Two recent stories struck me as an odd juxtaposition:
House panel defies Bush, votes to block ports deal
WASHINGTON — In a congressional election-year repudiation of President George W. Bush, a House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S. port operations. Meanwhile, Democrats clamored for a vote in the Senate.
The House Appropriations Committee voted 62-2 to bar DP World, run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports.
The landslide vote was the strongest signal yet that more than three weeks of White House efforts to stunt congressional opposition to the deal have not been successful.
John and I remain agnostic about whether this deal represents a grave threat to our country as some are selling it. If people care this much I suggest they ask their Republican representatives to stop stonewalling Democratic bills that addressed real holes in our port security. What could possibly motivate loyal Republicans to openly kick their own president in the groin? It’s not the Dahmer-level approval ratings, or else Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel would have gladly followed through on their own promises and voted to investigate the president’s illegal wiretapping program in the Senate Intelligence Committee:
Republicans Kill Request for Spy Program Inquiry
WASHINGTON — Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday defeated a Democratic push to investigate a domestic espionage operation authorized by President Bush, but pledged to increase scrutiny of the controversial program through a newly created subcommittee.
…Several prominent Republican skeptics of the program — including Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine — had warned they might favor a congressional investigation, but voted against doing so Tuesday to back the creation of the subcommittee instead.
The ‘compromise’ that Snowe and Hagel supported would give limited oversight to a subcommittee dominated by four Senators – Roberts, DeWine, Hatch and Bond – who can be counted on to give the president’s boots the licking of their life.
Republican allies of the president deliver a groin-kick over a ports deal, but famous “mavericks” like Snowe and Hagel can’t muster the gumption to follow through on their own promises. What’s the deal? Simple:
Legislators flooded with calls of concern
WASHINGTON // With Congress out of town, the halls of the Capitol are quiet this week. But inside the House and Senate office buildings – and in state and district outposts across the country – staffers are straining to answer a flood of phone calls about the prospect of a Middle Eastern company buying into port operations in six major U.S. cities, including Baltimore.
…Conservative Republican Rep. Mark Foley, one of the first members of Congress to complain about the deal, has faced a similar deluge – and not just from constituents. Jason Kello, a Foley spokesman, said that a British man called after seeing the Florida congressman on a BBC news show expressing dismay that British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. was being sold.
Few, if any, of these calls and e-mails support the deal, which was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, a secretive administration panel. News of the sale has prompted unusually fiery, and bipartisan, opposition in Congress – and an equally staunch defense from the White House.
This situation strikes me as exactly reversed. While I appreciate concern over the security of the ports, this seems much more like a case of the president’s endless demagoguery coming back to bite him in the ass. He’s conditioned his base so effectively to salivate turn to protective daddy at the mention of a faceless, scheming mideastern enemy that the buttons have started to push themselves.
In my view the NSA scandal threatens the state on a whole other level. If the president can simply set aside for himself the right to obey or disregard laws as he sees fit, then I don’t see how America can long go on as the country we remember. It’ll go on being called America, and people will go on running flags from their pickup aerials, but we’ll have lost an important element that makes us what we are. This issue should transcend ‘left’ and ‘right’ even though you know that it won’t. Ask yourself whether the president can set aside laws that he finds inconvenient. I don’t see any way that a person who thinks the answer is yes can possibly call him or herself ‘conservative.’ There’s simply no way to jibe a philosophy of limited government with a government that sees its power as potentially without any limits at all.
Clearly Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel didn’t face a ‘deluge’ of angry calls over their Intelligence Committee vote. I think that in a fair world they would have, which is why I support the efforts by Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher to get the word out in key states like Nebraska, Maine and my own PA about this issue.
Jorge
I’m not crazy about the port deal. I think that allowing foreign governments to own key pieces of American infrastructure is a terrible idea. I mean, we aren’t talking foreign corporations – this is the government of Dubai owning a portion of some major U S ports.
But I’m afraid that brown is going to be the new gay during this election cycle.
Mr Furious
Great post, Tim. you are spot on.
