Centerfield

But you begin from the premise that the President has done something wrong and unauthorized by the Consititution and laws of this country. I disagree with that. This is not "domestic spying". This is spying on phone calls between someone outside this country and, sometimes, someone inside this country. The people outside this country are people whom the U.S. military, generally, has reason to believe are agents of Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization dedicated to destroying the Western way of life. I do NOT want the people in charge of protecting us to have to waste hours and days of precious human resources to document and justify exactly why there is probable cause to believe that each and every one of those phone calls will provide evidence of a crime.

That is the thinking which kept the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement community from working together to monitor communications between bin Laden and al-Zwahiri and the 9/11 hijackers.

Posted by: PatHMV at February 6, 2006 03:44 PM

It takes 2 people to have a power struggle, remember. This is an institutional fight between Congress and the President, not so much between Republicans and Democrats. NRO has an excellent post linking to and quoting extensively from Clinton-administration officials about the inherent Constitutional powers of the President. Of course, those were memos written while those officials were in office. Now that a Republican President is using the same legal arguments, they have switched sides.

Posted by: PatHMV at February 6, 2006 03:51 PM

You say: "This argument doesn't wash, is at best debatable ..."

The debate is what we're having now.
The president's argument, therfore, is *at least* debatable. I'd say you're doing the same "assuming as fact" that you criticize the president and his supporters for doing.

Should we be discussing a new set of statutues and processes. Yes, probably. But the fact that we're not (yet) is the fault of leaders on *both* sides of the aisle.

Posted by: Michael at February 6, 2006 03:59 PM

Pat,

I never assumed that the President knowingly broke the law. We know that he's been using the program, and he has justified it based on the argument of implicit power from Congress. I'm not sure if that holds (maybe I'm wrong). I still don't get why he can't just go to FISA, or ask Congress for broader and more flexible powers (which why we're having the hearings now, I hope).

Keep in mind, that I'm not one of those calling for prosecution for crimes here. Some are, but I more than willing to accept the fact that rigrt after 9/11, Bush made split-second judgment calls. However, we know that these taps might be suspect, and if he has to get authorization in accordance with the law, then he has to do that. If he needs broader powers, then Congress should give him those powers. He can't just assume he already has them though.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at February 6, 2006 04:05 PM

Mike,

I'm 100 percent for the hearings. I'm all for the debate. My point was that it seems to me that a lot of people aren't really for these hearings, and aren't open to persuasion either way.

This refers to both sides, BTW.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at February 6, 2006 04:09 PM

Can anybody explain what is the difference between this NSA program and the others that have been in use since the 70's? Project Echelon and Carnivore were in use under Clinton and you didn't have this bru-ha-ha over that.... and that was before 3000 people were murdered by Al Queida!!!

Are you seriously claiming that international 'communication with known Al Queida operatives', whether they are initiated within this country our outside of the country, do not 'fall under foreign intelligence'??? Are you saying that Al Queida agents within this country aren't a foreign agent??? If you agreee that an Al Queida operative in the US is a 'foreign agent' then FISA doesn't have any jurisdiction over it - it falls under constitutional authority of the President.

"Why don't we just agree that the President's authority in this area is suspect, debate what FISA safeguards are or need to be in place, and work it out? Why can't we just go to FISA with this, if only for the sake of public confidence? I know some people want to impeach over this, but that's an extreme position, just as extreme as the position that the President has theoretically unlimited powers, and those who challenge that are hurting the war effort."

Why are they suspect??? Because Bush is a Republican??? They weren't 'suspect' under Clinton and that was before 3000 people were murdered, that was before Congress gave additional powers to the president in pursuing 'those that he believes were involved in attacking us on 9/11'.... To pretend that Congress gave the President the power to comitt our troops and invade a country but not to gather intelligence on possible operatives within our own boarders is just to asinine to believe!!!

