home

Stone Wall Surrounds White House

By TChris, Section War on Terror
Posted on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 10:01:11 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Senator Feingold wants the White House to disclose information about its domestic spying so that a meaningful hearing can be held on Feb. 6, when the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to investigate the administration's illegal actions.

Specifically, Feingold asked President Bush to make his staff available to discuss the program, as well as the use of automated data analysis, or "data mining," of domestic communications.

"In addition," Feingold wrote in the letter to Bush, "please provide information about who within the executive branch reviewed, approved or otherwise knew about your authorization of wiretaps in the United States without a FISA order, and when."

The (predictable) response:

The White House suggested it wouldn't meet Feingold's request.

No kidding.

< Bush Defends Abramoff Photos | Open Thread, Open Comments >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Stone Wall Surrounds White House | 22 comments (22 topical)
    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 10:09:27 AM EST
    Perhaps thats because congress has absolutely no authority what so ever to oversee the executive branch when it comes to foreign affairs. The only check congress has on the presidents sole authority over foreign affairs is the purse strings. If they don't like the program, kill its funding, otherwise shut up and mind your own business Senator Feingold.

    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 10:38:13 AM EST
    Where do these guys get these ideas of this divine right of Presidents? I just reread my constitution and I see that the Executive is the CinC of the Army and Navy and makes treaties with the consent of 2/3 of the Senate. Congress can make any laws it wants, in fact, making laws that apply to the land and naval services are in the duties oflegislative branch. What do you think the Revolution was all about-Kings who went to war willy nilly and impoverished and killed their citizens in the process.

    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 10:39:03 AM EST
    Variable (and jospeph too), As to the president having free reign over foreign affairs, and congress having "absolutely no authority" in the matter (pretty big claim), and Senators and the left convincing themselves of the "enemey's" right to anything, I'll let an enlightening link rebut much more eloquently than I could.

    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 10:52:13 AM EST
    Ooops, forgot the registration glitch. The last message was from the one and, thankfully, only Dadler. Peace.

    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 11:00:42 AM EST
    var: shut up and mind your own business Senator Feingold. yikes! He can at least ask, can't he?

    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 11:13:57 AM EST
    Perhaps thats because congress has absolutely no authority what so ever to oversee the executive branch when it comes to foreign affairs. The only check congress has on the presidents sole authority over foreign affairs is the purse strings.
    Variable, Wrong. This reminds me of the time you stated, "Persons with-in the United States borders who are not United States citizens have absolutely zero constitutional rights or protections." From Findlaw:
    The Court has long since accorded its agreement with Congress that the investigatory power is so essential to the legislative function as to be implied from the general vesting of legislative power in Congress. ''We are of the opinion,'' wrote Justice Van Devanter, for a unanimous Court, ''that the power of inquiry--with process to enforce it--is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. . . .


    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:36:33 PM EST
    The damning irony to Bush stonewalling any discovery of what actually has and is being done to mine data by NSA's Big Ear being focussed on international communications is that there is NO ACCOUNTABILITY, therefore, NO CHECK, NO BALANCE. He has said that intercepts require a court order. Then he said that the taps were focussed on a few individuals. But nobody has anyway to know for sure. The whole program is illegal, so its quite possible that every communication via voice or the internet is being mined. That's what the FISA court solves - at least there is some accountability, some check. And Bush's latest "defense", that he would prefer not to specify information about the program, so as to tip off terrorists is absurd - the FISA court is secret, there is no release of any intelligence info. For those who don't worry or care about being spied upon by the government, I have a suggestion, go to Russia. Do you know what GWB + NSA equals? Try KGB.

    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#9)
    by roger on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:54:31 PM EST
    Joseph, How about FISA? No wiretaps are allowed unless conducted under the authority of FISA, or the wiretap statute?

    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#10)
    by Pete Guither on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:01:37 PM EST
    I am so fed up with these cowards who want to throw away the principles of America and our Constitution because they're pissing in their pants thinking that if we don't give up our rights, some guys with box cutters are going to come after them.
    where to start-the left wants to limit the president's ability to monitor conversations coming from terrorists and their associates to individuals in this country. I believe the ACLU argues that this cramps its ability to converse wiht God knows who. they want this to be treated as unconstitutional-do you deny that? please enlighten me as to the constitutional protections you think these communications should be afforded. I eagerly await your answer.
    Not one single person has said that the President should be denied the right to "monitor conversations coming from terrorists and their associates to individuals in this country." It is intellectually and morally dishonest to keep claiming that. There isn't a single court in this country -- and certainly not the FISA courts -- that would deny the administration their ability to monitor terrorist communications. Period. And the administration has not asked Congress or anyone else for faster or better methods than FISA (in fact, in the administration has rejected such ideas). What is limited, in the Constitution, and specifically by Congressional law, is the President's power to unilaterally decide to spy on potentially innocent American citizens without probable cause and without someone else (like a judge) checking to see that the power isn't abused. The President isn't breaking the law because he's trying to monitor terrorists -- he's had that ability all along without breaking the law. He's breaking the law because he doesn't like having to follow it like the rest of us. And for that, he should be impeached.