The ports deal has the benefit of being a bit easier to follow, plays to the xenophobe and anti-outsourcing fears too.
It’s all about framing the question. In the case of the ports deal, the question has been overwhelmingly along the lines of, “Is it a good idea to have port security run by an ARAB country—one that has ties to al queda and Bin Laden?”
That’s a no brainer! It also happens to misrepresent the actual issue, but it still plays overwhelmingly against the President. Like 8-to-1 overwhelming. Lawmakers have no choice but, for the time being anyway, posture and distance themselves from Bush.
The NSA issue IS vastly more important, and a much more dangerous assault on American values. But it has also been framed carefully and even more dishonestly: “Should the governement be allowed to listen in on al queda phone calls (they already are and alweays have been) or are their civil rights more important than our security?” A completely false choice. And one that breaks in favor of the President when the same fears are stoked. Therefore, no phone deluge and no real pressure on Hagel and Snowe from anyone but Dick Cheney.
The question YOU ask about the President setting aside the law is not at the forefront. When it IS asked, it’s when the negative numbers for Bush start to show up. But it is a secondary question at best.
Par R
“…I don’t see how America can long go on as the country we remember. It’ll go on being called America, and people will go on running flags from their pickup aerials, but we’ll have lost an important element that makes us what we are. This issue should transcend ‘left’ and ‘right,’ even though…[blah, blah, blah]”
I love reading a good moonbat rant early in the morning!
CaseyL
I’m still not sure how I feel about the port deal. For every article saying it’s not a bad idea on its own merits, there’s another one saying the prospective managers aren’t trustworthy, and do have meaningful ties to terrorist organizations.
However, I do know how I feel about George Bush: completely untrustworthy. So any deal he wants is a bad thing, since he cannot be trusted to even comprehend American security strategy, much less uphold American security. Therefore I conclude the port deal is dangerous, and should not go through.
Tim F.
I can always count on you to prove a point, Par. Thanks for coming through.
Mr Furious
Tim, the only thing that makes Par what he is is the flag on his antennae and the “Bush/Cheny” sticker on the bumper.
No change for him.
searp
If you approach the NSA program with an open mind, the fact that there has been no judicial review ought to give you pause. Warrantless wiretapping of people in the US should always be subject to judicial review; the rights involved are too fundamental to be slighted administratively. It is as simple as that.
Presumably, a judicial review would be able to weigh the competing interests dispassionately and determine what is legally permitted and what is forbidden.
I am appalled that the administration has deliberately avoided a review by the FISA court. It suggests to me that they know their legal arguments are too weak to withstand scrutiny. If the program is illegal, it should certainly be ended.
chopper
the proper word is ‘authoritarian.’
Steve
The entire Bush storyline is built on the premise that “we are the only ones you can trust.” You can’t trust judges, you can’t trust the media, blah blah blah. We are the only ones who care about keeping you safe. No wonder Glenn Greenwald calls it a cult.
Fortunately, the numbers show that the American people are smarter than that, even if it’s taken them a while to accept that there’s something truly fucked up about the way this administration does business. We still have true believers like Par to make you bang your head against the wall, though!
Otto Man
Well said, Tim.
Both these issues are the result of how the The Boy Who Cried Terra! has handled the problem these past few years. He’s scared people shitless, and now they’re going overboard in their attitudes towards terrorism.
In their minds, the Arabs shouldn’t be allowed to run the ports, while the president should be allowed to do whatever he wants to spy on terrorists, terrorist suspects, and people who might have once been on a bus three rows removed from a terrorist, regardless of those stupid laws and that pesky Constitution.
Mr. Furious linked to my post on this in the open thread, but I’d like to whore it myself:
Mean Gene
An intelligent, well-argued and well-reasoned analysis of the facts. You traitor. One can only hope that the NSA will soon be tapping your phones and steaming open your mail (both snail and e) to ensure that this “thinking” about “our personal freedoms” is kept closely in check.
Jorge
The 4th amednment is a pretty old law. It was written during a time before telephones or even telegraphs. There sure as heck weren’t any global communications satellites.