How can you POSSIBLY pretend that revealing this program in the media and carrying out this ridiculous charade doesn't hurt the war effort??? Are you really such a 'partisan hack' that you can blind yourself to the harm of revealing these types of national security secrets??? Surely you aren't asking us to believe that there wasn't any harm done, right??? How about the 'would be Brooklyn Bridge bomber' demanding his conviction be set aside because of this??? How about the stories about large numbers of the 'pay as you use' cell phones being sold to men of Middle Eastern decent - these are much harder to track because they aren't registered to just one user.... don't think it's possible they have been paying attention to the news????

As for the impeachment remark, that is exactly why this was released and is being played up by the Democrats - especially since they weren't the least bit upset over projects Echelon and Carnivore....

"However, American citizens may have been wiretapped, they may have been illegal, and let's not neglect the long term. What about future Presidents? This is going to be a long war. This may be a losing issue politically for the Dems, but there are larger principles at work here."

The NSA has been doing since Carter's presidency - and it will be doing it forever....

Posted by: deb at February 6, 2006 04:24 PM

Actually, from what little we know, the program is LESS invasive than what previous presidents have done under executive authority.

From Gonzalez's editorial brief in todays WSJ:

In World War I, Wilson authorized the interception of ALL telegraph, telephone and cable communications into and out of the U.S....In World War II, Roosevelt authorized the interception of all communications traffic into and out of the U.S.

ALL traffic. No screening to eliminate the 99.999% of traffic that isn't suspicious and keep it from ever being reviewed by a human being. No "targeted" interception restricted to terrorist contacts. ALL traffic.

In fact, as the NYT reports today, this isn't even close to a "new" debate. The same things were argued about in 1975, when two ongoing programs were brought to light. One of them, MINARET, was initiated by the LBJ admin in 1967, and involved the targeting of the international communications of those with "suspected involvement in four kinds of activities: terrorism; drug trafficking; threats to the president; and civil disturbances with "possible foreign support or influence..."

MINARET was stopped by the Nixon administration in 1973, when Attorney General Elliot Richardson terminated it with the "official" end of the Vietnam War. The end of war powers, in his opinion, meant the end of constitutional authority for the program.

SHAMROCK was stopped by the Ford administration, when it came to light in the press and Congress. SHAMROCK was begun in 1945, the successor to FDR's war orders, and involved the interception of ALL trans-border telegrams in and out of the US.

Shall we count the presidents that asserted that executive authority by actually using it? Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon. Ford didn't assert it (that we know of) but we weren't at war. Same with Carter. No word on Reagan or Bush 1. During the Carter admin FISA was passed--but no statute can legitimately encroach the constitutional authority of another branch. Carter asserted he possessed the executive authority to conduct warrantless searches for national security purposes. As did Clinton.

No, it's not all that muddy, and any honest debate is over one of two things, or both. One, does Congress have the constitutional right to encroach a traditional executive authority through statute? Two, is narrowly targetted signals intel as described a legitimate "war power," thus falling under the AUMF and the statutory exemptions of FISA? You have to answer "No" to both questions to reach any supportable claim of illegal action. If the narrow and targeted program described is not illegal, then there is no legitimate reason to drag out the classified details and destroy its usefullness.

We have yet to hear of one single verified case of any American, innocent or not, having their rights violated by the program.

Posted by: Tully at February 6, 2006 04:25 PM

Woops. You have to answer yes to the first and no to the second--that'll teach not to proofread...

Posted by: Tully at February 6, 2006 05:04 PM

Gonzalez's complete statement is here.

Posted by: Tully at February 6, 2006 05:06 PM

Rafique, by throwing in that clarifier, "knowingly", you again just asserted that the President did indeed break the law and does not have the authority he has asserted.

There have been many commentators who have explained, at length, why the NSA program is legal and why applying for a FISA warrant will not work. For legality, check out John Hinderaker's post at PowerLine. Hinderaker also explains why the 72 hours doesn't solve the problems necessitating the NSA program. Powerline also reports General Michael Hayden's explanation of the program itself and why FISA won't work in these circumstances.

