Politics as (un)usual: Now discussing the Dubai Ports World Deal

Well, he's not paying much of a price just yet. Much as I would like to see some balance return to the one-party system that Capitol Hill has been reduced to, I think it's a serious long-shot to hope that the Dems are going to win enough seats back in either the House or the Senate in November to force the issue of holding Bush and his people accountable for abuses of power like this wiretapping thing. At the moment, the whole issue seems to have been effectively derailed into an ongoing debate over whether or not the president can, in fact, do whatever he wants to simply by virtue of the fact that he's president, rather than the focus being on the fact that the administration broke the law in choosing to ignore FISA.

But I will say, Bush doesn't appear to have the political clout to get Congress to rubber-stamp every loopy-ass initiative he tries to push, and that's at least a bit of good news. No president, and I don't care if it's a Republican or a Democrat we're talking about, should have the degree of unaccountable power that the Bush administration has been trying to assume for the past several years. At least Congress is saying no to him now and then these days.

 

In the public's view, KW, the issue isn't quite as definitive and partisan.

The Democrats would be wise to be very careful at this time concerning this situation, as the last thing they need is to be seen to be undermining national security while also having a large element within their party that continually expresses that we will lose in this war.

The Dems need to distance themselves from that kind of sentiment and move to the center. It is a continuing display of ineptitude by the Democrats who have been totally unable to capitalize on the GOP's weaknesses. Pelosi needs to go, and Dean needs to be removed as DNC chair.

Americans Okay With Current Balance Between National Security and Individual Liberty

Survey of 1,000 Adults
January 2-3, 2006


Some people say that there is a natural tension between protecting individual rights and national security. Does our legal system worry too much about...

Protecting Rights 32%
National Security 29%
Balance About Right 27%


When it comes to questions about the balance between individual rights and national security, who do you trust more?

President Bush 42%
Democrats in Congress 44%


---

Did President Bush break the law by authorizing the National Security Agency to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the Unites States?

Yes 33%
No 50%

January 4, 2006--Americans are generally comfortable with the current balance between national security concerns and individual liberties.

Nearly a third of the respondents in a Rasmussen Reports survey (32%) say that our legal system worries too much about individual rights at the expense of national security. A similar number (29%) say there is too much concern for national security at the expense of individual liberties. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say that the current balance is about right.

When it comes to questions about the balance between security and liberty, Americans are evenly divided between those who trust President Bush and those who trust Democrats in Congress.

Thirty-three percent (33%) of Americans believe that President Bush broke the law by authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) program that burst onto the news last month. That's very similar to the number who believe the President should be impeached and removed from office.

Fifty percent (50%) of Americans say the President did not break the law.

This result is also consistent with earlier data showing that just 26% believe that President Bush is the first to authorize a program allowing the NSA to intercept phone calls between suspected terrorists and U.S. citizens.

Both Bush and the Dems are within the statistical margin for error in the trust department between national security and individual rights; however, nost Americans do not believe that Bush broke the law in utilizing domestic spying post 9/11.

The Dems are trying to politicize this into a quasi-Watergate type of situation, but it's transparently partisan.

I'm without a doubt that the GOP would do the same thing were there a Democrat in office.

That's how sad and pathetic our politics have become, unfortunately. Party affiliation is placed above veracity and good sense. There are still a few members in the Senate that have a sense of honor left, including McCain and Leiberman. The so-called Gang of 14 also bear the reason that our Congress is in such desparate need of.

---

Edit:

Now, I must say that I do agree that there needs to be closed-door hearings in Congress about this matter to settle the Constitutional issues involved here between Executive authority and Legislative responsibilities. I'm sure something can be definitively worked out, so long as it is behind closed doors and not open for petty politicing in the press. This issue is far too important to be politicized.

 

nost Americans do not believe that Bush broke the law in utilizing domestic spying post 9/11.

Actually, the poll you cited said 50% believe Bush did not break the law. That is only half of Americans, many of whom are probably not educated on this issue. I would bet that if the question read "
Did President Bush break the law by authorizing the National Security Agency to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the Unites States without warrents?" The poll would have easily flipped.

