Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 27

Thread: Tap tap tap

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Coastal Georgia
    Posts
    34,902


    Thank You for Wiretapping
    Why the Founders made presidents dominant on national security.


    Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

    Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold wants to be President, and that's fair enough. By all means go for it in 2008. The same applies to Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who's always on the Sunday shows fretting about the latest criticism of the Bush Administration's prosecution of the war on terror. But until you run nationwide and win, Senators, please stop stripping the Presidency of its Constitutional authority to defend America.

    That is the real issue raised by the Beltway furor over last week's leak of National Security Agency wiretaps on international phone calls involving al Qaeda suspects. The usual assortment of Senators and media potentates is howling that the wiretaps are "illegal," done "in total secret," and threaten to bring us a long, dark night of fascism. "I believe it does violate the law," averred Mr. Feingold on CNN Sunday.

    The truth is closer to the opposite. What we really have here is a perfect illustration of why America's Founders gave the executive branch the largest measure of Constitutional authority on national security. They recognized that a committee of 535 talking heads couldn't be trusted with such grave responsibility. There is no evidence that these wiretaps violate the law. But there is lots of evidence that the Senators are "illegally" usurping Presidential power--and endangering the country in the process.


    The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.

    The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." [/color]And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

    On Sunday Mr. Graham opined that "I don't know of any legal basis to go around" FISA--which suggests that next time he should do his homework before he implies on national TV that a President is acting like a dictator. (Mr. Graham made his admission of ignorance on CBS's "Face the Nation," where he was representing the Republican point of view. Democrat Joe Biden was certain that laws had been broken, while the two journalists asking questions clearly had no idea what they were talking about. So much for enlightening television.)

    The mere Constitution aside, the evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties. Far from being "secret," key Members of Congress were informed about them at least 12 times,
    President Bush said yesterday. The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about them.

    Inside the executive branch, the process allowing the wiretaps was routinely reviewed by Justice Department lawyers, by the Attorney General personally, and with the President himself reauthorizing the process every 45 days. In short, the implication that this is some LBJ-J. Edgar Hoover operation designed to skirt the law to spy on domestic political enemies is nothing less than a political smear.

    All the more so because there are sound and essential security reasons for allowing such wiretaps. The FISA process was designed for wiretaps on suspected foreign agents operating in this country during the Cold War. In that context, we had the luxury of time to go to the FISA court for a warrant to spy on, say, the economic counselor at the Soviet embassy.

    In the war on terror, the communications between terrorists in Frankfurt and agents in Florida are harder to track, and when we gather a lead the response often has to be immediate. As we learned on 9/11, acting with dispatch can be a matter of life and death. The information gathered in these wiretaps is not for criminal prosecution but solely to detect and deter future attacks. This is precisely the kind of contingency for which Presidential power and responsibility is designed.

    What the critics in Congress seem to be proposing--to the extent they've even thought much about it--is the establishment of a new intelligence "wall" that would allow the NSA only to tap phones overseas while the FBI would tap them here. Terrorists aren't about to honor such a distinction. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," before 9/11 "our intelligence agencies looked out; our law enforcement agencies looked in. And people could--terrorists could--exploit the seam between them." The wiretaps are designed to close the seam.



    As for power without responsibility, nobody beats Congress. Mr. Bush has publicly acknowledged and defended his decisions. But the Members of Congress who were informed about this all along are now either silent or claim they didn't get the full story. This is why these columns have long opposed requiring the disclosure of classified operations to the Congressional Intelligence Committees. Congress wants to be aware of everything the executive branch does, but without being accountable for anything at all. If Democrats want to continue this game of intelligence and wiretap "gotcha," the White House should release the names of every Congressman who received such a briefing.
    Which brings us to this national security leak, which Mr. Bush yesterday called "a shameful act." We won't second-guess the New York Times decision to publish. But everyone should note the irony that both the Times and Washington Post claimed to be outraged by, and demanded a special counsel to investigate, the leak of Valerie Plame's identity, which did zero national security damage.

    By contrast, the Times' NSA leak last week, and an earlier leak in the Washington Post on "secret" prisons for al Qaeda detainees in Europe, are likely to do genuine harm by alerting terrorists to our defenses. If more reporters from these newspapers now face the choice of revealing their sources or ending up in jail, those two papers will share the Plame blame.