Before 9/11, we could pretend that trying to apply the rights spelled out in the constitution could somehow be applied to the information age. But the founding fathers could never have envisioned the technology we have now. And they could not have envisioned the threat of Islamofacism.
We need to be very strict in our interpretation of the constitution. And that means that we can’t naturally assume that the freedoms spelled out in the bill of rights apply to A)foreign terrorists or B) the use of technology such as cell phones and e-mail.
Theseus
Yes, the president’s “endless demagoguery”, includes repeatedely asserting that Islam is a “Religion of Peace”, Muslims are NOT are our enemies, visiting mosques, trying to empower (however imperfectly) Muslims worldwide through democratization, kissing the ass of backstabbing “friends” and “allies” like the Saudis or Mubarak and refusing to call the “War on Terrorism” what it was ie for YEARS after 911.
If Americans have a poor view of Islam or Arabs, it’s that it has been earned it.
But of course, really, it’s all about Bbbbbbbbbbbbush, Bbbbbbush, it’s all his fault as usual.
Funny that the percentage of poeple who support the FISA program (close to 65% I think) exceeds the percentage of people who have negative views of Muslims or Islam. Those must be all Republican hacks.
Par R
After the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in the case regarding military recruitment on law school campuses earlier this week, one has to wonder how many of the same law professors from 36 of the top law schools in the country could be so misguided on what the Constitution says? As an aside, it’s also worth noting that most of the so-called legal experts from the law schools who have asserted the “illegality” of the warrantless NSA wiretaps of al Qaeda related parties were signatories to the losing SCOTUS case. How could they think that letting some military recruiters join all the other professional recruiters on campus was limitation on the schools’ freedom of speech and association? Don’t they have any professors of Constitutional Law at these schools who could have pointed out to them the weaknesses of their argument? Clearly, these “experts” are not to be relied on in terms of an assessment as to the legal status of the NSA program.
Steve
Actually, the percentage of people who think the President shouldn’t have to get a warrant for his surveillance is well under 50%.
Pb
Ah, those were the days. If the Founding Fathers were around today, they’d probably try to start *another* revolutionary war (before they were indefinitely detained as enemy combatants, and/or shipped to a secret prison in Europe, of course).
Tim F.
Theseus,
You’re citing a push poll. Polls that accurately describe the program put it at under 50%.
Nikki
So we shape laws to accommodate technology rather than shape laws to fit within the Constitution–is that it?
Otto Man
Um, they didn’t. Their argument had nothing to do with freedom of speech and was instead predicated on the theory that because of the don’t ask, don’t tell policy, the military violated the unconstitutional principles standard and therefore the federal government couldn’t tie its funding to the presence of military recruiters.
But please, keep putting scare quotes around the word “experts” as if that makes you smarter than them. Or anyone.
don surber
Interesting how this works. Patriot Act was bad because it allowed the use of FISA judges to issue warrants. Critics falsely claimed that FISA judges aren’t “real” judges. Yes, they are real judges given extra duties by the Supreme Chief Justice.
So then we get this poorly reported story about “wiretapping” and “domestic spying” by NSA when in fact it is international spying, we simply don’t hang up the phone if Osama dials the United States to call a non-citizen — or citizen.
Suddenly FISA judges are saints of jurisprudence.
Now you get something better — bipartisan congressional oversight. And you complain? Paris Hilton liberalism strikes again
don surber
Otto Man:
Rumsfeld vs. FAIR was First Amendment throughout as the law professors dragged in Barnette, the Boy Scouts and even Grove City. Read the first paragraph of the decision:
“The law schools responded by
suing, alleging that the Solomon Amendment infringed
their First Amendment freedoms of speech and association.
The District Court disagreed but was reversed by a
divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
which ordered the District Court to enter a preliminary
injunction against enforcement of the Solomon Amendment.
We granted certiorari.”
