Letters to the Editor
-
Obstruction of Justice?
Since the very secrecy of this program is what is preventing potential litigants from achieving standing, is this not another crime, ie obstruction of justice? It seems to me that the erosion of constitutional protections predates the USA PATRIOT Act and the MCA, going back at least as far as the national security act of 1947.
Laws keep going onto the books that SHOULD require constitutional amendments, but nobody ever bothers. Then cases are heard, judgements made, and precedents set without ever addressing the underlying fact of unconstitutionality. There is nothing in the Constitution I have read that presupposes any government claim of absolute secrecy. How can the assumption that the people are sovereign be met if the people are kept perpetually in the dark?
-
WT
I agree that further legislation is pointless and perhaps even stupid given that it would weaken congress's contention that the warrantless wiretap program is already illegal. If so, why pass yet further laws to restate the obvious and thus weaken your already strong original argument?
Of course, if the purpose of such legislation would be to further refine FISA so as to better suit today's technological realities, without in any way reducing the need for FISA court oversight and approval, that would be a quite different matter. In fact, it could even prove to be a boon to congress in that, in order to write such legislation, the administration would be forced to reveal details of this program that might help congress determine if it's been used to spy on wrongful targets. Which is why I believe that the administration will refuse to persue such legislation, as it has in the past, and why congress might be politically smart to call them on it.
But legislation to further declare illegal that which the existing FISA law already declares illegal? Simply idiotic, and I can't imagine that congress will do such a thing (no matter how much noise Specter attempts to make over it).
And yes, the congressional path is what I view as the most promising path in dismantling this administration's illegal and disasterous programs and holding those responsible for them at least partly responsible, and hopefully far more than partfully. It's not just the right thing to do, but the politically smart thing to do. And I don't hear Pelosi taking oversight, per see, "off the table". Nor will she, I believe. Instead, she mentions quivers, arrows and sharpenings. Others can read what they will into that, but I see effective impeachment by a thousand subpeonas.
-
Mona, you're cracking me up
They lied because their lawyers told them to; it all comes down to protection from liability. I think they ought to have that protection even if they tell the whole truth, but in this legal climate they just do not.
This sounds like the closing argument for the Bush/Cheney/Gonzales/Rumsfeld/Rice defense at the Hague.
-
SadButTrue
There is nothing in the Constitution I have read that presupposes any government claim of absolute secrecy.
Of course there isn't a right to absolute secrecy in the constitution, but the administration has not overtly claimed such a right de jure, only the right to specific secrecy protection persuant to the "GWOT" that, in effect, it has attempted to turn into de facto (and, I suppose, over time into de jure) absolute secrecy. A classic bait-and-switch, Trojan Horse strategy, like virtually everything this administration has done that has hurt this country and the world.
Which is why the only way to destroy such a "right" is by chipping away at it. They've had plenty of time to construct it solidly, and it won't be toppled by one masterstroke that points to one massive instance of unconstitutionality, since they've built it out of many smaller instances of unconstitutionality that they've managed to make look like the are constitutional (or at least prevent from being ruled as unconstitutional).
As an aside, though, since we're talking about possible future amendments, how about one that strips all future presidents of the right to pardon or commute? For what godforsaken reason does the president still have such an idiotic and dangerous right, other than that it's still in the constitution? At the very least, limit this power by requiring congressional approval of all pardons and commutations, but better yet, just take it away. Can someone explain to me why I might be wrong on this?
-
kovie
I'd be delighted if your optimistic view prevailed, and I'd be especially delighted if the Committees took your advice, stuck to their guns, slogged their way through the muck and the mire of the administration's perfidity, and did the right thing.
But I don't see it yet. I see a "deal" -- which will have the effect of keeping most if not all of the perfidity under wraps, in place, and on going.
That's what this CONGRESS has a habit of doing. As dogged as Leahy and Conyers and Waxman can be, they are members of this Congress, not independent actors pursuing their own ends. If I was seeing Congress stand up to the White House on a regular, consistent and routine basis, then I'd be much more likely to hold your view. The number of months they've held the majority is irrelevant. Their attitude and actions while in the majority (and minority) is relevant, and neither inspires much confidence. Sorry.
That doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong. Far from it.
I am cautiously hopeful, but that's as far as I'm prepared to go at this point.
-
To Simplify Glenn's Post
The Bush administration got off on a technicality ... for now.
That's despite the U.S. appeal courts' agreement with the U.S. District Court's general ruling last year.
In simple terms:
The conservative U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. agreed with U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in principle.
This latest ruling upheld the District Court's anti-Bush stance, while upholding a tecnicality often seen in criminal cases.
From what I gather from Glenn, the federal appeals court needs "standing" (proof) to win this case against Scooter Libby et al. The ACLU and other complainants could not win their cases because they could not prove personnel damage from Bush's warrantless surveillance program.
We the People know better.
How do We the People prove such secrecy before any court?
I don't know at this point.