    The NSA wiretap uproar is one of those episodes, alas far too common, that make us wonder if Washington is still a serious place. Too many in the media and on Capitol Hill have forgotten that terrorism in the age of WMD poses an existential threat to our free society. We're glad Mr. Bush and his team are forcefully defending their entirely legal and necessary authority to wiretap enemies seeking to kill innocent Americans.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110007703


    Brilliant article.

    Bush has the authority, the courts have ruled on it, and not only was the Attorney General briefed, but so were members of Congress and Judges.

    It's great to know we have a President that takes National Security seriously. k:[/quote]

    [Edited by James 3528 on 12-29-2005 at 06:56 AM]

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677
    Hehehehe.
    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Recently, conservative media figures have MISLEADINGLY cited a 2002 opinion by the Foreign Intelligence Surveilliance Court of Review (FISCR) to claim that the president could authorize warrantless domestic electronic surveilliance despite FISA'S restrictions. They have pointed to the courts reiteration of the president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct foreign intelligence surveilliance without a warrant, which FISA cannot encroach upon. Therefore, they argue, Bush could authorize NSA warrantless monitoring of "U.S. Persons" regardless of FISA'S restrictions.

    But, as Media Matters documented, the ARGUMENT IS A RED HERRING. Their citation of the decision to support the contention that Congress cannot encroach upon the president's constitutional authority IGNORES CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON THAT AUTHORITY. OF COURSE, A
    LAW PASSED IN 1978 WOULD NOT TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION-THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

    The question is the scope of that presidential authority and whether it extends to acts that would violate the provisions of FISA protecting U.S. persons from excessive government intrusion. CONTRARY TO THESE MEDIA FIGURES SUGGESTIONS, THE 2002 FISCR OPINION DOES NOT ADDRESS THAT QUESTION.


    http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002


    Hehehehe indeed.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Coastal Georgia
    Posts
    34,902
    Originally posted by geerair
    Recently, conservative media figures have MISLEADINGLY cited a 2002 opinion by the Foreign Intelligence Surveilliance Court of Review (FISCR) to claim that the president could authorize warrantless domestic electronic surveilliance despite FISA'S restrictions. They have pointed to the courts reiteration of the president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct foreign intelligence surveilliance without a warrant, which FISA cannot encroach upon. Therefore, they argue, Bush could authorize NSA warrantless monitoring of "U.S. Persons" regardless of FISA'S restrictions.

    But, as Media Matters documented, the ARGUMENT IS A RED HERRING. Their citation of the decision to support the contention that Congress cannot encroach upon the president's constitutional authority IGNORES CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON THAT AUTHORITY. OF COURSE, A
    LAW PASSED IN 1978 WOULD NOT TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION-THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

    The question is the scope of that presidential authority and whether it extends to acts that would violate the provisions of FISA protecting U.S. persons from excessive government intrusion. CONTRARY TO THESE MEDIA FIGURES SUGGESTIONS, THE 2002 FISCR OPINION DOES NOT ADDRESS THAT QUESTION.


    http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002


    Hehehehe indeed.

    Bahahaha

    Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
    Along with a donate button......LOL

    I see why Geer hates to post links. LOL

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    No refutation. Nothing to see here. Another conservative myth shattered.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas NV
    Posts
    1,133

    You gotta love geer

    He walks into a chess game and pukes on the board, then declares victory.
    It is really comical to see such a mental midget trying to leap tall hurdles.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Coastal Georgia
    Posts
    34,902

    Re: You gotta love geer

    Originally posted by skrewt
    He walks into a chess game and pukes on the board, then declares victory.
    It is really comical to see such a mental midget trying to leap tall hurdles.

    LOL!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677

    Re: You gotta love geer

    Originally posted by skrewt
    He walks into a chess game and pukes on the board, then declares victory.
    It is really comical to see such a mental midget trying to leap tall hurdles.
    LOL. Yeah. His forehead has got to be hurting.
    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Searching, searching......Nope, no refutation to be had here.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677
    Hey! Look! Geer says he's not refuting us.
    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Did you have a refutation? False alarm. Move along folks.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas NV
    Posts
    1,133

    Here's my refutation

    Your link was a bogus post to a partisan hack website.

    If you want to quote space aliens try somewhere else.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Okey Doke. The defendants refuse to defend their case.

    Case Closed.

    Bailiff, call the next case.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event