Love him or hate him, Russ Feingold has the balls to stand for his convictions. When the Patriot Act came up for a vote many Senators worried about expanding federal powers of search and seizure but Feingold was the only Senator to vote no.
For Senators who still think their chamber serves a useful purpose the growing NSA wiretapping scandal provides another such gut check. The Administration has not even bothered to claim that they acted within the law as written, rather they claim either that Congress has given them the power to circumvent the law (the AUMF argument, which is bogus) or else that the President has the inherent authority to set aside any law which he finds inconvenient (the Yoo doctrine). You could hardly drop a fatter gift in the lap of an opposition-party Senator. The president has basically declared that he’s above the law and then unapologetically acted on it. What do you do?
If you’re most Senate Democrats the answer is nothing. Obviously the junior Senator from Wisconsin either didn’t get the memo or he ate one of those special-edition Lance Armstrong boxes of Wheaties, because on Sunday Russ Feingold declared that he plans in introduce a formal measure to censure the President (PDF of the resolution).
Via Greenwald, Carl Levin will probably typify the tepid response from most Democrats:
“I think what the president did was wrong,” Mr. Levin said. “But even though I think he was wrong, I would rather wait until the investigation is completed, which has now been started by the Intelligence Committee, before I go beyond that.”
No, Senator Levin, the Intelligence Committee did not start an investigation. They sent the question to a secret subcomittee dominated by reliable bootlickers. Last Tuesday’s vote was the last you’ll hear from the Intelligence Committee on the FISA scandal.
This sort of spineless dissembling doesn’t have to be. Do you think that the president has a right to pick and choose which laws he considers binding? If you think that he does not then you owe it to yourself to phone your Senator via the Senate switchboard operator [(202) 225-3121] and find out whether he or she supports Feingold’s motion. Pressure makes a difference.
Ancient Purple
What was really vile was Sen. Frist’s response. As expected, he pulled the old chestnut of claiming that a censure resolution would embolden our enemies.
Right. Because showing people how democracy is supposed to work and how it does work is so horrible. We should all just keep our mouths shut and let the King do as he wishes because to criticize the King in the time of war is treason.
If Bush were a Democrat, Frist would be demanding articles of impeachment.
Ancient Purple
BTW, Tim, did you mean to file this under “Democratic Stupidity”?
Paddy O'Shea
Unfortunately the only way we’re going to get some justice is to elect Democrats to a majority in both Congress and the Senate. Trials are necessary given the scope and magnitude of this administration’s crimes, but to expect the GOP enablers now in control of Congress to hold the feet of the Bushies to the fire is not realistic.
Feingold’s call for Censure is symbolic and little more. I support him, I believe he is correct in doing so.
That said, I still think we’re going about our Bush opposition in the wrong way. The one big issue here is incompetence. Bush and his puppeteers have now spent half a trillion dollars while carelessly sacrificing the lives of 3,000 service people, plus casualties that number in the 10s of thousands. And the result? Osama bin Laden remains at large and continues to this day to kill Americans, all while Iraq becomes the Yankee Stadium of terrorism. And Tehran waits on the sidelines for us to leave so that they can reunite with their Shi’ite brothers in one big happy Greater Iran.
If this isn’t failure on a historic scale I don’t know what is.
If we as a country were truly serious about fighting terror, we would fire the incompetents currently in charge and put in place people who actually know what they’re doing.
The Bush administration has failed this country in the war on terror. They are incompetent. They need to be removed.
The Other Steve
I’m really quite disturbed by the bill that’s now come up which intends to charge reporters with a crime if they report leaked information, even if the information clearly points to the government doing something illegal.
That just smells of desperation on the part of the administration.
ppGaz
This administration is collapsing in on itself at this point. Nothing they do in the next six months should come as a surprise. They are cornered, and desperate, and without friends on Capitol Hill.
This is a dangerous time. These people are capable of anything.
As for the Dems, Feingold is a stand-up guy. Unfortunately he is not part of a stand-up party at this time in history. The power on Capitol Hill is all self-interested right now, from McCain to Biden to Clinton to Frist. Every one of these people is looking out for his or her own fortunes …. not ours.
Caseyl
Then it behooves us even more to call them and remind them they don’t work for themselves.
SeesThroughIt
Shit, Mark Noonan at my favorite right-wing nuthouse, blogsforbush, is proving that he can’t rise above the level of a taunted fourth-grader and is calling for a censure of Russ Feingold. Sadly, I’m not making that up. Oh, and best believe the phrase “aid and comfort” is all over the place in it.
Paul Wartenberg
We’re not allowed to attack our President or question his actions. So if he’s the metaphorical bus driver taking this nation over the cliff of doom, we’re supposed to sit back and enjoy the sudden stop at the bottom?
Paul L.
Ladies and gentlemen: your new American Liberal Left
Please keep this up.
This will make Republicians so desperate that they will rally around a statue of Ronald Reagan to show support for George W. Bush.
fwiffo
It’s sad that Carl Levin is being such a bad example here. He’s not usually the wobbly sort. Prior to this, my biggest gripe with him would have been his combover.
jg
Hmmmm. The worst attack on our homeland occurred right after we impeached the last guy. Coincidence? Did the repubs embolden our enemies when they attacked a popular president? Maybe that was the sign Osama had been waiting for.
This game is fun. Anyone else want to play?
Down with Flu!
fwiffo
On second thought, I may withold judgement on Levin. It may be one of those “set ’em up and knock ’em down” moves. See, for example, his words during Rice’s confirmation hearings for secretary of state. He started with lush praise for her personal qualities, etc. to make the harsh criticism and no-vote that followed that much more resounding.
