• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Do we throw up our hands or do we roll up our sleeves? (hint, door #2)

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

Democracy cannot function without a free press.

Books are my comfort food!

75% of people clapping liked the show!

“Facilitate” is an active verb, not a weasel word.

Fight them, without becoming them!

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

It is possible to do the right thing without the promise of a cookie.

Every decision we make has lots of baggage with it, known or unknown.

These are not very smart people, and things got out of hand.

Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.

You cannot love your country only when you win.

This must be what justice looks like, not vengeful, just peaceful exuberance.

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

“What are Republicans afraid of?” Everything.

White supremacy is terrorism.

Anne Laurie is a fucking hero in so many ways. ~ Betty Cracker

Trump’s cabinet: like a magic 8 ball that only gives wrong answers.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / More on FISA

More on FISA

by John Cole|  January 26, 20068:29 am| 35 Comments

This post is in: Politics, War on Terror aka GSAVE®

FacebookTweetEmail

The Washington Post has picked up on the DeWine amendment, which was first brought to their attention by Glenn Greenwald:

Justice officials also said that even under a different standard, the process of obtaining a surveillance warrant would take longer than is necessary for the NSA to efficiently track suspected terrorists.

The DeWine amendment — first highlighted this week by Internet blogger Glenn Greenwald and widely publicized yesterday by the Project on Government Secrecy, an arm of the Federation of American Scientists — is the latest point of contention in a fierce political and legal battle over the NSA monitoring program.

Many Democrats and some Republicans, along with legal experts from both sides, have criticized the program as a clear violation of the 1978 FISA law, which makes it a crime to conduct domestic surveillance without a criminal or intelligence warrant. The administration argues that Bush acted legally under the congressional authorization to use military force against al Qaeda, and that FISA would be unconstitutional if it constrains his power as commander in chief.

While it is cool the WaPo is crediting Greenwald, Tom Maguire and Orin Kerr say not so fast. Maguire:

The DeWine Amendment only lowered the threshold for non-US persons, which would not have solved the eavesdropping problem as it related to US persons. Moreover, by re-emphasizing the protected status of US person with new legislation in 2002, the amendment might have undermined the Administration legal arguments supporting the NSA program.

Orrin Kerr:

Greenwald seems to assume that Baker had the complete picture and was refusing to support the Amendment because he thought it wasn’t needed, but it’s not clear to me that this is accurate.

I remain firmly planted in the middle- if they did something illegal, I will be angry, but I am so ill-informed regarding the law that I have yet to come to judgement. What would make me especially angry is that they could have simply asked congress to change the rules, and they would have. However, for now, I am not willing to take the plunge either way and will wait to see how this shakes out.

And I am still on a diet and still cranky. And you have no idea how many food commercials there are on television until you go on a diet.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Oy
Next Post: NY Times- Filibuster Alito »

Reader Interactions

35Comments

  1. 1.

    Krista

    January 26, 2006 at 9:07 am

    I remain firmly planted in the middle- if they did something illegal, I will be angry, but I am so ill-informed regarding the law that I have yet to come to judgement. What would make me especially angry is that they could have simply asked congress to change the rules, and they would have. However, for now, I am not willing to take the plunge either way and will wait to see how this shakes out.

    Agreed. I’m a bit more skeptical in my non-commitment, though.

    As far as the diet goes, don’t think of it as a diet. That implies deprivation. Just keep making decisions to eat healthfully. To nourish yourself and fuel your body with tasty, healthy food. And if you’re reaching in the cupboard for a snack, stop and ask yourself if you’re actually hungry, or if you’re just eating out of boredom or habit. If so, go do something else…hang out with Tunch, fight with Paddy, or get on that recumbent bike.

    When I lost my weight, those were the three biggest things that helped me: 1) stopping and thinking before putting something in my mouth (always a good practice, really), 2) choosing healthier options whenever possible, and learning to cook them in order to maximize flavour, 3) exercising. After a hard workout, you don’t want to negate it all by eating chips. After awhile, all of that stuff became second nature, so I didn’t even feel like I was dieting — I was just eating like a person should, and moving around. It’s still a bit of a struggle…and it’s easy to slip back into old habits (especially at Christmastime!), but I know you can do it.

  2. 2.

    yet another jeff

    January 26, 2006 at 9:42 am

    I remain firmly planted in the middle- if they did something illegal, I will be angry, but I am so ill-informed regarding the law that I have yet to come to judgement. What would make me especially angry is that they could have simply asked congress to change the rules, and they would have. However, for now, I am not willing to take the plunge either way and will wait to see how this shakes out.

