudge Report article is factually inaccurate as it is not Risen who made the claim that the NY Times delayed the release and added info to the original article as they learned new stuff in the first place. It was Bill Keller. ;p
Quote:
I'm trying to figure out what this is in reference to. The first post asked for comments and I gave mine. I don't get it.
I thought you were referring to my comments on the 4th Amendment.
Quote:
I believe in the idea that you are not ever to have your privacy invaded unless you are under investigation for a crime. There are plenty of provisions created that allow for getting any necessary warrants to do so--and judges almost never say "no" (especially the secret court ones). I don't buy into the idea that just because someone isn't a criminal that it's okay for their privacy to be invaded. If you think it's okay for the government to listen into your private conversations--good for you. Those of us who believe in the privacy that the Constitution provides will disagree with you.
My point was this; if you've done activity relating to terrorist organizations (money laundering, bookkeeping, arms shipment, communications, etcetera), then you're going to be watched. If you haven't, then you aren't going to be targeted, now are you?
Besides, the spying was not solely on US citizens; it was also on foriegn nationals. This includes illegal aliens, suspicious foriegners, and the like.
Here's my stand; unless in extreme cases, go for the warrant, no matter what. Period. Of course, that's only when dealing with a U.S. citizen.
Quote:
My point was this; if you've done activity relating to terrorist organizations (money laundering, bookkeeping, arms shipment, communications, etcetera), then you're going to be watched. If you haven't, then you aren't going to be targeted, now are you?
You could be due to just knowing someone who is whether you are aware of it or not. So the answer to the question is "yes."
Quote:
Besides, the spying was not solely on US citizens; it was also on foriegn nationals. This includes illegal aliens, suspicious foriegners, and the like.
They're allowed to spy on foreign people. They're not allowed to spy on U.S. citizens period. That goes back to my either we're going to act like the terrorists (believe the ends justify the means) or act like we have principles (believe that there are things that can't be sacrificed). Those of us who truly believe in not sacrificing liberty for security will take the principled approach. Those who are fearful will take the terrorists' approach.
Quote:
Here's my stand; unless in extreme cases, go for the warrant, no matter what. Period. Of course, that's only when dealing with a U.S. citizen.
There are no justified cases where a warrant can't be gotten. If you can't get a warrant, then it means that it's akin to the "spying of Martin Luther King, Jr. because he's causing 'trouble'"-stuff all over again which caused the reinforcement of our privacy protections in the first place. That's what makes this such a stupid abuse of power and the fact that they halted the program to make adjustments basically means that they were even aware that it was an abuse of power.
Plus, if this story were as big as it's being made out to be, where are the citizens saying that their rights were infringed upon?
CNET:
Sarah Zapolsky was checking in for a flight to Italy when she discovered that her 9-month-old son's name was on the United States' "no fly" list of suspected terrorists.
"We pointed down to the stroller, and he sat there and gurgled," Zapolsky said, recalling the July incident at Dulles International Airport outside Washington, D.C. "The desk agent started laughing...She couldn't print us out a boarding pass because he's on the no-fly list."
Zapolsky, who did not want her son's name made public, said she was initially amused by the mix-up. "But when I found out you can't actually get off the list, I started to get a bit annoyed."
She isn't alone.
According to the Transportation Security Administration, more than 28,000 people have applied to the TSA redress office to get on the "cleared list," which takes note of individuals whose names are similar to those on the terrorism watch list, but even getting on that list does not guarantee an end to hassles related to the no-fly list.
The TSA does not reveal how many or which names are actually on the list, and complaints do not get names removed, since those names are also those of suspected terrorists. The best that innocent travelers can hope for is a letter from the TSA that it says should facilitate travel but is no panacea.
In addition to babies, the victims of mistaken identity on the no-fly list have included aging retirees and public figures such as Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Republican Rep. Don Young of Alaska and Democratic Rep. John Lewis of Georgia.
"It's a significant problem," said Brenda Jones, the spokeswoman for Rep. Lewis, who travels by plane at least twice a week. She said the congressman had written to the TSA, but "he is still on the no-fly list, and the problems persist."
Secretive list
The classified no-fly list was adopted after the hijacked-plane attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, in an effort to prevent suspected terrorists from getting on aircraft or coming to the United States. Airlines must check passenger names against the list before allowing them to get on a plane.
While the number of suspected terrorists on the list is unknown, aviation sources estimate that it includes tens of thousands of names, if not more.
TSA spokesman Christopher White said the agency has seven people working full-time on processing applications to get on the cleared list. Considering the number of applications, that works out to less than 4,000 complaints per redress officer.
"We do take the cleared list very seriously, and it's also important for us to focus on the right people. It does us no good to focus on the wrong John Doe," White said.
Cleared individuals receive a letter from the TSA saying, "we have provided sufficient personal information to the airlines to distinguish you from other individuals" but cautions that "TSA cannot ensure that your travel will be delay-free."
John Graham, a 63-year-old former Department of State official, said his TSA letter had not helped at all.
"I'm at a point now where I don't really care whether my name is on the list as a mistake, as mistaken identity or whether someone at TSA does intend to hassle me. The fact is, there's a total absence of due process," he said.
The American Civil Liberties Union calls the no-fly list system unconstitutional, saying it treats people as guilty without a trial and unfairly deprives them of freedoms. It also says the system is an inaccurate and ineffective security method.
Despite efforts by the TSA to address complaints and concerns about the no-fly list, ACLU attorney Reggie Shuford said very little had changed to improve the process.
"We continually hear from people being caught up on the no-fly list with the same frustrating experiences and inability to get off the list," he said.
Peter Johnson, a retired bibliographer at Princeton University, said travel became "hellish" after he discovered his name was on the no-fly list in August 2004.
"I'm not sure if what's behind this is an effort to simply control people or if it's largely mismanagement and poorly conceptualized programming," Johnson said, adding that a TSA official had told him that there were more than 2,000 other Peter Johnsons in the United States who reported similar problems.
I'm sorry, but where in the law does it say that getting to your plane on time is a 'right'?
Quote:
I'm sorry, but where in the law does it say that getting to your plane on time is a 'right'?
"On time"? That article seems to say it's a matter of "at all". These people aren't being delayed, they're being refused service for no reason other than having been put on a list because their name just happens to sound similar to something else. How is that fair?
All right then, I have a simpler solution.
Instead of a no-fly list, simply arm the pilots. Put another Air Marshall or two on the flight. Problem solved.
What about international flights to countries with gun control? Such a policy as you suggest would make flights to those countries impossible.
Doesn't have to be a pistol. Tasers would do just as well.
Instead of a no-fly list, simply arm the pilots. Put another Air Marshall or two on the flight. Problem solved.
Because gunfights inside metal cans flying 40,000 feet above the ground at 600 miles an hour are so much fun?
(points above)
Because taser fights inside metal cans full of sensitive electrical equipment flying 40,000 feet above the ground at 600 miles an hour are so much fun?
And knife fights are better? Or no means of self-defense at all?
EDIT: Did anyone listen to President Bush's radio address this weekend? Here's some new factoids for you (and repeating some).
1) The spying is only done on those people within the United States who are known to have association with Al Qaeda.
2) The NYT article makes clear that no laws were broken.
3) The NYT article also says that the CIA seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The NSA surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, the officials said. In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the NSA began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said.
They were tracking numbers that were tied to confirmed terrorists and according to reports, stopped 3 terrorist attacks within the US. This is EXACTLY how the 9/11 attacks were coordinated - between jihadists and sympathizers of other terrorists living in this country.
4) The NYT article also states that the government DID use subpoenas for domestic taps in a great many instances, mostly related to conversations between terrorist within the US.
Quote:
GW Spying On Us?