Don’t bluff. Here is the whole decision:
http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/04-1152p.zo.pdf
Otto Man
Do you have any citations to back up those claims about how evil liberals considered the FISA courts? Liberals are pretty invested in the post-Watergate reforms (FEC, Church Committee, FISA, etc.) so I’d really love to see whatever evidence you have here, provided it hasn’t been pulled out of your ass.
Luckily, we know that conservatives have been steadfast on these issues.
Tim F.
Don,
Before you attack somebody for hypocrisy you have to choose a person. I’m sure that a guy of your stature wouldn’t want to be accused of a pedestrian logical fallacy like straw man.
Otto Man
Well, I’m wrong. I had the post-Solomon case mixed up with the pre-Solomon. Coffee hasn’t kicked in yet.
Lines
Ah, don surber, resident hack and idiot.
Not one link to support his positions, plus he’s timeline-challenged. Lets take a ride on the history short-schoolbus! Put your hockey helmet back on, Don.
FISA was created in 1978 to authorize surveilance on foreign powers and their direct agents. The court procedings and decisions are largely secret, which makes sense since the surveilances may take years to accomplish. The constitutionality of FISA has been challenged in lower courts which have always upheld FISA as meeting Constitutional requirements.
Fast forward to 2001/2002 and the Patriot Act expands the foreign powers/agents section to include terrorists and their agents. Still no outrage or scathing reports in the “liberal media”, however.
So why the outrage now? Despite the expanded powers of FISA, which have yet to be challenged on their Constitutionality, the President has determined that he don’t need no frikin FISA courts and has authorized the NSA to bypass any checks and balances and perform spying on any potential target, which the NSA leaks have confirmed were US citizens abroad and domestically that did NOT have direct ties to suspected terrorists.
Then we have Don Surber, a man so in denial, he may as well be Egyptian.
So Don, did you purposely mistate the FISA and NSA issue or are you just an asshole?
Steve
Yes, because FISA clearly obligates the government to hang up if Osama calls someone in the U.S. Give me a break.
Par R
Otto Man blithely asserts that the law schools were not arguing a freedom of speech issue in the DOD recruiting issue involved in the recent Supreme Court decision. As obvious from the Link provided by Don above, Otto’s assertion is proven to be yet another lie that illustrates why arguing with poorly educated moonbats is so frustrating and pointless. I guess it just illustrates the frailties of the web when people seem to get most of their information and so-called “facts” from crackpot sites/bloggers such as Kos, atrios, occasionally, Tim, et.al.
don surber
Otto Man:
Good man. Nice to see someone actually admit the might be mistaken instead of the name calling and anger
Tim F, please take note. You should have handled the sunspot-antarctica melt thing with a little more class. I was making a joke not giving a chemistry lecture
Lines, you are hopeless in a world of profanity. I just skip your comments
chopper
what the hell are you smoking? FISA warrants and courts have been around since the 70’s. the PATRIOT act was considered ‘bad’ not because of already existing FISA courts, but because it expanded the executive’s abilities to wiretap beyond what had already been set forth in law.
liberals didn’t have a problem with FISA before or after the PATRIOT act. 2 different issues.
Otto Man
Yeah, I confused the two cases, was promptly corrected, and immediately admitted my error. That’s clear evidence that everything said by anyone to the left of George Will is nothing but a lie.
You’re the genius who thinks that because the argument made by these lawyers in Rumsfeld wasn’t approved by the Supreme Court, that somehow invalidates these same constitutional scholars’ opinions on NSA and FISA. Please, go find me a constitutional scholar with a 1.000 batting average before the Court. Just one.
Seriously, Doug J, knock it off. You’re making conservatives look like ignorant, arrogant assclowns.
chopper
the fact that otto admitted his error and changed his position 10 minutes before you posted this drivel proves who the dumbass really is. and it aint him.
searp
Don: I can understand you castigating liberals, many people do that, but isn’t that kind of beside the point? Do you think the NSA program should be reviewed by a judge or judges, for legality? I for one do not see this as a partisan question. Regardless of party, all citizens should want the government to act strictly according to the law.
It seems to me that there is enough controversy about the legality of this program to justify a judicial review.