He may well come back in a few days/weeks and say “Gee, I thought we were going to have a real investigation, but Republicans aren’t taking handling this issue honestly like they promised. I’m going to have to support the Feingold motion to censure.” His position on the intelligence committee puts him in a good position to do just that.
He may espescially do that if a bunch of folks in Michigan make a point to give his office a call.
ET
FEINGOLD: What I’m interested in is my colleagues acknowledging that we as a Congress have to stand up to a president who acts as if the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were repealed on September 11. We didn’t enact martial law on September 11. We still have a constitutional form of government, and if the Congress of the United States does not stand up for that authority at this point, it will be an historic failure of our system of government.
Chris
Of course, Censure itself is little more than the Congressional equivalent of the traditional playground taunt, “you’re mean and I’m not going to play with you anymore.”
I admire Feingold, but Censure?
pb
SeesThroughIt,
Yep… apparently free speech is sedition over at “Blogs for Bush” — I guess they really are “The White House Of The Blogosphere”!
Oh, and…
Priceless!
CalDevil
Tim,
Much as I like to see you tout Dem Stupidity. I think that the Senate Dems are smart to react cooly to Feingold’s move.
Bush and the GOP are on the ropes (yes, it’s months before the election, but right leaning voters aren’t feeling very affectionate toward their side of the aisle right now). Most of the wounds have been self-inflicted, especially the result of poor communication and bad execution.
Feingold’s move would play right into the GOP’s hands. Regardless of how the censure move would be spun by the MSM, it would provide a great opportunity to rally the base (especially after the Dubai debacle), while playing to the middle (i.e., making the Dems look soft).
Tim F.
Ancient Purple,
It’s a reference to Levin, and the squad of dems who will surely follow his lead.
Slide
CalDevil I couldn’t disagree with you more. Feingold’s resolution is brilliant. It keeps the debate on illegal wiretapping in the forefront. You say it will rally Bush’s base. So? Bush’s base will support him if he killed a litter of kittens with a hammer on nationwide tv. Who the fuck gives a shit about Bush’s moronic, brown-shirted base? The Liberal base will certainly rally and many many independents have had it with the worst president in memory.
mr.ed
Both my Ohio senators’ tongues are too black With polish to do anything except defend, though I’d bet that Voinovich could be turned with enough heat.
searp
CalDevil: Politics aside, Bush pretty clearly broke the law. Eventually, this will end up in the courts or be actively investigated by Congress. With all the publicity, it is too late to sweep it under the rug.
In a sense, the longer this goes on, the worse for the Republicans. It is a loser once it gets to a court, any court. Calling people traitors as a defense is bound to make them mad. Nope, if this is the best the Bush defenders have, I am content to let it play out.
Ancient Purple
Thanks for the clarification, Tim.
RonB
I think it’s a little more than that, Paddy. Democrats are outnumbered as you know in the Senate and having the press carry the news of the proposal is the best they can do since they can’t actually pull it off. It would be nice to see some Democrats get behind this, but I am skeptical as of yet. Also, its entirely possible that Frist is half right when he says it is calculated to gain attention to Feingold’s presidential run. But not to the general public…he got my attention, though. He got yours. And as it appears, everyone else of a mind to vote Democratic.
I don’t know what you mean, CalDevil. First, the MSM isn’t going to be the one doing the spinning here, it’s going to be the Republicans, as evidenced by Frist’s scaremongering. And I think the Republican hold on the American consciousness re: the “war on terror” has been broken and there are less and less people who are going to listen to the broken record of dissent=emboldening our enemies. Only half of Americans polled think Bush is doing a good job in the war on terror.
I like this move and it’s coming from a guy who has a history of not liking the reach of domestic surveillance. Feingold will be one for me to watch in the coming years before the election.
Par R
Boxer said she would support Feingold’s measure, but then one has to realize that she’s generally considered by her peers in the Senate to be dumber than a block of rock salt. Therefore, it’s not clear that her endorsement will help…could actually hurt.
RonB
Agreed, Slide. Furthermore, it isn’t really rallying them if you look at the rightie blogs, theyre pretty much saying, yawn, political opportunism since the Dubai deal left the front page. They totally don’t get it.
Mr Furious
In Levin’s defense, I think he was unprepared to comment on this at the time.
Of course, I would much rather have had him “dissemble” more along the lines of, “I’m not really sure exactly what Sen. Feingold has in mind, I need to look closely at his resolution before I comment further.”
Steve
The Republicans are going to keep running the same play, by which I mean accusing their opponents of wanting to help al-Qaeda, until it no longer works.
Fortunately, I think the country has finally reached the point where a majority will simply laugh at the notion that Osama is sitting in a cave somewhere gloating that a censure resolution has been introduced. It’s kind of sad that it’s taken this long to get to the point where the “dissent = treason” meme no longer commands a majority, but oh well, at least we’re finally here.
Censure is a brilliant political move in the midst of an election year where all the Republicans are trying as hard as possible to distance themselves from an unpopular president. Sure, it’s real courageous to claim that you bucked Bush on the port deal when 80% of the country agreed with you. But where do you stand on the issue of the president breaking the law?
I am praying, absolutely praying, for a party-line vote against the censure resolution. It would be an absolute gift confirming that the Republicans are nothing more than a rubber stamp for this terrible administration, no matter how hard they try to reinvent themselves as mavericks in an election year.
The GOP, those brave champions of up-or-down votes, will fight to the death to prevent this resolution from ever coming to a floor vote, you can bet your life on that. The last thing they want to do is go on record.
BarneyG2000
Per B4B, I posted your comments, and this was Mark’s response:
Barney,
I’m supposed to be impressed that a leftwing nuthouse made mention of this?