Uh, wasn't GW the name of the program in Metal Gear Solid 2 that ran Arsenal Gear, the Metal Gear that could basically control the internet?
i know it's a strange question, but noone i know knows the answer to it and it's mentioned in this topic.
why are scandels and etc given names ending in 'gate'?
"The English suffix -gate derives from the Watergate scandal of the United States in the early 1970s, which resulted in the resignation of U.S. President Richard Nixon. The word "Watergate" is derived from the Watergate Complex, where the scandal started. Since the Watergate scandal, the media has on occasion referred to political scandals by adding the suffix gate to one of the key words used to describe the scandal. This new label has sometimes stuck, but more often than not, the scandal is referred to by a different name." -- Wikipedia
thank you, it makes sence now. ^^ *rico gains cookies wedged into his ears in thanks*
For just a minute lets realize that the Constitution says absoulutely nothing about surveillance, only "unreasonable search and seizure".
Let's also remember that if a Judge deems that ANY evidence was gathered in an illegal fashion that evidence CANNOT be enterred into court, which is why a Judicial writ is usually required for phone taps, etc.
Now lets look at the purpose of surveillance inside the US by the NSA. But lets talk about spheres of responsibility for a second, the FBI and BATF are responsible of criminal investigations INSIDE the US, and the CIA and NSA are responsible for intelligence gathering (and the odd covert op) outside the US.
But what if the CIA or NSA get a lead that is inside the US, do they have to turn over the entire investigation to the FBI? Some folks would say yes, other folks would say no, since it is not a criminal investigation until clear evidence has been gathered.
So, should we be able to look at suspicious individuals/organizations without having such investigations being conducted by a Law Enforcement agency? I think yes, I would much rather have a file on me in a sealed room at the NSA instead of a file at the FBI.
So, I think that it is perfectly reasonable to monitor domestic individuals/organizations for useable intelligence that will be used outside our borders. The moment such intelligence is used for domestic purposes the case needs to be handed over to the appropriate agency, FBI, BATF, etc.
I do not see any constitutional conflicts by such actions on the part of the Federal government, but it is arguable territory depending on how the word "reasonable" is defined.
Jimro
Some people are really desperate when it comes to Bush.
Quote:
The White House said Friday its Web tracking technology is consistent with federal rules because it only counts the number of visitors anonymously and doesn't record personal information.
The White House's site uses what's known as a Web bug a tiny graphic image that's virtually invisible to anonymously keep track of the number and time of visits. The bug is sent by a server maintained by an outside contractor, WebTrends Inc., and lets the traffic-analysis company know that another person has visited a specific page on the site.
Web bugs themselves are not prohibited. However, under a directive from the White House's Office of Management and Budget, they are largely banned at government sites when linked to cookies, which are data files that let a site track Web visitors.
Cookies are not generated simply by visiting the White House site. Rather, WebTrends cookies are sometimes created when visiting other WebTrends clients. An analysis by security researcher Richard M. Smith shows such preexisting cookies have then been read when users visit the White House site.
The discovery and subsequent inquiries by The Associated Press prompted the White House to investigate. David Almacy, the White House's Internet director, said tests conducted since Thursday show that data from the cookie and the bug are not mixed and thus the 2003 guidelines weren't violated.
"The White House Web site is and always has been consistent with the OMB guidance," Almacy said, adding that the limited tracking is common among Web sites.
Jason Palmer, vice president of products for Portland, Ore.-based WebTrends, said Web browsers are designed to scan preexisting cookies automatically, but he insisted the company doesn't use the information to track visitors to the White House site.
Smith said the White House and WebTrends could have avoided any appearance of a problem by simply renaming the server used at WebTrends.
The Clinton administration first issued the strict rules on cookies in 2000 after its Office of National Drug Control Policy, through a contractor, had used the technology to track computer users viewing its online anti-drug advertising. The rules were updated in 2003 by the Bush administration.
Nonetheless, agencies occasionally violate the rules inadvertently, they contend. The CIA did in 2002, and the NSA more recently. The NSA disabled the cookies this week and blamed a recent upgrade to software that shipped with cookie settings already on.
...so...are they upset over Hit Counters?
Kind of a silly news story since nearly EVERY SINGLE WEBSITE ON EARTH USES COOKIES.
abcnews.go.com/WNT/Invest...id=1499905
Quote:
Surge in Sale of Disposable Cell Phones May Have Terror Link
Phones Can Be Difficult or Impossible to Track; Large Quantities Purchased in California, Texas
By BRIAN ROSS and RICHARD ESPOSITOJan. 12, 2006 Federal agents have launched an investigation into a surge in the purchase of large quantities of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and Pakistan, ABC News has learned.
The phones which do not require purchasers to sign a contract or have a credit card have many legitimate uses, and are popular with people who have bad credit or for use as emergency phones tucked away in glove compartments or tackle boxes. But since they can be difficult or impossible to track, law enforcement officials say the phones are widely used by criminal gangs and terrorists.
"There's very little audit trail assigned to this phone. One can walk in, purchase it in cash, you don't have to put down a credit card, buy any amount of minutes to it, and you don't, frankly, know who bought this," said Jack Cloonan, a former FBI official who is now an ABC News consultant.
Law enforcement officials say the phones were used to detonate the bombs terrorists used in the Madrid train attacks in March 2004.
"The application of prepaid phones for nefarious reasons, is really widespread. For example, the terrorists in Madrid used prepaid phones to detonate the bombs in the subway trains that killed more than 200 people," said Roger Entner, a communications consultant.
150 Phones in One Sale, 60 Phones in Another
The FBI is closely monitoring the potentially dangerous development, which came to light following recent large-quantity purchases in California and Texas, officials confirmed.
In one New Year's Eve transaction at a Target store in Hemet, Calif., 150 disposable tracfones were purchased. Suspicious store employees notified police, who called in the FBI, law enforcement sources said.
In an earlier incident, at a Wal-Mart store in Midland, Texas, on Dec. 18, six individuals attempted to buy about 60 of the phones until store clerks became suspicious and notified the police. A Wal-Mart spokesperson confirmed the incident.
The Midland police report, dated Dec. 18 and obtained by ABC News, states: "Information obtained by MPD [Midland Police Department] dispatch personnel indicated that approximately six individuals of Middle-Eastern origin were attempting to purchase an unusually large quantity of tracfones (disposable cell phones with prepaid minutes attached)." At least one of the suspects was identified as being from Iraq and another from Pakistan, officials said.
"Upon the arrival of officers, suspects were observed moving away from the registers appearing to evade detection while ridding themselves of the merchandise."
Other reports have come in from other cities, including Dallas, and from authorities in other states. Authorities in Pennsylvania, New York and other parts of Texas confirmed that they were alerted to the cases, and sources say other jurisdictions were also notified.
The growing use of the throwaway cell phones has been cited by President Bush as an important justification for expanding the wiretap laws under the Patriot Act.
"Law enforcement officials can now use what's now called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones to get a message out to one of his buddies," Bush said on April 20, 2004.
Legitimate Uses May Have Spurred Sales, Too
Law enforcement sources say it is possible some large purchases that have been identified as being sent to the Middle East could have been sent for resale in a sellers' market for handsets, or simply given to friends and relatives. Officials are also investigating these possibilities.
Managing the complex balancing of these two issues significant and legitimate uses and their potential for misuse has been an ongoing dilemma for law enforcement.
For now, both intelligence officers and bomb technicians have been monitoring reports of large-quantity purchases.
Some such purchases may have innocent explanations, but even law enforcement officials themselves say disposable phones are sometimes their own phones of choice when operating in hostile environments. The CIA recently used them in a kidnapping in Milan, Italy. Italian authorities were able to track the telephones. But they mostly tracked them to a dead end the false identities in which they were purchased.