Besides, when do we rely on polls to decide if someone broke the law. If he did indeed break the law, all it shows is that the public is misinformed.

 

The issue is one of Executive Authority and national security, and it is becoming too politicized (just as everything else is). The President and Congress have a responsibility to the future of this country to get it right and not play petty political games.

The issue would have been easier if this were an actual declared war, but it is not.

So, they need to get together and work out the details in closed-door sessions.

The fact is that only a minority of people feel that Bush deliberately broke the law for intelligence and national security purposes. 56% say that either national security trumps these things or that the balance is about right.

The jonesing to have Bush impeached is more of the same partisan drivel, and I wouldn't put it past the GOP to do the same thing were a Democrat in office. The Dems are pushing this to score political points, instead of any truthful concern for what has been going on. They sure would be singing a different tune were a Democrat in the Executive Branch. It's all so predictable now.

That is why individuals without the hard-core ideological partisanship are tired of the politics in Washington.

 

The Dems are trying to politicize this into a quasi-Watergate type of situation, but it's transparently partisan.

I'm sorry, but that's a huge cop-out. The Bush administration has seriously overstepped its bounds numerous times over the past several years, but this domestic spying issue is far more serious in its implications and deserves far more than to simply be swept under the rug to avoid accusations of "partisanship".

FISA is in place for a very good reason... to ensure that the government can't use its power to secretly spy on American citizens. Legitimate surveillance is no problem under FISA, and in fact a person can legally be watched for 72 hours while a warrant is sought and issued. If we're truly talking about keeping tabs on terrorists or suspected terrorists, then FISA is simply not going to present a problem in terms of finding a judge to issue a warrant.

The question that most needs to be answered is, who exactly the government was spying on that they felt they would have such a problem getting warrants that they chose instead to simply ignore FISA altogether? It's a cinch that it wasn't actual suspected terrorists, because there would have been absolutely no realistic reason to break the law by circumventing the warrant process if it were. So, who was being spied on here?

I'm sorry, but this is too damned important to insist that it be handled daintily and quietly behind closed doors. And yes, the president needs to be taken to task for his role in allowing the law to be broken this way. He is claiming far too much unaccountable executive power that he has no legal right to, and it's high time that some effort be made to rein him in a bit. Spying on American citizens with absolutely no judicial oversight is completely unacceptable, and it's hardly an act of "partisanship" to call this what it is.

 

The issue would have been easier if this were an actual declared war, but it is not.

See, and this is one of the major problems with Bush's insistence that he should be able to do anything he wants because "we're at war". Technically, we are not. The 2001 al Qaeda attacks and the ongoing occupation of Iraq are always cited as the reason why Bush shouldn't have to answer for anything he does, but neither is an actual "war" in the sense that he and his supporters are trying to claim. The "War on Terra" is a rhetorical war, much like the "War on Drugs". Yes, al Qaeda may be a distinctly more serious problem than some guy growing ganj in his back 40, but it's still not an actual "war". Iraq... well, that's definitely a mess, and an unnecessary mess at that, but it's also not a declared war. It's an occupation of a foreign country, yes, but World War II this ain't. It's certainly nothing that warrants Bush trying to assume unlimited and unaccountable "wartime" powers.

Just because he and his administration say we're "at war" doesn't mean we actually are. And in this case, though we face some serious challenges, we aren't "at war".

 

Lat I checked, the Supreme Court is usually considered the final arbiter of what is or is not allowed (even when they are making things up as they go along). Also last time I checked, they ahven't even been presented with this matter.

At the very least, shouldn't final judgement on whether Bush really did exceed his authority wait until someone who actually has the authority to determine that has weighed in?

Kimball Kinnison

 

To harbor disbelief of the politicization of this matter is inherently naive to the current state of politics here in Washington.

The disclosure of the information by The New York Times constitutes a serious breach of national security. They played the game with Valerie Plame, but they're sure silent about this type of leak. It also wasn't surprising how they sat on the story until the Patriot Act was up for renewal.

The Dems are going to push it as far as they feel comfortable that it will gain them political advantage, and they would have surely been silent were their guy in office. The same applies vice-versa.