Posted by: Mark Noonan at March 13, 2006 01:55 PM
pb
Bill Frist then:
Bill Frist now:
Not that this is a new thing for them or anything…
Ed
Only in Mark Noonan’s fevered worship of Our Leader would Balloon Juice be considered “a leftwing nuthouse”. He and Margolis are among the worst of the sycophants. I wonder if they’ll switch to Jeb once Dubya is relegated to the ashheap of history?
I wouldn’t spend a lot of effort on the censure bill. As long as the Republicans control Congress, Bush is going to have to be found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy before they move against him.
Paddy O'Shea
The Little President’s Rasmussen number falls today to 42% approve, 57% disapprove. Republicans are running from this guy in a big way now.
Slide
just a side note here since Frist’s MTP interview has been mentioned several times in the thread. It was incredible watching Frist, the man is afraid to take ANY stand at all. He REFUSED to answer if he would have supported the ND abortion law. He REFUSED to answer if he would vote to bar the UAE from taking over the ports if the plan to divest falls through. He is so afraid to take a stand on anything it was embarassing to watch. Remember this was the guy that flip flopped on Stem cell research. Flip flopped on Dubai port deal. Got bitch slipped by Reid when the went into closed session to discuss the Intelligence Committee’s investigation in the manipulation of pre-war intelligence. I just can’t imagine ANYONE watching him and saying, “hmmm now that is someone I can support”. He stands for NOTHING.
Brian
Yes, please get behind Feingold. It’s buffoonish of you to do so, but you’re all buffoons, like your pals at Kos and MoveOn. (Let’s change the name of the site to Buffoon Juice.) If MoveOn gets behind him, the guy’s toast. TOAST.
Anti-free-speech-Feingold is the perfect phony populist you people love, like a re-packaged Dennis Kucinich. He has not a snowball’s chance in hell of getting more than 8% popular support. In other words: unelectable to high office.
It’s fine to admire someone for standing up to principles. It’s the principles you have to look at first, before deciding whether or not they’re admirable enough to endorse. I recommend to Tim that he undertake this exercise next time.
Brian
The GOP has moved against him on Miers, immigration, spending, and the port deal. Conservatives are very comfortable with challenging their leadership, and if you bothered to pull your head out of your ass for a minute, you’d know this.
Slide
Brian? are you ok? not making much sense? you didn’t hit your head or anything now did you?
RonB
You don’t have to imagine it…
RonB
This is about all I need to know that I can ignore Brian without missing much.
capelza
Amazing, the closer to the 2006 elections the more they move away….
Brian, buffoons huh? So why are you here then? I’m sure your rousing oratory will convince everyone otherwise. Or do you just enjoy a spittleflecked monitor?
Marcus Wellby
This could backfire BIG TIME on the Dems – and not for the reasons one might think. I have had it with spineless Dems and will not vote for one for any election that does not support Feingold at this time. They ran from Murtha when he was right, if they run from Russ I will be done with them.
Mike in SLO
Par R:
So Boxer’s peers consider her “dumber than a block of rock salt”? Her peers have been so brilliant in being a strong minority party…oh wait… never mind!
The hell with her so called smart “peers”. Boxer is more admired than Feinstein in California because she actually does sometimes stand up for what is right. California’s have and will elect her to whatever she chooses to run for.
Pooh
I love it when people quote Powerline as legal authorities…if they played as fast and loose with their legal citations in their actual work as they do on their blog, they would not be practicing attorneys for very long. The off-the-top-of-my head whopper was Hinderaker’s selective quotation of Jackson’s Youngstown opinion that completely eviscerated the meaning of that opinion. Reminiscent of John Stewart’s response to Mike Brown always saying that his emails got taken out of context. To which Stewart responded by saying “no, this is taken out of context” – cue clip
ppGaz
Brian’s part is a collaboration between John Cole and DougJ. There are no actual righties any more who will post here, the asswhippings have taken their inevitable toll. So John and DougJ cook up a phony “righty” poster to provide “balance.” Think of it as the BJ version of George Bush and Joey Lieberman. Joey, like DougJ, is very ambitious. Not as ambitious John McCain — I mean, there’s a guy who would mutilate himself in public if he thought it would get him a delegate to the 2008 convention.
Don’t be too hard on the new persona, they haven’t worked out all the kinks yet.
pb
Pooh,
Keep it to yourself!
Steve
Haha, 8%. As if Feingold gets elected and reelected in Wisconsin by being a nutty fringe liberal.
I don’t know if Brian is really clueless enough to believe that 92% of the country hates moveon.org and will boycott any candidate who associates with them. The national GOP leadership doesn’t believe that, as anyone with a bit of sense knows. They just realize that Moveon and Kos are a big source of funding, and they want to try and cut Dems off from that funding, so they demonize the organizations and try to make Dems afraid to associate with them.
Feingold has posted many times at Daily Kos so I really don’t think he’s afraid of that oh-so-terrible stigma. Unless you’re getting a paycheck from Ken Mehlman there’s not really any need to continue with the charade that Middle America cares about who gets their money from moveon.org.
Brian is also in serious need of some message discipline. He criticizes Feingold for being “anti-free speech” at the same time geniuses like the BlogsforBush guys want to punish Feingold and other anti-war voices for their “treasonous” speech. You can’t have it both ways, friend.
I’d encourage you to keep up with the “anti-free speech” talking point, though. Because I don’t think most of America knows who Russ Feingold is, but once you make it clear to them that he’s the guy who tried to get big corporate money out of politics, I’m sure they’ll hate him for being so anti-free speech. Yes, they surely will, so don’t let me dissuade you.
Neo
Then there is this ..
“In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted Tuesday and Wednesday, 45 percent want their congressional representative to support censure and 27 percent want the Congress member from their district to support impeachment.”