Possible purchasers of disposable cellular phones could also include political extremists, terrorist supporters, sympathizers or others simply shaken by the recent revelations of the spy agency's widespread monitoring of calls, including calls to and from the United States to foreign countries.
Police Report Identifies Terror Links
In the Midland, Texas, arrest report, police also identified the individuals as linked to a terror cell:
"Evasive responses provided by the subjects, coupled with actions observed by officers at the onset of the contact prompted the notification of local FBI officials to assist in the investigation," the report said. "Upon the arrival of special agents, and as a result of subsequent interviews, it was discovered that members of the group were linked to suspected terrorist cells stationed within the Metroplex."
Law enforcement officials have not elaborated on the information in the report or specified which terrorist group the individuals were allegedly linked to.
In addition, special agents reported that similar incidents centering on the large-scale purchases of tracfones had been reported throughout the nation identifying individuals of Middle-Eastern descent as the purchasers."
ABC News is working to confirm the details in the police report.
"Upon conclusion of the initial investigation, three of the suspects were taken into custody on immigration violations, with one individual arrested for possession of marijuana the drug having been discovered during the search of the group's vehicle. Also found within the green 2002 Kia van were additional cell phones, the total believed to be approximately 60."
FBI officials told ABC News that while the cases may wind up in the hands of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, the FBI would benefit from any intelligence gleaned and would take the lead if a solid terrorist connection emerged.
ABC News' Jill Rackmill contributed to this report
At least, the ACLU of today that is.
Quote:
NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today ran a full-page advertisement in the Washington Post criticizing the president for authorizing the National Security Agency to engage in illegal surveillance of Americans.
The ad invokes Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the civil rights pioneer who was an innocent victim of illegal government wiretapping and draws the correlation between abuse of government power and illegal warrantless wiretapping authorized by President Bush.
"It has never been acceptable for the government to spy on Americans without having to go to court and present evidence as to why the individual is under suspicion. It was unacceptable when they spied on Martin Luther King and it is unacceptable today," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "This fundamental tenet of American democracy has been blatantly violated by President Bush and he must be held accountable. No one, most importantly our elected leader, is above the law.
The full-page ad depicts the image of King with the reminder that 40 years ago, wiretapping innocent American citizens was an abuse of government power. It still is. The ACLU provides the phone number for the White House and asks that people call and Tell the administration to stop the illegal spying on Americans. As a result of surveillance of citizens in the mid-70s, Congress passed a law mandating that the government receive court approval before instigating wiretapping. It is this law that President Bush has blatantly violated, according to the ACLU.
Similar ACLU ads ran recently in the New York Times and compared the actions and words of President Bush and former President Richard Nixon, both of whom denied allegations of illegal spying. The series was spurred by recent revelations that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of people within the United States, including U.S. citizens, without a warrant.
Our government is based upon a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances, said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. The actions taken by the president undermine the very foundations of our country. We urge the relevant Congressional committees to investigate how the president abused his power as our chief executive. We applaud Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter for committing to hold oversight hearings. The American people deserve to know the truth.
In a formal request sent to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the ACLU called for the appointment of "an outside special counsel with the independence to investigate and prosecute any and all criminal acts committed by any member of the Executive Branch in the warrantless electronic surveillance of people in the United States over the past four years by the NSA," noting that "such crimes are serious felonies and they need to be fully and independently investigated."
...okay. Let's point out why they're absolutely cuckoo for equating the current spying with yesteryear's spying, shall we?
1) There has yet to be any evidence of ILLEGAL spying. There has not been one report of an ILLEGAL wiretap. Come back when that happens and I'll listen.
2) Just because someone happens to live in America doesn't make them an American. Crossing the border or landing on our shore doesn't make them an American. To qualify for the rights granted by the Constitution, you have to be an American citizen. So far, we have not heard of any incident where American CITIZENS were spied upon.
3) Let it be known that Martin Luther King had ties to Communists. However, he was an American citizen, and thus it was illegal.
4) No matter what your feelings of Reverend King, he did not believe in violence to achieve political goals. Comparing him to those that do is horrible of the ACLU.
5) Have you ever noticed that the ACLU automatically denotes the Bush Administration as 'guilty' and the terror suspects as 'innocent' in nearly every (if not all) case or event that occurs? Isn't that just a yummy coincidence?
6) On a side note, note the words of the ACLU's co-founder Roger Baldwin.
Quote:
I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. I dont regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it.
Wow, ANOTHER yummy coincidence.
The ACLU may have done some good during the days leading to and during the civil rights movement, but it has now lost all relevancy.
And here's a hypothetical situation for you all to ponder. Next time someone complains about the 'illegal wiretaps', ask them this: If FDR had had the option of bugging Adolf Hitler's phone starting in 1938, should he have done so to eavesdrop the enemy's war plans?
If the person says 'No', just laugh and walk away.
EDIT: One more thing.
Quote:
NEW YORK, Jan. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- Saying that the Bush administration's illegal spying on Americans must end, the American Civil Liberties Union today filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against the National Security Agency seeking to stop a secret electronic surveillance program that has been in place since shortly after September 11, 2001.
"President Bush may believe he can authorize spying on Americans without judicial or Congressional approval, but this program is illegal and we intend to put a stop to it," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "The current surveillance of Americans is a chilling assertion of presidential power that has not been seen since the days of Richard Nixon."The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a group of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys, and national nonprofit organizations (including the ACLU) who frequently communicate by phone and e-mail with people in the Middle East. Because of the nature of their calls and e-mails, they believe their communications are being intercepted by the NSA under the spying program. The program is disrupting their ability to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship, and engage in advocacy. The program, which was first disclosed by The New York Times on December 16, has sparked national and international furor and has been condemned by lawmakers across the political spectrum.
In addition to the ACLU, the plaintiffs in today's case are:
Authors and journalists James Bamford, Christopher Hitchens and Tara
McKelveyAfghanistan scholar Barnett Rubin of New York University's Center on
International Cooperation and democracy scholar Larry Diamond, a fellow
at the Hoover InstitutionNonprofit advocacy groups NACDL, Greenpeace, and Council on American
Islamic Relations, who joined the lawsuit on behalf of their staff and
membership"The prohibition against government eavesdropping on American citizens is well-established and crystal clear," said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson, who is lead counsel in ACLU v. NSA. "President Bush's claim that he is not bound by the law is simply astounding. Our democratic system depends on the rule of law, and not even the president can issue illegal orders that violate Constitutional principles."
According to news reports, President Bush signed an order in 2002 allowing the NSA to monitor the telephone and e-mail communications of "hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States" with persons abroad, without a court order as the law requires. Under the program, the NSA is also engaging in wholesale datamining by sifting through millions of calls and e- mails of ordinary Americans.
Journalist James Bamford, a plaintiff and one of the world's leading experts on U.S. intelligence and the National Security Agency, said that "the spying program removes a necessary firewall that would prevent the kind of government abuse seen during the Watergate scandal." Bamford was threatened with prosecution in the 1970s as he prepared to disclose unclassified details about illegal NSA spying on Americans in his book, The Puzzle Palace.
In the legal complaint filed, the ACLU said the spying program violates Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution.
The ACLU also charged that the program violates the Constitution because President Bush exceeded his authority under separation of powers principles. Congress has enacted two statutes, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III of the federal criminal code, which are "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance. . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted."
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan, seeks a court order declaring that the NSA spying is illegal and ordering its immediate and permanent halt. Attorneys in the case are Beeson, Jameel Jaffer, and Melissa Goodman of the national ACLU Foundation, and Michael Steinberg of the ACLU of Michigan. The lawsuit names as defendants the NSA and Lieutenant General Keith B. Alexander, the current the Director of the NSA.