Otto Man
Hey, I was wrong. But don’t go ruining my reputation.
Do, you’re obviously able to provide evidence, so please do the same with your assertion that liberals objected to the Patriot Act because they feared FISA.
Otherwise, you’re in the same camp as the illustrious Subpar.
Lines
Don Surber, your lack of intelligence makes me want to retch, your blame shifting and finger pointing make me believe you are the most spineless worthless oxygen-consuming mammalian to walk the planet. Given that, my sinking into profanity should suprise no one. You are a pathetic life-form, barely capable of remembering to breathe, and when you exhale, the poisonous vitriol that escapes your slack-jawed countenance discolors your very surroundings.
Is that better?
Al Maviva
I think you have a good read on it Tim. Fundamental separation of powers and constitutional rights issues are a pretty big deal in the long run, but the number of people who have a basic grip on the structural portions of the Constitution (beyond a catchy kids public service announcement song), much less care, is pretty small. I don’t know if DOJ has framed the question that way intentionally to deflate the debate (C-in-C power v. Congressional regulatory power) or if the President just believes that his Constitutional powers are that extensive.
I don’t think Searp has it quite right either – I believe there are probably a lot of situations where communications monitoring can occur on U.S. soil without court approval. For instance, I realize it’s unthinkable now, but if the U.S. were invaded by a foreign power, the NSA (a DOD activity) would claim the power to monitor all communications of the enemy and all areas within enemy control, *without judicial review.* They would claim this authority under the C-in-C, which is pretty close to plenary when it comes to the conduct of wars. The courts don’t get to review everything; even stinky old Congress can limit the federal courts’ jurisdiction.
Otto Man
Don, not Do.
Man, I sound like Yoda now…
Lines
Al,
the problem is that we’re not really at war. Could the same presidential powers have been used for the War on Drugs? How about the War on Poverty? We really need to wiretap liquor stores and flophouses.
Given that the direction is to reduce oversight to the point where it can be drowned in Don Surber’s kiddie bathtub, why would war even matter in the near future. America will have enemies as long as it has autonomy, so a gradual ratcheting up of Presidential powers with no one able to define boundaries or willing to define boundaries should scare all Americans regardless of which side they spit on.
searp
Al: I agree with your point, but I think it is irrelevant. It seems to me that it is quite an ordinary thing to ask that this program be reviewed by the judiciary for legality.
The fact that post-facto legislation is to be introduced to give it the color of law suggests strongly to me that it was not legal under our current laws, but I’d be willing to accept an authoritative judicial finding.
It simply doesn’t seem reasonable to me to think of reasons not to have that review; I can only think that the motivation for excusing the program from a review is that it would not be found to be legal.
Steve
I agree with Al and think this is a pretty easy case.
However, I see conservative folks around the blogosphere who believe that because we were attacked on our soil on 9/11, the U.S. is now a “battlefield” for the duration, and thus Al’s conclusion already applies. I think that’s a bit of a stretch.
don surber
“Don: I can understand you castigating liberals, many people do that, but isn’t that kind of beside the point? Do you think the NSA program should be reviewed by a judge or judges, for legality? I for one do not see this as a partisan question. Regardless of party, all citizens should want the government to act strictly according to the law.
“It seems to me that there is enough controversy about the legality of this program to justify a judicial review.”
Well, it is getting a review. Senate Intell (set up to do just that) is reviewing. Democracy rocks.
For all the complaints about civil liberties, we have protected them well. Natalie Maines was allowed back in the country. Michael Moore gets to spend the loot he made off his mockumentaries. Hey, the only reason Al Franken is going off the air is no one listens to him
History may acknowledge that Bush managed to protect the nation’s freedoms and shores.
searp
Don: I used the word judicial very deliberately. You didn’t answer my question: do you think the program should be judicially reviewed?
Tim F.
Don,
I’m sorry that you took offense to my taking offense. Despite the regular abuse that folks here dish, myself included, I don’t mind saying that you’re a good sort who contributes to the debate as often as not. Science innumeracy brings out my acid tongue like nothing else.
searp
We’re discussing the more important one, surely that is reasonable?