Al Maviva
Pooh what do you make of Tim’s characterization of John Yoo’s argument? As I understand it, Yoo’s argument is that the Congress cannot prevent the President from exercising powers committed to the Presidency by the Constitution, except by defunding such activities. That strikes me as a decent argument, not the strongest one available under all the circumstances, but within reason if you actually believe in separation of powers principles.
Tim says Yoo’s argument is:
Thoughts?
Angry Engineer
After seeing him repeatedly roll over and wait for a pat on the tummy instead of actually, ya know, opposing the party in power, I have to disagree with your assessment that he’s not the wobbly sort. It’s too bad – it seems like he’s perfectly posed to make a real impact on issues like the “missing” WMDs and illegal NSA spying.
I do indeed wish that Feingold could pursue something stronger than censure, but it’s sad commentary not on him but rather on Congress as a whole that even this tepid measure is likely to fail and be branded as leftist hatred of America.
Sock Puppet
Brian seems a bit upset today. And that language!
Don’t conservatives believe themselves to be morally superior to those who are not of their ideological persuasion?
Today he sounds like a foul-mouthed gutter trollop.
Slide
Neo is trying to make some point or other but what I got out of his link is that Clinton, at the height of his “monica” mess, had a 63% job approval. Wow… what’s bush at again? 34%? 37%?
stickler
Unitary executive, baby. Feel the burn!
Sock Puppet
Perhaps the evil genius Karl Rove is attempting to snooker the Dems into attempting an impeachment of Bush. Karl saw what impeachment did for Clinton’s approval numbers and hopes to take advantage of the public’s sympathetic feelings towards those facing such ignominious treatment.
Of course, Karl is now faced with the daunting prospect of finding a woman who is willing to blow little Georgie. Might not be all that easy a task.
Does Hinderaker cross-dress?
Steve
Al, the reason there’s not much of a difference between those two versions of Yoo’s argument is because the President is claiming that he and he alone has the authority to determine whether his activities are within the scope of his “exclusive Article II powers,” whatever they may be. Thus, Yoo’s argument amounts to:
1) The President has the inherent authority to protect us from foreign enemies;
2) No other branch may infringe on the President’s inherent authority; and
3) If the President says he is doing X to protect us from foreign enemies, no other branch is empowered to verify whether he is telling the truth.
It’s not so much that the President is refusing to give any other branch a veto power over his activities, it’s that he is refusing even to submit to oversight so that anyone can verify what those activities are. If he says he’s protecting the country, no one can even ask for verification. As Tim says, the people who have no problem with this are the same ones who kept guns in their basement during the Clinton years.
Slide
hmmmm… Bush at a new low in the CNN/Gallup pole 36%
Conservatives disapprove by 41%
Dems lead GOP on generic congressional ballot by 16%
Wow…
Slide
wasn’t that Harriet’s job? metaphorically speaking of course?
mishu
It’s funny how you lot get all excited over Feingold’s blatant attempt to separate you from your money. If he learned about this 10 years ago, he wouldn’t have said boo. This is a total partisan hack move. Enjoy your red meat.
SeesThroughIt
Bwah! That’s a freaking great line.
Pb
mishu,
I wasn’t aware that upholding our most basic Constitutional rights was now a partisan issue, but if that is now the case, then I am proud to be a ‘partisan hack’.
jaime
“I cannot make that choice. I cannot look away. I vote `Guilty’ on Article I, Perjury. I vote `Guilty’ on Article II, Obstruction of Justice.”
-Russell Feingold statement on impeachement of Bill Clinton
That Feingold. He’s a party hack alright. Mishu, shut you’re ign’ant ass up.
capelza
mishu….???
ppGaz
I think Mishu just went out for some moo shoo.
mishu
What exactly can’t you do now that you were able to do before? I mean besides telephone al-Quaeda without anyone caring.
Jamie, I suppose spooge on a dress would shy away a partisan hack.
RonB
Frighteningly, that was the first thing that came to my mind too. If this is true, you are correct, they’re going to need to work on this one. More Al Maviva and less Don Surber, guys!
RonB
Pray tell, what does this have to do with the violation of the fourth amendment and FISA? Why don’t you care about the law? Whats in it for you to give a pass to the president to do so?
Are you on anti-psychotic medication? You’re weird.
Pooh
Al, a fair distinction. I would say that given the breadth of Yoo’s reading of Art. II, it’s a distinction without much of a difference. So one might say what Tim said is ‘false but accurate’ ;)
My own impression is that Hamdi is about as far (and, in my opinion slightly farther than) as plenary war powers, whether you want to describe them as CiC (which, oh BTW is a military term, Sen. Frist, he has no authority to tell me or you to do jack…)
And I see now that Steve largely beat me to it…so in addition, what he said.
Pooh
BZZZT. Wrong answer, try again…
jaime
John Warner, Fred Thompson, Ted Stevens, and Richard Shelby are partisan Democratic hacks? They voted not guilty during the impeachment.
jg
Since Bush doesn’t feel he has to tell us what hes doing in the name of our safety how do we know whats been taken away?
The issue isn’t what he’s done its what he might have done that we don’t know about and he says isn’t our business. He says there is no check on his powers at wartime but since he won’t tell us what he’s doing how do we know what he’s doing is in our best interest? Faith?
mishu
RonB,
Look up Article II, section 2 of the Constitution to answer the first part of your post.
For the second part,
Steve
Uh, friends, of course Feingold didn’t vote to convict Bill Clinton. My friends at Google tell me Jaime’s quote above is actually from Republican Sen. Hutchison.