More misinformation. And one more thing. After everything I've read, even from THE SOURCE (James Riesen, the author of the new book and the now-identified source for the original NY Times article that broke the story), says that there were 500 Americans that had their phones tapped. And for all 500, their phone number was found on the computer or cell phone of captured Al Qeada operative.
Five hundred. Approximate population of the United States: 300 Million.
So, precisely 0.0000017 of the American population MIGHT have had their terrorist-connected phone calls monitored.
Forgive me if I'm not shocked, stunned, and dismayed that 0.0000017 of the American population, all of whom have known ties to a terrorist organization, had their phones tapped. Of course, this number probably doesn't cover people who aren't even American citizens to begin with.
So if someone knew some terrorist and wanted to plant evidence it would be as easy as emailing them someones phone number via a spoofed email.
Lets hope our government isn't THAT stupid Ultra.
I said government, NOT president.
~Rico
I was watching "Charlie Rose" the other night when Michael Chertoff was interviewed, and these questions came up. And in his opinion these wiretaps and surveillance activities are legal.
Now as the Director of Homeland Security this is understandable, but Chertoff is also a Harvard Law graduate, clerked for Supreme Court Justice Brennan (very liberal), and was a judge on the 3rd circuit court of appeals. He referenced case law and US Code that I am not familiar with, but basically he said that these "roving wiretaps" to track terrorists are nothing more than the same "roving wiretaps" used against organized crime before 9/11.
So I believe that the ACLU suit will go nowhere, it seems that the government has done it's homework and has both case law and US Code on their side.
Jimro
Quote:
I said government, NOT president.
I know. If it were Bush, you would've used one of your 'special' jokes.
Quote:
He referenced case law and US Code that I am not familiar with, but basically he said that these "roving wiretaps" to track terrorists are nothing more than the same "roving wiretaps" used against organized crime before 9/11.
And yet you never really hear this information being repeated. Yet ANOTHER yummy coincidence.
I am getting kind of full though.
I hope you're happy. You've now ruined the humor in the word yummy through overuse. :[
~Rico
Why thank you. What word should I ruin next? Delicious? Scrumptious? Or perhaps 'the'?
Let it be known that Martin Luther King had ties to Communists
Which automatically discounts all the good he's done for the country?
What do you think? I was merely citing the reason why the administration of the time spied on him. Of course Martin Luther King did good in this country.
Cooki,
The good that Dr. King did in his lifetime is still being felt these many years later. Just like the words of Thoreau and Jefferson still inspire us, the words of Dr. King have been indellibly written into the souls of Americans.
However, his ties to known Communists gave our government a legitimate reason to keep an eye on him. The cold war was in full swing and "progressives" were doing their best to subvert college students across the nation. This is the same era that Jane Fonda went to Vietnam, John Kerry lied to congress about the "Winter Soldier" interviews...
Just like today we keep tabs on groups with terrorist links, I'm sure there is a thick file somewhere on Louis Farrakhan...
Jimro
Too much to respond to... hope I got it all, if not--oh well.
Quote:
For just a minute lets realize that the Constitution says absoulutely nothing about surveillance, only "unreasonable search and seizure".
However, Congress with Presidential approval has set the laws and based on the Constitution the President is supposed to follow them (like everyone else) and actually enforce them. Not even Bush or the administration argues that didn't disobey the laws that exist. Their defense is based on the idea that Congress semi-authorized this particular Presidential expansion of powers when saying he could go after Al Qaeda after September 11, 2001. So, that is currently the new center of attention.
Quote:
abcnews.go.com/WNT/Invest...id=1499905
....
However Vanderland said Thursday after the ABC report aired that assertions of a connection between a terror cell and the men who attempted to purchase cell phones from a Midland Wal-Mart were invalid.
"There is no known link or demonstrated link or any other kind of link at this point between the people here and any terror cell," he said.
ABC's online report did note, "ABC News has been unable to corroborate the information in the police report."
**makes a note to never buy phones in bulk for school purposes lest she be considered a terrorist particularly due to being an semi-outspoken liberal**
Quote:
1) There has yet to be any evidence of ILLEGAL spying. There has not been one report of an ILLEGAL wiretap. Come back when that happens and I'll listen.
It won't take too long in comparison to other things. Within 10 years you'll get it most likely if it exists. How long did it take for it to come out that one of the attacks on the U.S. military to start the Vietnam War was actually a fabrication? Decades. While it happens, it's rare that people in the government reveal wrong-doing when it can affect them. The only ones who can truly reveal wrong-doing would be adversely affected in a big way at the moment. Even though Bush authorized it, the people who would actually get in trouble are the NSA employees and this is their current livelyhood. 99% of workers are not going to be risking their jobs (re: means to support family) unless they're already near retirement most likely. That's why we only get vague leaks or former NSA people talking publicly. The only way I believe evidence of wrong-doing comes out sooner (say within a year) is if there's(re) someone(s) within NSA that have an axe to grind, just as it turned out with Nixon getting caught--though it was only verified recently.
Quote:
2) Just because someone happens to live in America doesn't make them an American. Crossing the border or landing on our shore doesn't make them an American. To qualify for the rights granted by the Constitution, you have to be an American citizen. So far, we have not heard of any incident where American CITIZENS were spied upon.
The people who have leaked it to reporters (that the Justice department is trying to find) believe that they have been doing it to U.S. citizens. If it weren't for that fact, there wouldn't be a story at all because they wouldn't have said anything to reporters otherwise.
Quote:
3) Let it be known that Martin Luther King had ties to Communists. However, he was an American citizen, and thus it was illegal.
Uh, I don't think people are ignorant of that though it's good that you understand it for a comment I'll make next.
Quote:
4) No matter what your feelings of Reverend King, he did not believe in violence to achieve political goals. Comparing him to those that do is horrible of the ACLU.
Unless you are saying that ALL U.S. citizens believe in violence to achieve political goals, I don't think you're making the proper connection here. The ACLU is saying that if you are a U.S. citizen the government is not allowed to spy on you without getting a warrant to do so PERIOD. Besides, the ACLU isn't the only one doing the whole suing thing right now. Poor CCR, no one pays them any attention. ;p
Quote:
5) Have you ever noticed that the ACLU automatically denotes the Bush Administration as 'guilty' and the terror suspects as 'innocent' in nearly every (if not all) case or event that occurs? Isn't that just a yummy coincidence?
Uh, that's not a very logical conclusion because the million dollar question that no one can prove/disprove is were the phone/emails really only between Al Qeada or not? Oh, and don't give me "lack of evidence" defense, particularly since people are convicted all the time despite "lack of evidence" as long as people have a plausible reason to suspect and a plausible motive--and all politicians have very good reasons to want to spy on others & we know them without wasting space detailing them. Bush and the administration will/must say that it is the case that it's limited. That doesn't mean people will believe it and since they were stupid enough not to let the courts verify what they were doing like they're supposed to do as well as changed an international group to a semi-national one, they've opened themselves up to this scrutiny. Oh, and for the record, I wouldn't trust ANYONE other than myself with the ability to do things unchecked. However, I doubt most people would trust me to be able to do things unchecked which brings us back to why we have the laws and checks & balances we have: it's also a protection to keep you from being charged with being corrupt. Of course, if it's discovered that an American citizen is prosecuted due to being incriminated via stuff that was obtained without a warrant, any half-rate lawyer could get him/her off scotfree due to the blatant technicality (the other protection getting a warrant provides).
Quote:
And here's a hypothetical situation for you all to ponder. Next time someone complains about the 'illegal wiretaps', ask them this: If FDR had had the option of bugging Adolf Hitler's phone starting in 1938, should he have done so to eavesdrop the enemy's war plans?
When was Hitler an American citizen?