The issue is indeed far too important for politicization, therefore it should be handled as other vastly important issues sensitive to national security are - in closed-door sessions.

Congress and the Exective Branch are much more likely to come up with a worthwhile definitive standard by which future Presidents and future Congresses can live by. Open it up to petty jonesing for political advantage in the press, and it stands to harm our future national security significantly.

This isn't Watergate, where Bush is spying on Americans for political purposes or abusing power for personal or political advantage or at the harm of Americans. Some wish to make it appear so. This matter involves anti-terrorism measures involving sensitive information and international implications and the authority of the Executive Branch to provide for National Security. Bush felt he acted on granted authority by Congress to thwart possible terror attacks within this country, and the issue is an ambiguous one. It's just another case of an Executive v. Legislative power struggle that needs to be worked out as they have in previous Administrations.

These types of things really aren't all that new.

Bush won't be impeached, those of you just itching to see him subjected to that shouldn't hold your breaths. Such talk is par for the political course.

I agree with that entirely.

 

This isn't Watergate, where Bush is spying on Americans for political purposes or abusing power for personal or political advantage or at the harm of Americans.

With all due respect, you don't know that at all.

This is the problem with this approach of minimizing the problem in an effort to make it seem like some partisan witch hunt... it ignores the fact that not only do we not yet know that this wasn't done for political purposes or at the expense of Americans, but also that the lack of logical rationale for circumventing FISA simply to go after suspected terrorists suggests that some of this spying absolutely could have been aimed at political enemies. The Bush administration has repeatedly displayed the sort of "enemy list" mentality that marred the Nixon administration, so in light of this really what's naive here is this "move along... nothing to see here" attitude.

This isn't the mere procedural dispute that you seem to be making it out to be, though there certain are some serious procedural questions that have to be answered. And it's hardly just the Democrats trying to make up a scandal... they don't HAVE to make up scandals with this bunch. Bush and company keep doing it to themselves.

Yes, it may well turn out (though again, we do not yet know this) that no Americans were spied on as a result of the administration ignoring the law on this one, and it truly was just suspected terrorists who were the subject of this shady NSA surveillance. Problem then is, there would then have been absolutely no reason whatsoever for anyone to ignore FISA, because there wouldn't have been any problem getting warrants for legitimate surveillance of suspected terrorists.

But to act as though it's a done deal that it was only terrorist suspects under surveillance here... sorry, but I have to laugh at this assertion being followed by accusations of naivete for not buying the standard diversionary claim of "it's just a partisan witch hunt."

 

I made no assertion that it was simply a partisan witch hunt, but that partisans are indeed utilizing this situation in the attempt to gain political advantage.

This isn't the mere procedural dispute that you seem to be making it out to be

Do you have inside information that you can reveal to us here that gives you the full knowledge of the course of events and the legal counsel that the President was receiving that advised him of the legality of his actions?

You're displaying evident partisanship and unfounded allegations which are serious in nature:

it ignores the fact that not only do we not yet know that this wasn't done for political purposes or at the expense of Americans

....


The Bush administration has repeatedly displayed the sort of "enemy list" mentality that marred the Nixon administration

It is dishonest to compare this issue (National Security) to the issues involving Watergate (political corruption).

The issue is about National Security and Executive authority to monitor potential terrorist activities within the US, not Bush being allowed to spy on his political enemies like Nixon did at the Watergate Hotel.

Such an assertion is a serious accusation that can be libelous in nature if unfounded. You're basically accusing the President of high crimes and being basically a tyrant without a single shred of evidence to back up your assertions.

The issue is the warrants and checks-and-balances involving a sitting President to act in an emergency basis to obtain intel involving international terrorism before it can inflict harm upon the country.

As KK pointed out, we should reserve judgement until the full facts of the matter are at hand.

If it was the case that Bush was doing such things as using his power for political purposes (which I have serious doubts that is the case), then I'll be among the first in line to wish to see him prosecuted. However, it seems to me that some are utilizing partisan juxtapositioning to score political points.

 

DM, how would we ever find out why Bush did without warrants if we don't ask those kinds of questions?