However, Feingold was the one and only Democrat to vote with the Republicans in opposition to a motion to summarily dismiss the impeachment proceeding without a trial. That shows some principle, to buck the party line on something that major. I certainly don’t think he did it because he thought it would help him win the Democratic nomination ten years later.
I think Feingold is a very serious guy, maybe too serious. I think he takes Constitutional principles seriously that 99% of politicians pay lip service to, and maybe it’s because we’re all so cynical about politics that it’s hard for some people to see this as anything other than a political stunt. But I basically think Feingold took the issue of impeachment very seriously when Clinton was president and he takes it equally seriously now.
Steve
Article II, Section 2:
You sure have to stretch to find an inherent power to conduct warrantless surveillance somewhere in there. Maybe it’s part of those emanations and penumbras that our friends on the right are always ridiculing.
Pooh
Steve, a strict construction of Art. II is objectively pro-terrorist.
jg
Where are the war powers that all the right is foaming about? All it says is he’s CIC. Doesn’t say anything about being able to set aside law.
Sock Puppet
jg: On the day this august document was signed Thomas Jefferson said so to a potted plant when he was on his way to the outhouse.
That makes it law.
Al Maviva
I don’t think that’s quite correct – call it false but not true. I think he’s asserting (in a pretty arrogant manner) that the Executive Branch has an independent right/duty of constitutional interpretation, at least where a lot of its own bidness is concerned. This is similar to what the last 4 presidents before him argued to varying degrees. I give qualified agreement to that premise, but my agreement doesn’t extend to routine domestic security operations. The more facts seep out, the more the NSA thing seems to be about routine investigations, and that is about as far from a war powers claim as you can get. A war powers assertions would be much clearer and supportable in the ticking bomb scenario, or actual troops ambling about. I think Ex Parte Milligan is relevant here – if it’s not clearly on the battlefield congress has to unambiguously abrogate constitutional rights…
mishu
The President has a mandate as CiC and directing the NSA to listen in on the conversations of our Al Qaeda enemies, using a military asset (the NSA), during wartime. As pooh says, you don’t think the NSA is part of the Army or Navy. Regardless of that, if the NSA intercepts a call between a domestic number and foreign number belonging to an al-Quaeda operative, they already have probable cause on their side.
Larv
Mishu, nobody’s saying that the President can’t or shouldn’t direct the NSA to listen to AQ’s communications. What we’re saying is that he can’t direct it to listen to American citizen’s communications in so doing, without getting the approval of the FISA court. Is that so hard to understand?
jg
Como? A mandate?
No one has a porblem with the NSA interception calls Al Qadea is involved in. The problem is that since he (and apparently you) don’t think he needs to share with us what his activities are we can’t make sure he stays within the law. The section you directed us too says nothing about the president being able to set aside law or that he has any inherent uber powers when a war breaks out. I’m not sure what the foundation is of your argument.
jg
Considering the extreme lengths the repubs went to to make sure Clinton didn’t even appear to stretch a law its odd to see the conservatives just clam up or attack anyone who speaks up about what Bush is doing. You’re granting him the ability to shield his activities from us. Why?
Bob In Pacifica
Further up the line someone mentioned that John Yoo says that the President can ignore any laws and Congress’s only power is to fund or not fund? Would that mean that if Bush is impeached that Congress would just defund the secret service and wait?
mishu
Ex Parte Milligan is stretching it in the fact that he was not conspiring with enemy combants or enemy soldiers. It was him and four other citizens of the U.S. That laid the question of jurisdiction.
mishu
jg, the President acted upon advice and consent of the Senate — that is the Senate Armed Services commitee. And again, what about probable cause?
mishu
If a woman screams “rape” inside an apartment, you guys would make Lenny and Ed sit outside and wait for some judges approval.
jaime
Man, mishu, you sure love your bullshit talking points.
#1 Bush recieved nor requested advice nor consent from the Senate. In fact he reminded them that they were sworn under penalty of law not to speak about what he decided.
#2 Law and Order is a T.V. show.
#3 Bush had retroactive wiretapping authority under FISA.
Sock Puppet
If a woman screams “Mishu” inside an apartment, we know some guy is stealing her underwear.
Steve
Let me try and be fair about the legal arguments at issue here.
If we are at war with Germany, the President, as CIC of the military, certainly doesn’t need a warrant to eavesdrop on the German communications. That’s “signals intelligence” and it is part and parcel of waging war.
The AUMF argument, which nobody at all outside Bush’s inner circle seems to buy, is essentially the same thing. We are at “war” with al-Qaeda ever since 9/11, the argument goes, and therefore listening to calls between an American and an al-Qaeda associate is exactly the same as listening to the Germans.
We can discuss that issue but it’s a pretty academic argument. The debate is not whether we should listen to al-Qaeda’s calls. The debate is whether we should have a warrant requirement, and the point of the pro-warrant position is not to protect al-Qaeda from eavesdropping. The point is to ensure that the ONLY thing we are doing under this program is eavesdropping on al-Qaeda. If you are against the warrant requirement, then you are in favor of simply taking the President’s word for it. The word of a President, might I add, who has repeatedly boasted publicly that no wiretaps ever take place without a warrant!
You need a warrant in this country to arrest a murderer (unless you apprehend him in the act). You need a warrant to search a drug dealer. The reason why people support a warrant requirement in these cases, as the Constitution requires, is not because they are against murderers being arrested or drug dealers being searched. The reason is to ensure that ONLY murderers, or persons reasonably suspected of being murderers, get arrested for murder. The reason is to ensure that ONLY drug dealers, or persons reasonably suspected of being drug dealers, get searched. If the police said, “Look, there are just too many criminals out there to make us get a warrant on each and every case, but trust us, we have this program that ONLY targets murderers and drug dealers and you should just let us operate that,” no one would let that slide.