Quote:
More misinformation. And one more thing. After everything I've read, even from THE SOURCE (James Riesen, the author of the new book and the now-identified source for the original NY Times article that broke the story), says that there were 500 Americans that had their phones tapped. And for all 500, their phone number was found on the computer or cell phone of captured Al Qeada operative.
Risen said 500 per day and not necessarily the same ones everyday which is how it amounts to thousands overall. You don't have to believe me as I'm not searching for the NY Times for links (particularly since they may not be accessible anymore anyway).
Quote:
Forgive me if I'm not shocked, stunned, and dismayed that 0.0000017 of the American population, all of whom have known ties to a terrorist organization, had their phones tapped. Of course, this number probably doesn't cover people who aren't even American citizens to begin with.
James Comey would definitely disagree that was the case since he has been identified as the one that wouldn't sign off on the program when he was in charge for a little while at the Justice Department and had the ability to stop it (and he did until someone else replaced him).
Quote:
The ACLU may have done some good during the days leading to and during the civil rights movement, but it has now lost all relevancy.
Perhaps, the ACLU does more than you think (each word is a link to a different ACLU case/deed).
Quote:
I think the ACLU is un-American.
One final thing. The only thing that is "un-American" is the notion that people are not supposed to use our system of laws to address whatever they feel they need to address. I may disagree with you, but I'll never call you or anyone else I disagree with "un-American" just for that reason. I get sick of people with all sorts of different views saying things like that. Unless someone attempts to burn the U.S. to the ground (or secede as per the Civil War), they're not being "un-American." That's why I basically agree with Teddy Roosevelt's ascertion that believing people should not say/do things that question the government is the only "un-American" thing. Debate is good and healthy.
Quote:
He referenced case law and US Code that I am not familiar with, but basically he said that these "roving wiretaps" to track terrorists are nothing more than the same "roving wiretaps" used against organized crime before 9/11.
Two general things:
1) The point isn't the wiretaps itself. Only fools don't know that the U.S. government uses them (actually, that's one of the reasons I've felt the whole "it's a matter of national security"-stuff was nonsense).
2) It's about the lack of oversight. The executive checks the judicial by making appointments, the legislative checks the executive & Judicial by confirming them, the executive checks the legislature by vetoing/signing laws, the judiciary checks the legislature & executive by making sure their actions are in accordance to the constitution and laws of the land/state/town depending on jurisdiction; among other checks/balances that I'm not listing. The executive cannot decide that it oversees itself and talking to a few members of Congress is not oversight (even less so when those that seemingly complained were basically ignored--no one can say that Pelosi, for one, didn't complain about the program).
One last thing:
By chance, can you find out the case law and/or U.S. Code? I'd be interested to read it since I've mainly missed Chertoff's comments. He must've made them when I was paying attention to some other stuff.
Edit: Fixed a link ;p
Okay, I'm going to double the size of this page, here, but I think this speech by a high-ranking government official pretty much echoes my own opinions.
As we begin this new year, the Executive Branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress to prevent such abuses.
It is imperative that respect for the rule of law be restored.
So, many of us have come here to Constitution Hall to sound an alarm and call upon our fellow citizens to put aside partisan differences and join with us in demanding that our Constitution be defended and preserved.
It is appropriate that we make this appeal on the day our nation has set aside to honor the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who challenged America to breathe new life into our oldest values by extending its promise to all our people.
On this particular Martin Luther King Day, it is especially important to recall that for the last several years of his life, Dr. King was illegally wiretapped-one of hundreds of thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government during this period.
The FBI privately called King the "most dangerous and effective negro leader in the country" and vowed to "take him off his pedestal." The government even attempted to destroy his marriage and blackmail him into committing suicide.
This campaign continued until Dr. King's murder. The discovery that the FBI conducted a long-running and extensive campaign of secret electronic surveillance designed to infiltrate the inner workings of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and to learn the most intimate details of Dr. King's life, helped to convince Congress to enact restrictions on wiretapping.
The result was the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), which was enacted expressly to ensure that foreign intelligence surveillance would be presented to an impartial judge to verify that there is a sufficient cause for the surveillance. I voted for that law during my first term in Congress and for almost thirty years the system has proven a workable and valued means of according a level of protection for private citizens, while permitting foreign surveillance to continue.
Yet, just one month ago, Americans awoke to the shocking news that in spite of this long settled law, the Executive Branch has been secretly spying on large numbers of Americans for the last four years and eavesdropping on "large volumes of telephone calls, e-mail messages, and other Internet traffic inside the United States." The New York Times reported that the President decided to launch this massive eavesdropping program "without search warrants or any new laws that would permit such domestic intelligence collection."
During the period when this eavesdropping was still secret, the President went out of his way to reassure the American people on more than one occasion that, of course, judicial permission is required for any government spying on American citizens and that, of course, these constitutional safeguards were still in place.
But surprisingly, the President's soothing statements turned out to be false. Moreover, as soon as this massive domestic spying program was uncovered by the press, the President not only confirmed that the story was true, but also declared that he has no intention of bringing these wholesale invasions of privacy to an end.
At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently.
A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."
An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet, "On Common Sense" ignited the American Revolution, succinctly described America's alternative. Here, he said, we intended to make certain that "the law is king."
Vigilant adherence to the rule of law strengthens our democracy and strengthens America. It ensures that those who govern us operate within our constitutional structure, which means that our democratic institutions play their indispensable role in shaping policy and determining the direction of our nation. It means that the people of this nation ultimately determine its course and not executive officials operating in secret without constraint.
The rule of law makes us stronger by ensuring that decisions will be tested, studied, reviewed and examined through the processes of government that are designed to improve policy. And the knowledge that they will be reviewed prevents over-reaching and checks the accretion of power.
A commitment to openness, truthfulness and accountability also helps our country avoid many serious mistakes. Recently, for example, we learned from recently classified declassified documents that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized the tragic Vietnam war, was actually based on false information. We now know that the decision by Congress to authorize the Iraq War, 38 years later, was also based on false information. America would have been better off knowing the truth and avoiding both of these colossal mistakes in our history. Following the rule of law makes us safer, not more vulnerable.
The President and I agree on one thing. The threat from terrorism is all too real. There is simply no question that we continue to face new challenges in the wake of the attack on September 11th and that we must be ever-vigilant in protecting our citizens from harm.
Where we disagree is that we have to break the law or sacrifice our system of government to protect Americans from terrorism. In fact, doing so makes us weaker and more vulnerable.
Once violated, the rule of law is in danger. Unless stopped, lawlessness grows. The greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles. As the executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its actions, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police it. Once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we become a government of men and not laws.
The President's men have minced words about America's laws. The Attorney General openly conceded that the "kind of surveillance" we now know they have been conducting requires a court order unless authorized by statute. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act self-evidently does not authorize what the NSA has been doing, and no one inside or outside the Administration claims that it does. Incredibly, the Administration claims instead that the surveillance was implicitly authorized when Congress voted to use force against those who attacked us on September 11th.
This argument just does not hold any water. Without getting into the legal intricacies, it faces a number of embarrassing facts. First, another admission by the Attorney General: he concedes that the Administration knew that the NSA project was prohibited by existing law and that they consulted with some members of Congress about changing the statute. Gonzalez says that they were told this probably would not be possible. So how can they now argue that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force somehow implicitly authorized it all along? Second, when the Authorization was being debated, the Administration did in fact seek to have language inserted in it that would have authorized them to use military force domestically - and the Congress did not agree. Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Jim McGovern, among others, made statements during the Authorization debate clearly restating that that Authorization did not operate domestically.
When President Bush failed to convince Congress to give him all the power he wanted when they passed the AUMF, he secretly assumed that power anyway, as if congressional authorization was a useless bother. But as Justice Frankfurter once wrote: "To find authority so explicitly withheld is not merely to disregard in a particular instance the clear will of Congress. It is to disrespect the whole legislative process and the constitutional division of authority between President and Congress."