    However, if it is illegal, it seems that the best strategy for public opinion is to muddy the waters as much as possible. The splashing around on the Bush side looks purposeful…why is there no simple rebuttal to the simple question of “is it true that you can just tap anyone you want as long as you seek a warrant within 72 hours after the fact?”

  3. 3.

    Tom Maguire

    January 26, 2006 at 10:01 am

    However, if it is illegal, it seems that the best strategy for public opinion is to muddy the waters as much as possible.

    Same is true for the Dem side – anyone can easily conjugate scenarios of illegal activities in which the NSA *might* be engaged.

    why is there no simple rebuttal to the simple question of “is it true that you can just tap anyone you want as long as you seek a warrant within 72 hours after the fact?”

    Gen. Hayden provided a somewhat simple rebuttal on Monday. His gist – the 72 hours is not like a free preview pass on from your cable company, where you can watch anything.

    Instead, the NSA must get approval from the Attorney General to start a 72 hour tap; the NSA must provide assurance that, after 72 hours, the DoJ will be able to proceed with a conventional warrant application that has a high probability of being approved.

    In other words, if the NSA has reasonable suspicion but not probable cause, they can’t listen for 72 hours hoping to hear something that will establish probable cause – they don’t have the basis for a DoJ approval, and need to let that lead go.

    Or, they can do what they are doing – act on the basis of their reasonable suspicion, without a warrant. Hayden made the “hot pursuit” analogy to conventional criminal law.

    My guess is that Hayeden is pretty well informed about the 72 hour rule and attendant procedures.

    And on the diet – I read the most interesting thing about olive oil – it contains a natural appetite suppressant. Take a couple of teaspoons of olive oil, and some hormone that tells your body you are hungry gets switched off for hours.

    It worked for me! (Well, sort of – I was trying to lose five pounds, and did. And don’t rule out the placebo effect – ya gotta believe!)

  4. 4.

    yet another jeff

    January 26, 2006 at 10:13 am

    I’m not questioning Gen. Hayden’s knowledge of the 72 hours, but I am a bit skeptical of his statements. Maybe it’s both the Dems and the GOP splashing around. It was kinda interesting howe that conference got a bit dicey at the end regarding probably cause.

  5. 5.

    Steve

    January 26, 2006 at 10:30 am

    We don’t know all the facts about what the program involved, but we do know the administration isn’t credible when they try to claim that it was nothing more than wiretapping conversations with terrorists overseas:

    1) If the other end of the conversation really is a terrorist, that’s the easiest warrant application the FISA court hears all day. There is no way a court which grants 99% of all applications says no when the administration says “this person is talking to al-Qaeda, and we want to know why.” And if there’s urgency, it’s trivial for the AG to approve a wiretap on such a basis.

    2) It simply defies credulity to suggest that a dozen former and current NSA officials blew the whistle to the NYT on a program that was simply listening to terrorists. That’s just not a rational assumption.

    We still don’t know exactly what was bad about the program, but it would be foolish to give the administration the benefit of the doubt when they’re out there telling a story that only an idiot would believe.

  6. 6.

    Krista

    January 26, 2006 at 10:30 am

    John, mind if I ask how much you’re trying to lose?

  7. 7.

    Paul Wartenberg

    January 26, 2006 at 10:40 am

    My problems with Bush’s Domestic Wiretapping (and yes, it IS Domestic Wiretapping however you spin it up):

    1) Why didn’t he just go to Congress in a closed session for security purposes and just get FISA amended to include all this? It was his party in control, it was right after 9/11 when he signed off on it, the Dems would have rolled over on it like sick puppies, etc.
    2) How can we be certain the wiretapping is on legitimate targets without the oversight and confirmation of a judicial warrant?

  8. 8.

    The Other Steve

    January 26, 2006 at 10:57 am

    But if they asked Congress to change the rules… the terrorists would have won.

    Besides, then the terrorists might have become aware that we could tap phone lines, and as a result they may have used cans with strings attached to the ends to call instead, which we can’t tap.

  9. 9.

    petersburg

    January 26, 2006 at 11:06 am

    Exactly. There’s no reason this administration should be given the benefit of any doubt. The argument being spun by Hayden was basically – “Trust us, we would NEVER misuse this information, we’re your friends and protectors”. And then he plainly shows his ignorance of the 4th amendment, stripping his credibility completely. I’d love to believe the government, whichever party runs it, has our best interests in mind. I’d also love world peace and a billion dollars. But reality tells you otherwise.