The thing is, FISA does not impose a substantive limitation on the President’s “inherent authority” to spy on our enemies. All it does is impose certain procedural hurdles to ensure that the President’s spying is limited to our enemies or to those reasonably suspected of being our enemies. And, as everyone knows by now, those procedural hurdles are extremely reasonable and easy to satisfy: (1) if you’re in a hurry, you can wiretap without a warrant and file a retroactive application within 72 hours; (2) it’s all done through a secret court to avoid public disclosures; and (3) the court is so receptive to these wiretap requests that it approved approximately 99% of the applications received during its quarter-century of existence.
As I’ve said all along, arguing about whether a warrant should be required to listen to al-Qaeda’s conversations is like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It’s a purely academic issue. The real issue is that, unless you have your head completely stuck in the sand, you should recognize that there’s wiretapping going on that extends beyond just “al-Qaeda’s conversations.” You should know that because the President and the Attorney General and everyone else keep saying, “we have this program that is limited to al-Qaeda’s conversations,” and then they go on to say “everything I’m talking about is limited specifically to ‘that program.'” They wouldn’t need a disclaimer if there weren’t other programs that go further.
And the real, bottom-line issue is that if you accept the President’s position, then there’s simply no way to verify the truth of what he’s saying. There’s no way for anyone to know for sure what wiretapping programs exist or whether they are limited to “al-Qaeda’s conversations,” because the President is rejecting any form of oversight. Even the much-ballyhooed briefings with eight members of Congress, by all accounts, were simply broad descriptions with no details to speak of and no means of verification. The point that the president is not a monarch doesn’t simply mean that his powers are limited; it also means that we should never be in the position of having to simply take his word that he’s following the law.
danelectro
stop lying mishu.
pb
mishu,
Yeah, whatever happened to that…
Those were the days…
mishu
How is that not advice or consent? He told him not to speak to anyone about it because oh…. word might get out and the intelligence trail might dry up? Just taking guesses here.
No shit sherlock. Don’t get much past you.
This is not about intercepting conversations between people in the United States. This is hot pursuit of communications entering or leaving America involving someone we believe is associated with al Qaeda.
— Former NSA director General Michael V. Hayden
mishu
the court held that the Executive Branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when “the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators,” and “the surveillance is conducted ‘primarily’ for foreign intelligence reasons.”
On Motions for Review of Orders of the United States
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(Nos. 02-662 and 02-968)
jaime
Telling Senators that they’ll be breaking the law if they spoke about this to anyone, even their staff is not advice and consent.
.
Right, so using an example of rape as used on a T.V. show is not even close to what we’re talking about you dumb fuck.
Pooh
Al, I’m pretty much in agreement with your last post. And I think you and Steve are saying roughly the same things in slightly different terms.
I think we agree that within a certain sphere of action, the President has plenary authority (limited only by the power of the purse?) The issue here is that if the President is the sole aribiter of the boundaries of that sphere, the exception swallows the rule in one gulp.
I’ve been saying all along that I’m agnostic as to the merits of the underlying program. I guess I’m skeptical in so far as this analysis applies. That being said, spying on Al Qaeda is good, and I think Congress would agree. If the administration is doing something it couldn’t sell that’s certainly a black mark against it. And there are reasons we have the procedures in place which we do, Steve has layed them out pretty well above, so I won’t rehash.
And all these months later, I’m still left with my original question of why not get warrants (administrative delays are a crap reason. If you’re serious about this you set up a system where by god you wake someone up at 3 in the morning a get a signature if you need it) or ammend the law?
jaime
Maybe mishu can give you a link to an episode of 24 to answer that.
WWJBD?
jg
Ummm, no he didn’t. He said this is what I’m doing and you can’t tel anybody about it. He didn’t go to them and ask if he could do it, he didn’t seek anvice or consent.
Probable cause? Why do you keep refuting points no one is making? No one is disputing the probable cause. No one will ever stand in his way when it comes to tracking down Al Qaeda. All we ask is that he show us that that is what he’s doing. Don’t tell us not to question his actions. Don’t tell us we’re wrong to want to know hes’ doing what he says he’s doing.
pb
jg,
There’s a probable cause standard in the Fourth Amendment, but that’s required just to get (tada!) a warrant!
Other than that, if you can decode anything resembling sense from mishu’s ramblings, then more power to you, brother.
Brian
Who has given me an “asswhipping” here? Ever?
You’re incapable of it. At worst, you’re a collection of mongoloid ankle-biters. Pesty, but not much worse.
Geez, Congress’s leadership tried to put Feingold’s measure to a vote, and the Dem’s distanced themselves from it and wouldn’t allow the vote. Like with the Murtha resolution, they pussed out.
Democrats: No backbone. No leadership. No scruples. No principles. No balls.
The Other Steve
Steve wrote:
I finally got a chance this past weekend to see “Good Luck and Good Night”.
I think it’s fair to say that this is the only play the Republicans have when they’re trying to make partisan gains out of national problems.
If they were smart, they’d actually try to work to solve the problems… but then that would cut into their primary playbook.
The Other Steve
Can we go back to calling Bush, “Dear Leader”? I know John blew a gasket when that was used before, but it really does seem to be appropriate.
The Other Steve
Brian: No matter what someone does, he’ll try to spin it into the negative.
Why do you hate America, Brian?
jg
Republicans: Sucking up to any and all interest groups they can in order to get elected so they can work to protect Muffy and Todd’s inheritance. But hey, at least they ain’t pussies, right?
jaime
The Murtha resolution was never put to a vote.
jaime
Only when it was their time to serve in Vietnam…or whenever a mean owd wiberal said awful mean things about them.