This is precisely the "disrespect" for the law that the Supreme Court struck down in the steel seizure case.
It is this same disrespect for America's Constitution which has now brought our republic to the brink of a dangerous breach in the fabric of the Constitution. And the disrespect embodied in these apparent mass violations of the law is part of a larger pattern of seeming indifference to the Constitution that is deeply troubling to millions of Americans in both political parties.
For example, the President has also declared that he has a heretofore unrecognized inherent power to seize and imprison any American citizen that he alone determines to be a threat to our nation, and that, notwithstanding his American citizenship, the person imprisoned has no right to talk with a lawyer-even to argue that the President or his appointees have made a mistake and imprisoned the wrong person.
The President claims that he can imprison American citizens indefinitely for the rest of their lives without an arrest warrant, without notifying them about what charges have been filed against them, and without informing their families that they have been imprisoned.
At the same time, the Executive Branch has claimed a previously unrecognized authority to mistreat prisoners in its custody in ways that plainly constitute torture in a pattern that has now been documented in U.S. facilities located in several countries around the world.
Over 100 of these captives have reportedly died while being tortured by Executive Branch interrogators and many more have been broken and humiliated. In the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, investigators who documented the pattern of torture estimated that more than 90 percent of the victims were innocent of any charges.
This shameful exercise of power overturns a set of principles that our nation has observed since General Washington first enunciated them during our Revolutionary War and has been observed by every president since then - until now. These practices violate the Geneva Conventions and the International Convention Against Torture, not to mention our own laws against torture.
The President has also claimed that he has the authority to kidnap individuals in foreign countries and deliver them for imprisonment and interrogation on our behalf by autocratic regimes in nations that are infamous for the cruelty of their techniques for torture.
Some of our traditional allies have been shocked by these new practices on the part of our nation. The British Ambassador to Uzbekistan - one of those nations with the worst reputations for torture in its prisons - registered a complaint to his home office about the senselessness and cruelty of the new U.S. practice: "This material is useless - we are selling our souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful."
Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is "yes" then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited? If the President has the inherent authority to eavesdrop, imprison citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?
The Dean of Yale Law School, Harold Koh, said after analyzing the Executive Branch's claims of these previously unrecognized powers: "If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."
The fact that our normal safeguards have thus far failed to contain this unprecedented expansion of executive power is deeply troubling. This failure is due in part to the fact that the Executive Branch has followed a determined strategy of obfuscating, delaying, withholding information, appearing to yield but then refusing to do so and dissembling in order to frustrate the efforts of the legislative and judicial branches to restore our constitutional balance.
For example, after appearing to support legislation sponsored by John McCain to stop the continuation of torture, the President declared in the act of signing the bill that he reserved the right not to comply with it.
Similarly, the Executive Branch claimed that it could unilaterally imprison American citizens without giving them access to review by any tribunal. The Supreme Court disagreed, but the President engaged in legal maneuvers designed to prevent the Court from providing meaningful content to the rights of its citizens.
A conservative jurist on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that the Executive Branch's handling of one such case seemed to involve the sudden abandonment of principle "at substantial cost to the government's credibility before the courts."
As a result of its unprecedented claim of new unilateral power, the Executive Branch has now put our constitutional design at grave risk. The stakes for America's representative democracy are far higher than has been generally recognized.
These claims must be rejected and a healthy balance of power restored to our Republic. Otherwise, the fundamental nature of our democracy may well undergo a radical transformation.
For more than two centuries, America's freedoms have been preserved in part by our founders' wise decision to separate the aggregate power of our government into three co-equal branches, each of which serves to check and balance the power of the other two.
On more than a few occasions, the dynamic interaction among all three branches has resulted in collisions and temporary impasses that create what are invariably labeled "constitutional crises." These crises have often been dangerous and uncertain times for our Republic. But in each such case so far, we have found a resolution of the crisis by renewing our common agreement to live under the rule of law.
The principle alternative to democracy throughout history has been the consolidation of virtually all state power in the hands of a single strongman or small group who together exercise that power without the informed consent of the governed.
It was in revolt against just such a regime, after all, that America was founded. When Lincoln declared at the time of our greatest crisis that the ultimate question being decided in the Civil War was "whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure," he was not only saving our union but also was recognizing the fact that democracies are rare in history. And when they fail, as did Athens and the Roman Republic upon whose designs our founders drew heavily, what emerges in their place is another strongman regime.
There have of course been other periods of American history when the Executive Branch claimed new powers that were later seen as excessive and mistaken. Our second president, John Adams, passed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts and sought to silence and imprison critics and political opponents.
When his successor, Thomas Jefferson, eliminated the abuses he said: "[The essential principles of our Government] form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation... hould we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety."
Our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Some of the worst abuses prior to those of the current administration were committed by President Wilson during and after WWI with the notorious Red Scare and Palmer Raids. The internment of Japanese Americans during WWII marked a low point for the respect of individual rights at the hands of the executive. And, during the Vietnam War, the notorious COINTELPRO program was part and parcel of the abuses experienced by Dr. King and thousands of others.
But in each of these cases, when the conflict and turmoil subsided, the country recovered its equilibrium and absorbed the lessons learned in a recurring cycle of excess and regret.
There are reasons for concern this time around that conditions may be changing and that the cycle may not repeat itself. For one thing, we have for decades been witnessing the slow and steady accumulation of presidential power. In a global environment of nuclear weapons and cold war tensions, Congress and the American people accepted ever enlarging spheres of presidential initiative to conduct intelligence and counter intelligence activities and to allocate our military forces on the global stage. When military force has been used as an instrument of foreign policy or in response to humanitarian demands, it has almost always been as the result of presidential initiative and leadership. As Justice Frankfurter wrote in the Steel Seizure Case, "The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority."
A second reason to believe we may be experiencing something new is that we are told by the Administration that the war footing upon which he has tried to place the country is going to "last for the rest of our lives." So we are told that the conditions of national threat that have been used by other Presidents to justify arrogations of power will persist in near perpetuity.
Third, we need to be aware of the advances in eavesdropping and surveillance technologies with their capacity to sweep up and analyze enormous quantities of information and to mine it for intelligence. This adds significant vulnerability to the privacy and freedom of enormous numbers of innocent people at the same time as the potential power of those technologies. These techologies have the potential for shifting the balance of power between the apparatus of the state and the freedom of the individual in ways both subtle and profound.
Don't misunderstand me: the threat of additional terror strikes is all too real and their concerted efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction does create a real imperative to exercise the powers of the Executive Branch with swiftness and agility. Moreover, there is in fact an inherent power that is conferred by the Constitution to the President to take unilateral action to protect the nation from a sudden and immediate threat, but it is simply not possible to precisely define in legalistic terms exactly when that power is appropriate and when it is not.
But the existence of that inherent power cannot be used to justify a gross and excessive power grab lasting for years that produces a serious imbalance in the relationship between the executive and the other two branches of government.
There is a final reason to worry that we may be experiencing something more than just another cycle of overreach and regret. This Administration has come to power in the thrall of a legal theory that aims to convince us that this excessive concentration of presidential authority is exactly what our Constitution intended.
This legal theory, which its proponents call the theory of the unitary executive but which is more accurately described as the unilateral executive, threatens to expand the president's powers until the contours of the constitution that the Framers actually gave us become obliterated beyond all recognition. Under this theory, the President's authority when acting as Commander-in-Chief or when making foreign policy cannot be reviewed by the judiciary or checked by Congress. President Bush has pushed the implications of this idea to its maximum by continually stressing his role as Commander-in-Chief, invoking it has frequently as he can, conflating it with his other roles, domestic and foreign. When added to the idea that we have entered a perpetual state of war, the implications of this theory stretch quite literally as far into the future as we can imagine.