  10. 10.

    eileen from OH

    January 26, 2006 at 11:10 am

    What I don’t get (if I’m reading it correctly) is why the administration said they didn’t need the DeWine amendment and that it was probably un-constitutional. But what they’re doing now goes further than the amendment but it IS constitutional?

    Re: diet. Forget calling it or thinking about it that way. I lost 25 lbs, over about 4 months by doing a couple of real simple things. Gave up beer, except for my Friday night treat. Gave up pop, including the diet crap – ESPECIALLY the diet crap. I swear the chemicals in that stuff screw up your metabolism or something. I drank slightly sweetened (with sugar) ice tea by the gallon. Tried to eat real light at lunch and popcorn was my savior for the munchies. Ate regular stuff at dinner, but smaller amounts.

    Came off real slow, but I never felt deprived and have kept the weight off, even though I now drink beer and pop again (but still really watch it.)

    eileen from OH

  11. 11.

    Red Guy

    January 26, 2006 at 11:10 am

    What was going on with Hayden’s confusion of the 4th Ammendment? The 4th does include “probable cause”. Where do these people come from? The least he could have done to prepare for the press conference was read the 4th ammendment.

  12. 12.

    petersburg

    January 26, 2006 at 11:20 am

    The terrorist also communicate by the child’s game “telephone”. So instead of hearing “bin laden determine to strike in the us”, we thought he was going on ‘strike’ in the us. How are we supposed to break these ultra-super-double-secret codes?

  13. 13.

    searp

    January 26, 2006 at 11:32 am

    I don’t suppose the administration wanted to whisper anything about how protected status for US persons was a bad thing into DeWine’s ear. Good to know we’re being protected by not being protected. Wonderful arguments. I’d like to see the Prez try that one: we’re protecting you by not protecting you from eavesdropping.

    I also like the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing argument of Kerr: not significant because the administration keeps secrets from its own officials so that they can misrepresent what is happening to Congress. Nice to know we’re being protected from knowledgeable officials and an informed Congress. Makes me feel safer already.

  14. 14.

    DougJ

    January 26, 2006 at 11:54 am

    My guess is that Hayeden is pretty well informed about the 72 hour rule and attendant procedures.

    Don’t make me come over there again, Tom.

  15. 15.

    Martin

    January 26, 2006 at 12:32 pm

    So what’s up with the NSA “leak” investigation anyway?

    Are we in a war or not???

  16. 16.

    petersburg

    January 26, 2006 at 1:05 pm

    How can they rationalize this program with a straight face?

    Excuse 1.) We got congressional authority
    Excuse 2.) We don’t need congressional authority
    Huh? How stupid do you think people are? I’ve read somewhere that a significant percentage of people in this country still believe the sun revolves around the earth. And they want to teach idiot design in schools. This administration is making people stupider (see what I mean).

  17. 17.

    jg

    January 26, 2006 at 1:19 pm

    If you want to lose weight get a puppy. I lost ten pounds in a month without even trying. You’re constantly chasing them around saying don’t do that, drop it, don’t pee there that you never have time to rest or eat.

  18. 18.

    Pooh

    January 26, 2006 at 1:42 pm

    John, Professor Kerr has updated his post in response to Marty Lederman.

    A point that I think we’re missing in this discussion is that the Greenwald’s DeWine ammendment analysis is largely limited to rebutting Hayden’s last defense of, rather than the program as a whole (though if Hayden’s is their best defense, they’d be screwed in a just world. Which we manifestly don’t live in, but I’m an idealist, or at least I play one [or more] on the internet),

  19. 19.

    KarlsGrowth

    January 26, 2006 at 3:10 pm

    “But if they asked Congress to change the rules… the terrorists would have won.”

    Look at it this way. Even if the Oval Office has been bucking the system in the Terra’ war, they still can’t get it right.

  20. 20.

    Steve

    January 26, 2006 at 4:08 pm

    Pooh, it’s true that the administration has several legal arguments, which tend to repeatedly jump up at you in whack-a-mole type fashion. The reason why Greenwald’s argument is significant, however, is it destroys the only real FACTUAL argument the administration has advanced to date.

    You can argue legal matters in the alternative, but when it comes to the facts, if you get out there and say “here is why we did what we did,” you don’t get to keep trying alibis until one of them sticks.