Steve
Tomorrow, the Republicans will bring up for a vote a resolution by Jeff Sessions stating that the President should be drawn and quartered on The Mall for opposing al-Qaeda.
Republicans will call it the “Feingold Resolution.” It will, of course, be overwhelmingly defeated.
John Cole will show up here to loudly declare that this resolution was exactly the same as Feingold’s actual resolution, and this just proves that the Democrats have no ability to take a stand and that’s why he won’t be voting for them.
Feingold’s actual censure resolution will be lost in some committee somewhere and never heard from again.
I don’t know why I can make these predictions with such confidence. Perhaps it’s deja vu.
Neo
To make the night complete, perhaps the House should take and immediate vote on H.R. 4210, the Tupac Amaru Shakur Records Collection Act of 2005.
S.W. Anderson
Which as this plays out will reveal how few Republican senators really admire a leader who knows and speaks his mind, who acts on his principles and isn’t afraid to persist when his decision proves unpopular in some quarters.
In other words, a whole lot of Bush-backing Republicans senators are about to be hoist on their own petard.
mishu
Aaaaaaannnnnnnnd splat!
don surber
It never occurs to you that maybe the Democratic senators know a little more about the situation than y’all do. Gee, Ted Kennedy, Bob Byrd and Barbara Boxer are just lackeys of the administration?
You have nothing on Bush. If you did someone other than Feingold would be calling for soemthing stronger than this
By the way, they did vote on Murtha’s proposal, calling for “immediate withdrawal” insted of “immediate redeployment”
Brian
Right, right……we suck up to Big Labor, NOW, the NAACP, Hollywood celebrities, the ACLU, trial lawyers, NARAL, Emily’s List, NEA, AAUW…..we’re total suck-upd to these groups, and more.
Like you said, any and all groups. You clearly have a lazy mind.
Brian
Oh, really? Feingold wouldn’t even stick around to vote on his own damned motion today. What principles?
Democratic strategy: open zipper, step on dick.
jaime
Um…no they didn’t, moron.
Steve
Well, that’s exactly what I said they would do in this case, Don. They’ll vote on Feingold’s resolution, just they’ll change it to say something else first.
Just for the record, here is Murtha’s resolution, which, oddly, doesn’t contain the words “immediate redeployment” that “journalist” Don Surber put in quotes:
Now, the GOP resolution, in its entirety:
It’s truly amazing that sycophants exist who will claim these two resolutions were substantively identical, and that the GOP, by refusing to let the former resolution come to the floor and trying to call the latter resolution the “Murtha Resolution,” wasn’t simply lying. And when I say sycophants, I mean clinically insane people who enjoy utterly denying reality.
If the GOP honestly believed that the vote on Murtha’s actual resolution would have been the same as the vote on the made-up resolution they tried to stick his name on, they simply would have let Murtha’s resolution come to the floor. If partisan Republicans were like “ha, look what a brilliant political ploy we pulled with that bait-and-switch,” I’d at least respect them for being honest. But when they try to claim that Murtha’s resolution actually did get voted on, it makes me wonder if there’s any talking point whatsoever that they won’t mindlessly parrot?
Steve
There was no vote today, as you surely know. The Republicans tried to push it to an immediate vote so there couldn’t be any debate on the resolution, or to put it another way, they’re afraid to talk about the idea of censure.
Watch how the same Republicans who tried to push an early vote with no debate will now use procedural tricks to prevent the resolution from ever coming up for a vote. Just watch. They’ll block it and then they’ll try to claim that even Democrats were overwhelmingly against it, it’s just that, you know, they for some reason didn’t feel like holding a vote that they would win handily.
Pooh
Give it an up or down vote! Oh wait, that’s only for appointing Claude Allen to the Federal bench.
CaseyL
‘Thugs say Feingold’s doing this because he’s going to run for the Presidency.
Which is an odd thing for them to say, really.
Because that means the ‘Thugs believe censuring Bush would be a good thing for Feingold’s campaign.
And that means ‘Thugs realize Americans would support censuring Bush.
So, if Americans support censure, why are the ‘Thugs opposing it?
Don’t they care what Americans want?
don surber
Hey, Feingold wants to run for prez, go ahead. it bothers me not
But if you think after McCain-Feingold’s assault on the First Amendment this fella is protecting your rights, you are ill-informed
I say vote the Censure up or down
Just like Murtha was. 403-3. even Murtha could not vote for Murtha
don surber
Steve: “And when I say sycophants, I mean clinically insane people who enjoy utterly denying reality.”
Steve, another person who cannot argue facts or logic and so resorts to ad hominem attacks.
Except his vocabulary is so limited he must resort to redefining what few words he has
LOL
The difference between “immediate redeployment” and “immediate withdrawal” is ???
don surber
“Five minutes is all it takes, really. Less, if you’re not that chatty. In five minutes, you can speak up for the rule of the law. In five minutes, you can put your own footprint in history, as one of the mass of millions who advocated for the censure of a President who broke the law. Years from now, no matter what the outcome, you can look back and say you stood up when Congress stood down, you pushed your party forward no matter how much it wanted to cower back in the shadows. Are you ready?”
Daily Kos. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/13/92636/8829
So much for the argunment that Republicans want a vote without a debate
SeesThroughIt
…the term “earliest practicable date,” which conservatives always seem to intetionally neglect when discussing this. And that’s exactly what Steve (correctly) argued–GOPers took Murtha’s idea, recast as something similar-sounding but in reality quite different, called it “Murtha’s plan,” and then held a vote on it. If they really wanted to hold a vote on Murtha’s plan, why didn’t they, ya know, vote on Murtha’s actual plan without all the transmogrification?