This effort to rework America's carefully balanced constitutional design into a lopsided structure dominated by an all powerful Executive Branch with a subservient Congress and judiciary is-ironically-accompanied by an effort by the same administration to rework America's foreign policy from one that is based primarily on U.S. moral authority into one that is based on a misguided and self-defeating effort to establish dominance in the world.
The common denominator seems to be based on an instinct to intimidate and control.
This same pattern has characterized the effort to silence dissenting views within the Executive Branch, to censor information that may be inconsistent with its stated ideological goals, and to demand conformity from all Executive Branch employees.
For example, CIA analysts who strongly disagreed with the White House assertion that Osama bin Laden was linked to Saddam Hussein found themselves under pressure at work and became fearful of losing promotions and salary increases.
Ironically, that is exactly what happened to FBI officials in the 1960s who disagreed with J. Edgar Hoover's view that Dr. King was closely connected to Communists. The head of the FBI's domestic intelligence division said that his effort to tell the truth about King's innocence of the charge resulted in he and his colleagues becoming isolated and pressured. "It was evident that we had to change our ways or we would all be out on the street.... The men and I discussed how to get out of trouble. To be in trouble with Mr. Hoover was a serious matter. These men were trying to buy homes, mortgages on homes, children in school. They lived in fear of getting transferred, losing money on their homes, as they usually did. ... so they wanted another memorandum written to get us out of the trouble that we were in."
The Constitution's framers understood this dilemma as well, as Alexander Hamilton put it, "a power over a man's support is a power over his will." (Federalist No. 73)
Soon, there was no more difference of opinion within the FBI. The false accusation became the unanimous view. In exactly the same way, George Tenet's CIA eventually joined in endorsing a manifestly false view that there was a linkage between al Qaeda and the government of Iraq.
In the words of George Orwell: "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."
Whenever power is unchecked and unaccountable it almost inevitably leads to mistakes and abuses. In the absence of rigorous accountability, incompetence flourishes. Dishonesty is encouraged and rewarded.
Last week, for example, Vice President Cheney attempted to defend the Administration's eavesdropping on American citizens by saying that if it had conducted this program prior to 9/11, they would have found out the names of some of the hijackers.
Tragically, he apparently still doesn't know that the Administration did in fact have the names of at least 2 of the hijackers well before 9/11 and had available to them information that could have easily led to the identification of most of the other hijackers. And yet, because of incompetence in the handling of this information, it was never used to protect the American people.
It is often the case that an Executive Branch beguiled by the pursuit of unchecked power responds to its own mistakes by reflexively proposing that it be given still more power. Often, the request itself it used to mask accountability for mistakes in the use of power it already has.
Moreover, if the pattern of practice begun by this Administration is not challenged, it may well become a permanent part of the American system. Many conservatives have pointed out that granting unchecked power to this President means that the next President will have unchecked power as well. And the next President may be someone whose values and belief you do not trust. And this is why Republicans as well as Democrats should be concerned with what this President has done. If this President's attempt to dramatically expand executive power goes unquestioned, our constitutional design of checks and balances will be lost. And the next President or some future President will be able, in the name of national security, to restrict our liberties in a way the framers never would have thought possible.
The same instinct to expand its power and to establish dominance characterizes the relationship between this Administration and the courts and the Congress.
In a properly functioning system, the Judicial Branch would serve as the constitutional umpire to ensure that the branches of government observed their proper spheres of authority, observed civil liberties and adhered to the rule of law. Unfortunately, the unilateral executive has tried hard to thwart the ability of the judiciary to call balls and strikes by keeping controversies out of its hands - notably those challenging its ability to detain individuals without legal process -- by appointing judges who will be deferential to its exercise of power and by its support of assaults on the independence of the third branch.
The President's decision to ignore FISA was a direct assault on the power of the judges who sit on that court. Congress established the FISA court precisely to be a check on executive power to wiretap. Yet, to ensure that the court could not function as a check on executive power, the President simply did not take matters to it and did not let the court know that it was being bypassed.
The President's judicial appointments are clearly designed to ensure that the courts will not serve as an effective check on executive power. As we have all learned, Judge Alito is a longtime supporter of a powerful executive - a supporter of the so-called unitary executive, which is more properly called the unilateral executive. Whether you support his confirmation or not - and I do not - we must all agree that he will not vote as an effective check on the expansion of executive power. Likewise, Chief Justice Roberts has made plain his deference to the expansion of executive power through his support of judicial deference to executive agency rulemaking.
And the Administration has supported the assault on judicial independence that has been conducted largely in Congress. That assault includes a threat by the Republican majority in the Senate to permanently change the rules to eliminate the right of the minority to engage in extended debate of the President's judicial nominees. The assault has extended to legislative efforts to curtail the jurisdiction of courts in matters ranging from habeas corpus to the pledge of allegiance. In short, the Administration has demonstrated its contempt for the judicial role and sought to evade judicial review of its actions at every turn.
But the most serious damage has been done to the legislative branch. The sharp decline of congressional power and autonomy in recent years has been almost as shocking as the efforts by the Executive Branch to attain a massive expansion of its power.
I was elected to Congress in 1976 and served eight years in the house, 8 years in the Senate and presided over the Senate for 8 years as Vice President. As a young man, I saw the Congress first hand as the son of a Senator. My father was elected to Congress in 1938, 10 years before I was born, and left the Senate in 1971.
The Congress we have today is unrecognizable compared to the one in which my father served. There are many distinguished Senators and Congressmen serving today. I am honored that some of them are here in this hall. But the legislative branch of government under its current leadership now operates as if it is entirely subservient to the Executive Branch.
Moreover, too many Members of the House and Senate now feel compelled to spend a majority of their time not in thoughtful debate of the issues, but raising money to purchase 30 second TV commercials.
There have now been two or three generations of congressmen who don't really know what an oversight hearing is. In the 70's and 80's, the oversight hearings in which my colleagues and I participated held the feet of the Executive Branch to the fire - no matter which party was in power. Yet oversight is almost unknown in the Congress today.
The role of authorization committees has declined into insignificance. The 13 annual appropriation bills are hardly ever actually passed anymore. Everything is lumped into a single giant measure that is not even available for Members of Congress to read before they vote on it.
Members of the minority party are now routinely excluded from conference committees, and amendments are routinely not allowed during floor consideration of legislation.
In the United States Senate, which used to pride itself on being the "greatest deliberative body in the world," meaningful debate is now a rarity. Even on the eve of the fateful vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd famously asked: "Why is this chamber empty?"
In the House of Representatives, the number who face a genuinely competitive election contest every two years is typically less than a dozen out of 435.
And too many incumbents have come to believe that the key to continued access to the money for re-election is to stay on the good side of those who have the money to give; and, in the case of the majority party, the whole process is largely controlled by the incumbent president and his political organization.
So the willingness of Congress to challenge the Administration is further limited when the same party controls both Congress and the Executive Branch.
The Executive Branch, time and again, has co-opted Congress' role, and often Congress has been a willing accomplice in the surrender of its own power.
Look for example at the Congressional role in "overseeing" this massive four year eavesdropping campaign that on its face seemed so clearly to violate the Bill of Rights. The President says he informed Congress, but what he really means is that he talked with the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees and the top leaders of the House and Senate. This small group, in turn, claimed that they were not given the full facts, though at least one of the intelligence committee leaders handwrote a letter of concern to VP Cheney and placed a copy in his own safe.
Though I sympathize with the awkward position in which these men and women were placed, I cannot disagree with the Liberty Coalition when it says that Democrats as well as Republicans in the Congress must share the blame for not taking action to protest and seek to prevent what they consider a grossly unconstitutional program.