  21. 21.

    robert lewis

    January 26, 2006 at 5:19 pm

    Tom Maguire says:

    “Instead, the NSA must get approval from the Attorney General to start a 72 hour tap; the NSA must provide assurance that, after 72 hours, the DoJ will be able to proceed with a conventional warrant application that has a high probability of being approved.”

    1. Can you imagine Alberto “I-never-saw-a-torturer-I-didn’t-like” Gonzales not approving the 72 hour tap?

    2. Since FISA was passed they’ve applied for 19,000 warrants and have only had five (5!) not approved. I believe that qualifies as a “high probability of being approved.”

    Of more concern is the president’s moronic insistence that the law was followed. FISA says plainly that ANYONE who warrantlessly wiretaps is guilty of a felony with punishment of up to 5 years in prison and a $30,000 fine. Nowhere does the statute say “unless the president orders otherwise.” According to Bush’s logic, he can grab a 9mm, walk out on Pennsylvania Avenue, hijack an Escalade with 22″ spinners, bust a cap on the driver and walk away. It’s bullshit is what it is.

    The last guy who mad ethis kind of claim was Charles I, wwhohen he told Parliament “the King can do no wrong.” Parliament straightened out Charles by disconnecting his head from his body in 1649.

  22. 22.

    Gary Farber

    January 26, 2006 at 6:31 pm

    “What would make me especially angry is that they could have simply asked congress to change the rules, and they would have.”

    Might possibly want to try that sentence again?

    Incidentally, if you’re not seeing much from Blogger/Blogspot blogs today, Blogger was inaccessible for about five hours this morning, and then back again, and now it’s down again, and moreover now I can’t even access my own blog, or any other Blogspot blog, let alone Blogger to post. (In fairness to them, I’ve noticed no problems whatever for about a year. Until, again, today.)

  23. 23.

    Dave

    January 26, 2006 at 6:36 pm

    I still don’t get why most people view this as a violation of the FISA law. The 4th amemndment is pretty freaking clear on this subject. FISA law or not, it’s obviously a violation of the 4th amendment.

  24. 24.

    p.lukasiak

    January 26, 2006 at 7:32 pm

    I remain firmly planted in the middle- if they did something illegal, I will be angry, but I am so ill-informed regarding the law that I have yet to come to judgement. What would make me especially angry is that they could have simply asked congress to change the rules, and they would have. However, for now, I am not willing to take the plunge either way and will wait to see how this shakes out.

    The FISA law is not terribly complicated… the fact that you have familiarized yourself with its provisions, and instead insist upon keeping an “open mind” (open to GOP spin and disinformation, not open to relevant facts) is pretty pathetic.

  25. 25.

    p.lukasiak

    January 26, 2006 at 7:33 pm

    oops the above should read “…haven’t familiarized yourself with its provisions…”

  26. 26.

    Frank

    January 26, 2006 at 10:58 pm

    Not only is it clear that Bush violated the law, and intends to keep violating it, it is clear he has violated the 4th amendment.

    John Cole doesn’t care if President Bush takes away his 4th amendment rights as long as he (John Cole) can pretend that whatever Bush does is legal.

  27. 27.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    January 27, 2006 at 12:36 am

    My favorite argument used by the supporters of this program is the “We are protecting your rights by violating them.” one.

    That always gives me a chuckle.

    It saddens me that they actually get away with saying crap like that though.

  28. 28.

    Bruce Moomaw

    January 27, 2006 at 12:38 am

    Maguire: “The DeWine Amendment only lowered the threshold for non-US persons, which would not have solved the eavesdropping problem as it related to US persons. Moreover, by re-emphasizing the protected status of US persons with new legislation in 2002, the amendment might have undermined the Administration’s legal arguments supporting the NSA program.”

    Ah. So the Administration told Congress that it preferred privacy protection rules stronger than those in the DeWine Amendment for non-citizens — and still stronger for US citizens — in order to deceive Congress while it secretly carried out eavesdropping of both. Now, THAT’S the kind of government you want in charge.

  29. 29.

    Bruce Moomaw

    January 27, 2006 at 1:01 am

    Orin Kerr: “Greenwald seems to assume that Baker had the complete picture and was refusing to support the Amendment because he thought it wasn’t needed, but it’s not clear to me that this is accurate.”

    Ah. So the Administration was deliberately leaving its own Justice Department’s legal counsel on intelligence policy in the dark as to it was really up to in that regard.