The Other Steve
Honestly, I’m still amazed to learn that our ports are controlled by foreign governments.
But then, that’s because I’m a mysogynist. Or perhaps it was a racist? I don’t recall which. Was Harriet Miers involved in this one or not? It’s so hard to keep track of all the names your called because you disagree with a policy.
tzs
The question that Don Surber et al has not answered is: what are the checks and balances on a president that claims total authority? Does he believe that the president in fact does have total authority?
Frankly, I don’t see one damn difference between the horse-hockey the so-called “conservatives” are trotting out and the justifications made by the Communists in the USSR about their authority.
I foresee a continued slide of our country into a mish-mash of banana-boat corruption and cronyism, with “national security” as arguements used to continuously monitor the political opposition and to put in place mechanisms to keep their from power. “Laws” will be implemented more and more selectively depending on where you stand in the power structure, who you know, and who you pay off. Continued increase between rich and poor, continued ransacking of federal monies for pork, continued rigging of the system so the “blue states” will have less and less political clout but will continue to be forced to pay the taxes to prop up the fiscally haemorraging “red states”.
At some point, the trade deficit, national debt, Medicare, Social Security, hollowed-out pension funds, increased bankruptcies will all come home to roost in a splendid crash. At which point the Chinese will buy up everything for microcents to the dollar.
In the end, the US will slither into irrelevance.
Jorge
Nikki,
I was just trying one of those Dougj bits… I’m not very good at. The 4th amendment isn’t old – it’s timeless.
Lines
Tim, can you follow up your Don love-fest with a link showing where a Surber post has actually contributed to the debate without either a) an emotional fear tie-in or b) a gratuitous fellating of the Bush Administration?
Just remember, Don labels himself as a jounalmalist, which normally would carry some sort of integrity and ethical behavior.
DougJ
As far as I’m concerned, Don is the only real journalist here. The rest of you are too concerned with things like facts and logical argument. I guess you’ve all been indoctrinated by liberal professors. Thank God Don didn’t go to college.
Bernard Yomtov
Don Surber,
The Senate Intelligence Committee is not reviewing the NSA program. They are not even investigating it, as those fierce brave independent types like Snowe and Hagel caved to the White House because Rove looked at them crosswise. The Committee is useless.
And how exactly do you know what the program consists of, since the Administration won’t tell anyone?
searp
Since Don wouldn’t answer me here, I looked at his blog. I now think that I could actually substitute pretty well for Don if you miss him.
For starters: government is always bad unless it is run by Republicans, who never make mistakes.
Lines
Don runs away when people challenge him. He might throw a volley over his shoulder on the way out, but its usually weak minded and poorly composed. After that, he can be found hiding under his bed, chanting “I’m a journalist, really I am!” over and over again.
searp
More Don:
Disaster relief ought to be provided by religious organizations, who do a better job than the gov and provide that extra… religious dimension. The godless left is boring.
People convicted of sex crimes cannot suffer enough punishment. Punishment ought to be life, not in prison, but on the outside, in public. Kind of a lifetime sentence to the stocks, as it were. My brother had the good fortune to have to prosecute 18 year old boys for consensual sex with 17 year old girls under these very same statutes. Although he is a good Republican and very tough on crime, that gave him a little frisson of doubt.
Mona
Well said, Tim. The DPW deal never much bothered me; those concerned do not understand international business and financial realities.
The real scandal is that the President of the United States is blatantly violating the law, and says he will continue to do so. And Congress responds by saying: “gee, so sorry, we don’t want to embarrass you about the law-breaking thingie, so we’ll just change the law and say that whenver you think it is a real bother to get warrants, you don’t gotta — just give us some reports from time to time.”
Not that that eviscerates the whole Nixon-driven purpose for warrants and the FISA court or anything.
4jkb4ia
This post aroused more guilt than ever that I have not tried to contact Jim Talent on the NSA deal. This is a campaign issue for every Democratic challenger in the Senate.