Moreover, in the Congress as a whole-both House and Senate-the enhanced role of money in the re-election process, coupled with the sharply diminished role for reasoned deliberation and debate, has produced an atmosphere conducive to pervasive institutionalized corruption.
The Abramoff scandal is but the tip of a giant iceberg that threatens the integrity of the entire legislative branch of government.
It is the pitiful state of our legislative branch which primarily explains the failure of our vaunted checks and balances to prevent the dangerous overreach by our Executive Branch which now threatens a radical transformation of the American system.
I call upon Democratic and Republican members of Congress today to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you're supposed to be.
But there is yet another Constitutional player whose pulse must be taken and whose role must be examined in order to understand the dangerous imbalance that has emerged with the efforts by the Executive Branch to dominate our constitutional system.
We the people are-collectively-still the key to the survival of America's democracy. We-as Lincoln put it, "[e]ven we here"-must examine our own role as citizens in allowing and not preventing the shocking decay and degradation of our democracy.
Thomas Jefferson said: "An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will."
The revolutionary departure on which the idea of America was based was the audacious belief that people can govern themselves and responsibly exercise the ultimate authority in self-government. This insight proceeded inevitably from the bedrock principle articulated by the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke: "All just power is derived from the consent of the governed."
The intricate and carefully balanced constitutional system that is now in such danger was created with the full and widespread participation of the population as a whole. The Federalist Papers were, back in the day, widely-read newspaper essays, and they represented only one of twenty-four series of essays that crowded the vibrant marketplace of ideas in which farmers and shopkeepers recapitulated the debates that played out so fruitfully in Philadelphia.
Indeed, when the Convention had done its best, it was the people - in their various States - that refused to confirm the result until, at their insistence, the Bill of Rights was made integral to the document sent forward for ratification.
And it is "We the people" who must now find once again the ability we once had to play an integral role in saving our Constitution.
And here there is cause for both concern and great hope. The age of printed pamphlets and political essays has long since been replaced by television - a distracting and absorbing medium which sees determined to entertain and sell more than it informs and educates.
Lincoln's memorable call during the Civil War is applicable in a new way to our dilemma today: "We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."
Forty years have passed since the majority of Americans adopted television as their principal source of information. Its dominance has become so extensive that virtually all significant political communication now takes place within the confines of flickering 30-second television advertisements.
And the political economy supported by these short but expensive television ads is as different from the vibrant politics of America's first century as those politics were different from the feudalism which thrived on the ignorance of the masses of people in the Dark Ages.
The constricted role of ideas in the American political system today has encouraged efforts by the Executive Branch to control the flow of information as a means of controlling the outcome of important decisions that still lie in the hands of the people.
The Administration vigorously asserts its power to maintain the secrecy of its operations. After all, the other branches can't check an abuse of power if they don't know it is happening.
For example, when the Administration was attempting to persuade Congress to enact the Medicare prescription drug benefit, many in the House and Senate raised concerns about the cost and design of the program. But, rather than engaging in open debate on the basis of factual data, the Administration withheld facts and prevented the Congress from hearing testimony that it sought from the principal administration expert who had compiled information showing in advance of the vote that indeed the true cost estimates were far higher than the numbers given to Congress by the President.
Deprived of that information, and believing the false numbers given to it instead, the Congress approved the program. Tragically, the entire initiative is now collapsing- all over the country- with the Administration making an appeal just this weekend to major insurance companies to volunteer to bail it out.
To take another example, scientific warnings about the catastrophic consequences of unchecked global warming were censored by a political appointee in the White House who had no scientific training. And today one of the leading scientific experts on global warming in NASA has been ordered not to talk to members of the press and to keep a careful log of everyone he meets with so that the Executive Branch can monitor and control his discussions of global warming.
One of the other ways the Administration has tried to control the flow of information is by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest. As President Eisenhower said, "Any who act as if freedom's defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America."
Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and burnt women."
The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.
Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.
Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?
It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.
We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive Branch and the President's apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law.
I endorse the words of Bob Barr, when he said, "The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will."
A special counsel should immediately be appointed by the Attorney General to remedy the obvious conflict of interest that prevents him from investigating what many believe are serious violations of law by the President. We have had a fresh demonstration of how an independent investigation by a special counsel with integrity can rebuild confidence in our system of justice. Patrick Fitzgerald has, by all accounts, shown neither fear nor favor in pursuing allegations that the Executive Branch has violated other laws.
Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress should support the bipartisan call of the Liberty Coalition for the appointment of a special counsel to pursue the criminal issues raised by warrantless wiretapping of Americans by the President.
Second, new whistleblower protections should immediately be established for members of the Executive Branch who report evidence of wrongdoing -- especially where it involves the abuse of Executive Branch authority in the sensitive areas of national security.
Third, both Houses of Congress should hold comprehensive-and not just superficial-hearings into these serious allegations of criminal behavior on the part of the President. And, they should follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Fourth, the extensive new powers requested by the Executive Branch in its proposal to extend and enlarge the Patriot Act should, under no circumstances be granted, unless and until there are adequate and enforceable safeguards to protect the Constitution and the rights of the American people against the kinds of abuses that have so recently been revealed.
Fifth, any telecommunications company that has provided the government with access to private information concerning the communications of Americans without a proper warrant should immediately cease and desist their complicity in this apparently illegal invasion of the privacy of American citizens.
Freedom of communication is an essential prerequisite for the restoration of the health of our democracy.
It is particularly important that the freedom of the Internet be protected against either the encroachment of government or the efforts at control by large media conglomerates. The future of our democracy depends on it.
I mentioned that along with cause for concern, there is reason for hope. As I stand here today, I am filled with optimism that America is on the eve of a golden age in which the vitality of our democracy will be re-established and will flourish more vibrantly than ever. Indeed I can feel it in this hall.
As Dr. King once said, "Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us."
Quote:
At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently.
This is where I stopped reading. Because, you know, everything else points to the contrary; ie that NO laws were broken, and that there's a whole WORLD of difference in legality when comparing the wiretapping of Martin Luther King Jr. and the wiretapping on people (who, judging from all evidence, aren't even American citizens, and thus have no RIGHT to privacy under American law) with known affiliations to Al Qaeda.
Even the New York Times article this person references admitted as such. Which government official are you referencing again?
If you're complaining so much about the NSA eavesdropping ordered by Bush, then be glad Al Gore wasn't elected president.
I really don't care what Gore did in 1993. I'm just saying his speech pretty much mirrors my thoughts on the matter. I prefer to stay out of the issue, though, since it's not something I need to worry about.
Cycle,
I thought it was a well made speech until it went to "Global Warming".... It was like a train wreck, this long logical string of history and case law, and then BAM out of nowhere "Global Warming"....
This sounds like something Ted Kennedy or John Murtha would spout, anyways, this "High ranking government official" doesn't strike me as an unbiased source, everyone in government has an axe to grind. Not that there is anything wrong with it, just that NO Names were listed amongst those who "were afraid for their jobs" in the CIA and FBI...
It smells more like propaganda than a history lesson. Anyways, Cycle wins the longest quote award.
Jimro
The guy who made the speech is actually Al Gore. I didn't include his name because I figured that way people would at least read it before dismissing it as liberal propaganda -- I know you read it, and I can only assume Ultra had to read it and do some digging before he figured it out. Unless he saw the editorial he linked beforehand, that is.
I didn't know it was Al Gore you quoted until you said so in the post responding to me. It was a sheer coincidence that I happened to link to an article that was about Gore.
I have no problem with the program. And this "domestic spying" has been going on at least since the Clinto Administration and probably well before that. I don't see how this violates the Constitution nor my privacy.
The program has been pointed to calls from the U.S. to countries such as Suadi Arabia or Iran.
THREAD RESURRECTION FTW