    And these are what are being peddled nowadays as DEFENCES of this administration.

  30. 30.

    Devil's Advocate

    January 27, 2006 at 7:03 am

    If the wiretapping was so legal, why did the White House ask the NYT to not publish the story in November 2004? Why did Bush ask the owner and the editor of the NYT to the White House and again tried to have them suppress the story in early January 2006?

    Where there is smoke, there is fire.

    I am not trained as an attorney either, but when I read that warrants can be obtained retroactively, that the FISA court grants 99.99% of the warrants, I am forced to wonder why on earth Bush felt the need to break the law. Even if he felt that the current FISA process was cumbersome (sic), he could have asked Congress and/or the courts to amend it.

    Also, since there are no reasons to believe that there are no terrorist sleeping cells in the U.S. communicating with one another on U.S. territory, why should we believe that the NSA was NOT monitoring domestic calls?

    I know that the Bush administration is abysmally incompetent, but I defy anyone to tell me that they did not think of the fact that terrorists, say in Washington state, do not communicate with terrorists, say in New Jersey.

    The truth of the matter is that Bush and his cohorts did not respect the law because, clearly, they think they are above it.

    GWB is a tinpot dictator, and as long as his fear-mongering tactics keep people wetting their pants, he will do anything he wants whenever he wants.

    Wake up America! The Republicans may be in power now, but they won’t be always. The day they are no longer in power, they will scream like banshees about the curtailment of civil liberties that happened during their reign.

    What goes around comes around.

  31. 31.

    Sine.Qua.Non

    January 27, 2006 at 9:20 am

    John: Take from a person who has been on every diet under the sun. Eat slowly and your tummy has a chance to catch up with your brain and signal you are full. Stop eating what you have on your plate when you get that signal. You will shed lbs. slowly but surely, the best way of all, healthwise. You also deny yourself nothing this way – eat the foods you want to eat, not what some diet prescribes. Drink lots of water, in fact drink a glass of water before you sit down for a meal. That is all. Next thing you know, you are a size smaller and it didn’t stress you out and you never felt you were dieting in the first place. This becomes habit and then you learn to moderate quanities and not supersize the McDonald’s way.

    For what it’s worth, it’s the only way I can lose weight and keep it off and it is completely stress-free.

  32. 32.

    The Raven

    January 27, 2006 at 9:44 am

    Keeping an open mind? John Cole, this isn’t the time to give George “Douchebag” Bush the benefit of the doubt. He authorized spying without a warrant.

    If you read the Fourth Ammendment, it’s easy to spot the requirement for warrants, but in the 1990s we saw a fairly broad loosening of interpretation the resulted in the courts granting approval for “warrantless” searches. These were almost always pursuant to drug violations and “hot pursuit” activities, however.

    Here’s a comment on what the 4th Amendment protects, from CaseLaw.org:

    The test propounded in Katz is whether there is an expectation of privacy upon which one may “justifiably” rely. 36 “What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” 37 That is, the “capacity to claim the protection of the Amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place but upon whether the area was one in which there was reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion.” 38

    That’s why Bush needs to be impeached, and impeached very hard over this matter. As Americans, we have a right to be free from governmental intrusion as we go about our business. Yes, there are terrorists, and there have always been enemies of our country. But their existence does not diminish our rights because our civil liberties are not contingent upon the ideology and objectives of any third parties.

    Our rights are most specifically not subject to curtailment upon the whim of a self-appointed monarch or dictator like George “Douchebag” Bush. The man is more of a threat and an enemy to the American people and our way of life than anything we’ve experienced since WWII. Worst president, ever.

  33. 33.

    Robert

    January 27, 2006 at 12:39 pm

    Why are we waiting to impeach this guy.

    Is it because we have too many instances to use as cause?

  34. 34.

    DDA

    January 27, 2006 at 2:39 pm

    I am so ill-informed regarding the law that I have yet to come to judgement.

    The current legal argument put forth by the White House and AG Gonzales for warrantless domestic wiretaps and dispensing with FISA/FISC has been his authority as commander in chief and that Congress somehow implicitly gave him that power when it authorized the use of force (AUMF) against those who attacked the United States on 9/11; a statement without any legal or principled authority.

    Of course, last year Gonzales didn’t use that justification last spring:

    “Can the CIA spy on the American — ” Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) tried again.