Why do you think Bush illegally "authorized" warrantless tapping of Americans contrary to FISA?

What benefit did he get from not simply seeking warrants?

 

See, these^^^ are the questions we should really be asking. It's not just the act of illegal wiretapping itself that should be considered - it's the WHY.

Bush's explanation that "FISA couldn't handle it" doesn't fly: if FISA was ill-equipped the White House could have simply revamped it and made it more capable of handling the "new" threat.

But the WH didn't. So why? To protect the U.S. citizens? Considering that all arrests made and evidence gathered as a result of these warrantless wiretaps will potentially give grounds for appeal to any number of defendants, I don't see how this bypass of legal procedure is a good thing.

I can think of two possible explanations for Bush's actions:
1) The WH was planning on requesting surveillance that it knew FISA would never authorize (a scary thought, considering FISA will authorize just about anything as it is)
2) Because Bush could. When asked why he had the affair with Lewinsky, Clinton himself admitted: "I think I did something for the worst possible reason -- just because I could." Bush, who likes to surround himself with loyal, like-minded advisors, doesn't like to hear no - perhaps he just got carried away with hearing yes all the time.

 

Well, Congress has eroded Presidential authority since that Nixon debacle with FISA.

However, Presidents since then have asserted retention of power:

But as John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, writes: ``Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms.'' Indeed, Clinton's own deputy attorney general testified to Congress that ``the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes,''

This is a Constitutional issue of Executive Branch authority, and it should be handled as carefully and as deliberately as possible.

The President should have the authority to act immediately on threats, but Bush should have tried to work with the Congress beforehand in secret session about this before proceeding. Remember, we're talking about intel involving domestic communication with possible foreign operatives here, not a Watergate-type situation.

I have serious doubts that Bush could get away with a Watergate-type move, even if he tried.

He could have avoided getting himself into this trouble if he would have simply consulted the Congress like he should have.

This is a classic separation of powers issue, in this case involving war powers.

 

You know, these days I find myself agreeing more and more with Tucker Carlson. When he was on Crossfire, I found him to be too right-wing for my tastes. Now though, he seems to be making more sense.

That or it's because he played my voice mail on the air.

Anyway, I like his take on the whole NSA thing:

I think this kinda answers why the President didn't push for a change in the law, but that certainly doesn't make it right. People are willing to forgive Presidents pushing the boundries in times of crisis, but we're no longer in immediate peril. We've changed the way that we've done many things in this country, making us more secure, we're currently engaging in a conflict in Iraq that has many terrorists pre-occupied, etc. It isn't perfect, but we are more secure than ever. The threat of imminent danger, waving the bloody flag as it were, isn't seen as a valid enough reason, and that's where alot of the backlash is coming from.

Power has an ebb and flow, in times of crisis, a power flows to the executive, because of the need for decivise leadership. Lincoln did it, Wilson did it, and FDR did it. Over time, Congress will reassert their authority and power. A President can either let go, or try to hang onto it, usually resulting in a nasty political mess in which the power is taken away. Often, this will lead to an overall weakening of the executive.

And finally, one last tidbit from that bow-tied wonder.

I'm guessing that they won't like it (for that matter neither would I).




Whoopi Goldberg, For The Win!

EDIT: The entire blog can be found here.

 

Bush's explanation that "FISA couldn't handle it" doesn't fly: if FISA was ill-equipped the White House could have simply revamped it and made it more capable of handling the "new" threat.

Exactly, and the fact of the matter is, FISA was absolutely set up so as to handle this sort of thing. Under FISA, the government can engage in surveillance of a subject for up to 72 hours without a warrant. If we're talking about surveillance of terrorist suspects, especially in this day and age, 72 hours is ample time to get the I's dotted and the T's crossed in terms of a warrant being issued. FISA was never the problem here.

Again, the question that needs to be asked over and over again here is, what sort of surveillance was being carried out that the White House and the NSA thought the average judge wouldn't issue warrants for? Because the way FISA is set up, especially in light of the fact that every judge in the country knows that we're dealing with international terrorists, this is the most logical possibility we have to consider.