Steve
Funny how after I call Don Surber on a lie, he just ignores it and continues falsely claiming that Murtha’s resolution contained the quote “immediate redeployment.” That’s just not a quote from the resolution, no matter how many times you lie about it.
And not only does he ignore the exposure of his lie, but he goes on to say I have no facts to offer, only ad hominem attacks. Well, it’s true, if you ignore all the facts, then I have no facts!
Remember, this is the same guy who says that liberals smile and cheer every time an innocent Iraqi gets killed. I don’t delude myself thinking that I will get through to him, but I do hope these little exchanges provide entertainment to someone.
don surber
Steve:
Keep arguing that Murtha did not call for the troops to be withdrawn within six months, no ifs, ands or buts. Fact is, when they had the chance to vote for that dopey plan Democrats ducked
And they duck on this censure thing because it is just as dopey.
Democrats keep playing this war as politics rather than war. The people are very unhappy with the Republican administration’s handling of the war. Democrats offer semantics games and parliamentary tricks
At least this time you abandoned your ad hominem attack long enough to actually think before replying. I am making some progress.
All this macho talk about senators having balls is laughable. And sexist. Feinstein has no balls. I will put her courage up against most male senators. Dem, Rep, doesn’t matter
Pooh
Don, you’re worse at this then Sen. Darrell. At least he has the good graces to skulk off when he gets caught in a sticky attribution wicket…
Steve
Wait, wait, now Murtha’s resolution is “withdraw within 6 months”? I thought it was “immediate withdrawal”? Are those two things synonymous on your planet, as well?
Murtha’s resolution, which Don Surber still can’t seem to read even though I quoted it above, does indeed call for redeployment “at the earliest practicable date.” Now, that probably means within 6 months, but it’s clear that the ultimate call on timing would be made by the military and the CIC. And Murtha’s resolution said some other pretty important things, too, which somehow didn’t make it into the GOP “immediate withdrawal” resolution.
And that’s what makes the bottom line this: if you say Congress voted on the Murtha Resolution, as so many Republicans have tried to claim, then you’re just a liar. You’re just a liar.
RonB
Remember, folks, the right wing approach to politics is more of a religion than a collection of principles or issues. They receive the liturgy, and proselytize. There’s no convincing them of anything until they stop believing.
rachel
Yeah, I noticed that too. I wonder if maybe he has some kind of mental disability; aphasia or dyslexia or something like that.
Kermit
What the FISA cpurt does is provide oversight on the process. Many here are assuming that only calls to Al Qaueda are being monitored. How do you know that? Because they say so? The purpose of the FISA court is to confirm and verify that the subjects of the tap are indeed warranted for surveillance. Without this oversight, the president could order taps on ANYONE, be it the minority leader, the news director of CNN, Tim Russert, or anyone else and there would be no check on that power. Many Bush supporters trust the president so this doesn’t seem to concern them, but that is oh so short sighted. i.e. what about President Clinton II. For those of us who don’t trust him, it seems dangerous. Remember, those powers that government gets are usually given forever and checks on power serve the purpose of institutionally protecting the people from truly malevolent leaders who, as history shows, have a way of getting into positions of power.
The Other Steve
Don,
You’d go a lot further in your arguments if you’d admit the facts instead of trying to spin the argument like Brain does.
ppGaz
The question here is whether you are going to let Don Surber create a deflection by arguing about the Murtha resolution. In the real world, the people have moved way ahead of the government on these issues. Two thirds of the people think that Iraq is a mistake, can’t succeed, or is being mishandled by the government.
This issue got off about three exits back. Congress is a place where games of power and manipulation are played for sport. Daily, and constantly.
This administration wanted, and got, an impotent Congress that would lie down for its steamroller approach to government. What it failed to take into account was the effect this would have on the population at large.
Meanwhile, there are a few individuals who will stand up in the roll-over, impotent Congress, and say and do the right thing. Individuals like Murtha, and Feingold.
Rather than argue over whether the self-serving Congress-cowards who run with the pack or have their eyes on future elections are going to support the Murthas and the Feingolds … because clearly they are not, at this point … focus on where the country at large is wrt to the issues. The country is way ahead of the government, and the media, at this point. That’s all that will matter in the long run.
Brian
Don is correct on Murtha. All the GOP did was bring to a vote his salient point on the disposition of the troops. They cut to the chase and put it to a vote, and the Dem’s voted it down. They had the perfect opportunity, as they did yesterday with Feingold’s motion, to take a stand.
Predictably, they folded.
It’s beyond me why you cannot see Feingold’s naked political opportunism in his motion for censure. He’s a guy wanting to make a name for himself outside his state of Wisconsin as he makes a run-up to ’08. This has zero to do with principles. Fortunately, he’s unelectable no matter what he does.
Steve
It’s pretty amazing that every statement of Brian’s manages to be exactly 180 degrees from the truth. It’s not even worth responding.
Brian
Murtha stated in November, at a news conference, that “immediate redeployment” of troops is what he sought. He also used “immediate withdrawal” at the same conference.
Hillary Clinton later said that immediate redeployment was not a good idea, when referring to Murtha’s resolution.
The Associated Press, when referring to Murtha, used the words “today Murtha called for immediate withdrawal”.
Why are you trying to hide from this fact? How is this “180 degrees from the truth”?
Stop pussing out.
Steve
I’m not going to argue this. You know Murtha’s actual resolution was significantly different from the resolution the GOP tried to call the “Murtha Resolution,” and if you somehow don’t understand this, scroll up to where I posted the text of both.
How can I respond to lie after lie after lie? If you stubbornly want to keep insisting “no, I don’t care what you say, they’re the same resolution” then more power to you.