    “No,” answered Attorney General Gonzales, only to be amended later by FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III. “Surveillance of American citizens for national security matters is in the hands, generally, of the FBI,” Mueller told Mikulski and members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “The investigation or development of intelligence overseas is in the hands of the CIA and NSA [National Security Agency]. And generally, I would say generally, they are not allowed to spy or to gather information on American citizens. But there are limited exceptions to that.” Washington Post, Thursday, April 28, 2005

    Of course, the White House knew FISA didn’t authorize warrantless wiretapping because Gonzales said that the White House had considered asking Congress to pass new legislation that would explicitly permit those activities but he also confessed that the administration had abandoned the idea of new legislation because getting a bill through Congress “would be difficult if not impossible.”

    Nevertheless, Gonzales is still pounding the AUMF authorization theory and arguing the difficulty of getting a warrant is compounded by, get this, himself.

    Now this justification is again undermined with the news of the proposed legislation by Sen. Mike DeWine and comments at the time by James A. Baker, the Justice Department’s counsel for intelligence policy.

    “We have been aggressive in seeking FISA warrants, and thanks to Congress’ passage of the [Patriot Act] we have been able to use our expanded FISA tools more effectively to combat terrorist activities. It may not be the case that the probable cause standard has caused any difficulties in our ability to seek FISA warrants we require.” July 2002

    The law clearly states that the criminal wiretap statute and FISA are “the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.” If these authorities are exclusive, there is no other legal authority that can authorize warrantless surveillance.

    Courts generally will not view such a clear statutory statement as having been overruled by a later congressional action unless there is an equally clear indication that Congress intended to do that.

    1) Without justifying “exigent circumstances” or it’s progeny on each case of wire-tapping of an American citizen, then it’s a violation of the 4th Amendment. “Hot pursuit” is a literal term and not a metaphor.

    2) That FISA does not authorize the actions at issue taken by Bush and therefore those actions are illegal.

    3) That the War Resolutions Act did not “amend” FISA and does not allow wholesale warrantless wiretapping.

    Clue to the correctness of this statement: If it did, then why did AG Gonzales make above statement?

    He claims he can ignore the law because Congress granted permission when it authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda. But we know that can’t be true. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales says the administration didn’t ask for a revision of the law to give the president explicit power to order such wiretaps because Congress–a Republican Congress, mind you–wouldn’t have agreed. So the administration decided: Who needs Congress? Chicago tribune editorial.

    4) That there is no authority for the US Government to wiretap US citizens without respecting the law, Constitution and the separation of powers.

    Article II authority is what his advisors are using as a back-up when the AUMF arguement falls apart: the powers as Commander in Chief and, to a lesser extent, the implied powers of the executive.

    Article II of the US Constitution states in relevant part: Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. It is also where the power to impeach the president lies.

    But it’s not going to fly legally under Youngstown (Truman’s seizure of steel mills) or Hamdi (unanimous requirement of due process for enemy combatants) and 2) “they” know that because they are arguing inconsistent positions as I have already point out

    Separation of powers is precisely at issue here. Presidential Authority vs Congressional Law. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 937 (1952) is clearly the controlling case in this issue (as well as US vs US District Court.)

    We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens. Youngstown Sheet & Tube, 343 U.S., at 587. Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake. (Hamdi vs Rumsfeld (US 2004)

    So when Bush said this last year,

    “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think ‘Patriot Act,’ constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”

    what do you think he meant?

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. In Search Of Utopia says:
    January 26, 2006 at 12:40 pm

    Why Change the Law, when you can just ignore it?

    From WAPO: The Bush administration rejected a 2002 Senate proposal that would have made it easier for FBI agents to obtain surveillance warrants in terrorism cases, concluding that the system was working well and that it would likely be unconstitutiona…

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - Winter Wren - North of Quebec City (part 2 of 3) - Cap Tourmente and on the way to Tadoussac 2
Image by Winter Wren (5/13/25)

Recent Comments

  • Baud on Tuesday Evening Open Thread (May 14, 2025 @ 4:53am)
  • Baud on Tuesday Evening Open Thread (May 14, 2025 @ 4:45am)
  • Geminid on Tuesday Evening Open Thread (May 14, 2025 @ 4:38am)
  • YY_Sima Qian on War for Ukraine Day 1,174: More Drone Swarms in the Small Hours of the Night (May 14, 2025 @ 3:05am)
  • prostratedragon on Tuesday Evening Open Thread (May 14, 2025 @ 2:39am)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!