    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:39:44 PM EST
    Joseph - Do you consider anti-war organizations "domestic agents"? If so, how long will it be before you consider - if you dont now - all liberal democrats, greens, socialists and many libertarians domestic agents?

    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:44:07 PM EST
    Joe-- Congress can't run a war-that is a simple historical fact that the left can't stand We're not in a war, from a Constitutional standpoint. Congress never declared it. So all these "war powers" "vested in the Constitution" Bush claims are phony. This is the check on the Prez's power to start wars--he cannot do so without Congress. As for this: why would foreign terrorists have a constitutional right to contact their domestic agents ...I haven't a frickin' clue what you're talking about. Constitutional right to contact? Please enlighten us as to where the Constitution gives "foreign terrorists" a right to contact anything. Thanks. I'm eager for your reply!

    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:50:02 PM EST
    And, once again, talking points boy, this isnt WWII. Not even close.

    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#13)
    by roger on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:08:53 PM EST
    Peter, No point in arguing the law, or even comman sense to these people. They want a dictatorship, period. Some of swore an oath to defend the Constituion. Some swore to give their lives to uphold it. Let's see if these modern fans of dictatorship are equally committed to their ideal.

    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 02:11:41 PM EST
    They've already admitted, as you conveniently forget (and passivly defend) that theyve spyed on peace groups that demonstrably ARNT in contact with "islamists" ( now all islamists are terrorists). You support that "policy position" ras? Btw, anyone who thinks Bin Laden still alive and threatening the U.S is good news could only be a Machievellian weasal who banks on fear to get the sheeple to rally- round-the Chimperor. Putz.

    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:05:12 PM EST
    joseph...do you have something against the phrase " american citizen"? I mean, "domestic agents" has a nice "be afraid" feel to it and all, but you do realize we are talkng about American citizens being surveilled without warrant...right? IMO, this debate is about american citizens having a constitutional right to be free from government surveillance without a warrant. Or in fewer words...the law. "Foreign" anything has little to do with it. It's about the American govt.'s actions dentrimental to the freedom of Americans...now and in the future. It's line in the sand time jack.

    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:06:17 PM EST
    The Court has long since accorded its agreement with Congress that the investigatory power is so.........
    Thats interesting macro, because the Court has even less to do with overseeing foreign affairs as congress does.

    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 04:34:56 PM EST
    Thats interesting macro, because the Court has even less to do with overseeing foreign affairs as congress does.
    Incredible... This is not an issue with how the President is conducting foreign affairs. The argument is that members of congress, republicans and democrats, feel the President's domestic spying program may be illegal since they are not obtaining warrants when intercepting electronic communications of US citizens. Familiarize yourself with the 4th amendment. The Supreme Court ruled, unanimously I might add, that congress has the power to investigate the executive branch of the government because, "...the power of inquiry--with process to enforce it--is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function... A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change;"

    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 08:31:56 PM EST
    macromanic writes:
    Familiarize yourself with the 4th amendment.
    I did. And I found this word in it.
    UNREASONABLE
    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 08:48:13 PM EST
    I did. And I found this word in it.
    UNREASONABLE
    Jim, You obviously have not familiarized yourself with the fourth amendment. Picking one word out of the fourth amendment and using it way out of context can only mean you are completely ignorant of the fourth's meaning. What the President's domestic spying program does is perform unreasonable search and seizures, on US citizens, without a warrant. Congress wants to investigate the program and has the legal authority to do so. See my above post on the Supreme Court ruling for clarification on this.

    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 09:24:38 PM EST
    and let's not forget the words probable cause

    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 29, 2006 at 02:04:20 AM EST
    Jim writes: --------
    Familiarize yourself with the 4th amendment.
    I did. And I found this word in it.
    UNREASONABLE
    -------- Jim, Don't you think that is reasonable?

    Re: Stone Wall Surrounds White House (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 29, 2006 at 08:32:44 AM EST
    A common-sense reading of the 4th Amendment is that it bans 'unreasonable' searches and seizures, and then goes on to state the conditions needed for a 'reasonable' search and seizure. Reminds me of "It depends what the meaning of is is".

    Stone Wall Surrounds White House | 22 comments (22 topical)