Unless it's just Bush being a schmuck and saying "I'm not gonna do it because I'm the president and I don't have to do it if I don't wanna." Judging from past behavior on his part, I'd say this is at least an outside possibility.

But unless somebody can show me a legitimate area where FISA would have impeded urgent investigations, I don't see at all how FISA had to be circumvented merely for routine surveillance of suspected terrorists.

(And no, "Trust us, we're from the government and we're here to help you," doesn't fly. Sorry.)

 

One article based on perception deserves 293 Google News hits that perceive something else. Wow, look what happens when you poll a bunch of idiots. They give you all kinds of conflicting answers.

It is foolishness for any media agent to say "the people think _________." That includes reporters, politicians, celebrities, bloggers and most certainly Star Wars geeks. Even if the truth could be determined, what would it give you?

Even if half of all people polled are comfortable with it, that means half are not. I know one thing for sure, and everyone else knows one thing for sure. I know how I feel, and I feel it is going to be, in hind sight, one of the greatest crimes against civil rights ever committed by a president elected after emancipation.

 

"Trust us, we're from the government and we're here to help you

The worst words you can ever hear, according to Ronald Reagan.

 

On that point, as well as on his high opinion of Jelly Belly jelly beans (or, as I sometimes refer to them, "Junk Food of the Friggin' Gods"), I agree with ol' Ronnie absolutely and wholeheartedly.

 

I think that Bush's philosophy is that he can do what ever the hell he wants anyways. He admitted that even before comming to power that he was going to try to find a way to go into Iraq. 9/11 just gave him a convient excuse. I think that, like Nixon, history will show that Bush is just not suited to the pressures and responsibilites that come with being President of the United States and like Nixon, Bush demonstrates precisely why there are checks and balances on Presidential power.

 

I wonder if the people who have railed President Bush about the domestic spying issue realize that past presidents, both Democratic & Republican, did the exact same thing. It's just another sign that absolute hatred people have toward the Bush administration is so blind, that past acts by other Commander's in Chief are ignored.

 

I wonder if the people who have railed President Bush about the domestic spying issue realize that past presidents, both Democratic & Republican, did the exact same thing.

No they didn't.

Stop taking Republican talking points for the truth. They never authorized the NSA to warrantlessly wiretap on American citizens.

 

But, all of them did explicitly state that FISA could not take from them the powers that they were granted by the Constitution. Essentially, they all reserved the right to ignore FISA if they decided to.

Kimball Kinnison

 

But, IIRC, they *didn't*, KK, even if they said that they were willing to do so. That's the key difference.

 

It is still a statement that they did not accept the requirements of FISA as being absolutely binding.

It's like the War Powers Act in that sense. Congress doesn't have the authority on its own (Even with the signature of the Executive) to limit inherent powers of the Executive. Just like there are significant constitutional questions over the War Powers Act, and its attempts to limit the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief, there are still significant constitutional questions regarding FISA. The fact that previous administrations reserved such powers (even if they didn't use them) indicates a constitutional dispute, and that means that until it has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court, it's still very much an open question.

In fact, that's one of the major reasons why Congress has repeatedly refused to push for a Supreme Court ruling on the War Powers Act. There is a significant chance that it would be ruled unconstitutional, and then Congress would lose any leverage that the Act gives them.

Kimball Kinnison

 

KK, you are downplaying the implicit difference, however. Talk is one thing, action is another. Simply because previous presidents have "reserved the right", it does not therefore translate to an over act of bypassing the courts. There is a fundamental divide that you are sliding over in a rather glib manner.

Many people and administrations have talked a good game regarding policies and the legal process, but in most cases they still abide by it. The choice to forgo the FISA process, quite unjustifiably in light of the allowable provisions for domestic monitoring (e.g., 72-hour grace period, the historical willingness of FISA to cooperate, etc.), is a radical departure from just saying "I might do this" to "I have done this."

This, combined with his extreme use of presidential signing statements (500+ in five years, versus 100-200 apiece for the previous three presidents), shows a significant disdain towards the implicit checks and balances upon the Presidency, which is worrisome.