Letters to the Editor
-
Other countries, other lives
I've been thinking a bit about New Zealand lately. Unicameral legislature, small population. Very diverse terrain. It sounds like an interesting place.
-
this tired old man that we elected king
Bush lionises Reagan, yet it's clear that his role model is someone else:
FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.
NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
FROST: By definition.
NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.
FROST: So, that in other words, really you were saying in that answer, really, between the burglary and murder, again, there's no subtle way to say that there was murder of a dissenter in this country because I don't know any evidence to that effect at all. But, the point is: just the dividing line, is that in fact, the dividing line is the president's judgment?
NIXON: Yes, and the dividing line and, just so that one does not get the impression, that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate.
-
My first thought
in reading about the Mike McConnell interview by the El Paso Times this morning in the San Francisco Chronicle was he’s blowing smoke. I’d not read any other stories or commentary on this interview, although I’ve just read the interview itself through Glenn’s link. McConnell mentioned, yes, we are tapping the phones of approximately 100 individuals here in the United States and many thousands of individuals residing on foreign soil and yes we used the phone companies to facilitate this tapping in contravention of the law.
My thought was this is a first move in defusing an operation that has a scope that goes far beyond anything anyone has as yet uncovered and his statement of facts we have already surmised followed by his statement “Americans will die” if we disclose this kind of information (to I assume Congressional oversight) is a ploy to imply we, the intelligence community have come clean, let’s cut it off here: give us the authority to do pretty much what we will (with immunity from prosecution for laws we’ve already broken) and everyone will live happily ever after. I suspect there’s a chapter describing this particular ploy in one of their intelligence manuals.
If someone, anyone from the administration, had come before the public and said “listen we’ve taken some illegal actions here, all of which we’ve now described to the appropriate Congressional intelligence oversight groups, but we felt at the time it was necessary for the safety of the nation”, I’d be inclined to say OK, understandable (if the appropriate members of the intelligence committees in Congress said they were confident they’d been given all the information requested and these people hadn’t done anything too grim), but fix it please and don’t do it again.
That’s if I trusted them. I don’t trust them and, if their only argument to me in allowing them to conduct surveillance in complete secrecy is to trust them, then it’s a non starter. J. Edgar Hoover and the secret dossiers he compiled to use in intimidating members of Congress and others is just too recent. There’s just been too much crap going on for too long to trust them. Glenn guesses when FISA comes up for renewal in six months the administration will play the “terrorist” card and Congress will cave. I hope he’s wrong, but I wouldn’t bet against him.
-
Filibuster.
It is time, now for the netroots to start lobbying for 40 Democratic senators to filibuster any effort to make these changes to FISA permanent.
It's like we're in the minority somehow even in our majority. Damn it if we can't find 60 senators to end the war, but maybe we can find 40 who won't allow unregulated spying in perpetuity.
-
What part of "illegal conduct" needs explaining, shooter242?
That he doesn't know exactly what was done.
We all know one key fact, courtesy of President Bush himself: the US government has undertaken covert surveillance of suspects without obtaining legal warrants to do so either before or after the fact as they are legally obligated to do under the FISA statute.
Ergo, the Bush Administration has been behaving in an illegal manner.
Simple even for you, eh?
-
Gee, did I miss the part where the companies seeking immunity were NOT employers of McConnell?
Like AT&T, or Verizon? As for Booz Allen, maybe we should have a head spook who isn't part of the spook community. How about an ACLU lawyer? Then we could safely say the no one, knows anything, about anyone, anywhere, at any time. Unless of course the CIA leaks it to the NY Times.
-
Its American Exceptionalism writ large.
The same logic that suggests that when WE invade a sovereign nation it's nevertheless a defensive act applies now. Well yes, laws were broken, but there was no harm intended therefore immunity is only fair.
I'm reminded of Fraud Guy's analysis from the other day.
10% of the people break the rules no matter what, 10% will even act against their own interest and 80% follow the rules as they are layed out. That of course helps explain the importance of the whole FISA issue. Once breaking the law is officially determined to be without consequence, those 80% are now free to do whatever the Hell they want. No wonder they call it a slippery slope.
-
What a knee-jerk
Is stupidity just a knee jerk reaction with shooter?
How many fukkin times does it have to be explained this administration claims it has the authority to commit warrentless surveillance, the administration admits to warrantless surveillance. Warrantless surveillance is EXPLICITLY aginst Federal law. A law created because a president abused intelligence powers and capabilities. Even without this EXPLICIT law, warrantless searches are unconstitutional. Do you want a country where a government agency can pry and spy into someones life without going through due process, where any government agency can suddenly declare, "we are above the law".
Conservative small government my ass.