As General Hayden, a former director of the NSA, notes, FISA does NOT let the NSA just start listening in, then do the paperwork 72 hours later. ONLY the Attorney General himself can authorize a pre-warrant wiretap, and he can do so only if he believes that there is sufficient evidence to justify the wiretap under the FISA statute. That requires NSA to fill out the paperwork and show it to the Attorney General before even BEGINNING to listen to a wiretap under FISA. The Attorney General cannot legally authorize beginning the 72-hour wiretap unless he has been given all the information required to justify one. And if the warrant is then denied by the FISA court, all data gathered under it must be immediately destroyed under FISA. Read all 3 Powerline posts. They address all these issues very clearly.

This is a war, folks. The enemy has attacked our embassies, our military (the U.S.S. Cole), and finally our sovereign territory. If that's not a war, I don't know what is. And in a time of war, I don't want careful, cautious, ponderously slow judges, accustomed to fighting crime after the fact rather than stopping it beforehand, deciding which of the enemies' communications the officials charged with defending us can listen to. Frankly, it's the calls from Al Qaeda into the United States that scare me the most, so they're the ones I most want listened to.

Posted by: PatHMV at February 6, 2006 05:40 PM

Let me try another tack. Rafique, you say: "If he [the President] needs broader powers, then Congress should give him those powers. He can't just assume he already has them though."

Does the President need Congress to give him the authority to sign bills into law? Does the President need Congress to authorize him to grant a pardon or reprieve of a convicted criminal? Of course not. Those powers are granted to the President in Article 2, section 2 of the Constitution. The Constitution likewise grants the President the authority to be the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States". The NSA is located within the Defense Department, pursuant to 10 USC sec. 201, and its director is always a commissioned officer of the military services, though the deputy director is always a civilian.

As you will see from the Powerline articles, the courts have interpreted the Constitution as giving the President wide latitude in the conduct of foreign affairs and much exclusive authority in the conduct of military affairs. Just as the President cannot impose taxes, neither can Congress act as commander-in-chief of the military. Having been authorized by Congress to use all force necessary to prevent another attack against America, the President has all the authority he needs right now; no further Congressional granting of authority is necessary. Indeed, once Congress has declared war (and the authorization for use of force is a declaration of war from a constitutional stand point), it is entirely and solely up to the President how to prosecute that war. There is a strong case to be made that Congress could not legally make him stop anyway, and certainly not without revoking the use of force authorization.

Posted by: PatHMV at February 6, 2006 06:07 PM

If the program is exactly as the President says, I have no problem with it. However, I would like to see the executive branch a little more open to oversight on what has been reviewed and kept. That lack of oversight is my only concern. Just goes back to the old dirty tricks days. I have an inherently cynical view of the motives of people who pursue power. Even though I voted for Bush, this administration gives me the creeps when it comes to how secret it is. I trust him with the cookie jar; but I do want someone to count the cookies at the end of the day. I think a modified FSIA can be set up to handle this.

Of course, the executive office is claiming that this is strictly their domain. Hence, no oversight is required. Truthfully, I think a hearing is a bit silly. This sounds more like something that should be refered to a special meeting of the SCOTUS. In private session, if need be. Just let the SCOUTUS decide who this falls under.

Posted by: Jim M at February 6, 2006 06:35 PM

As far as the declaration of war. I have to be honest, I never saw one. This is a grey area. Congressional intent would be paramount. If it is not a true declaration of war, does Congress have the power to remove certain authorizations? Once again, Congress and vauge ambiguous wording leaves a lot open to interpetation. I think this is also an issue that may have to come before the SCOTUS.

A secondary question to all of this would be, can Congress and the President waive Constitutional rights are restrict them for civilians in times of war. Of course, if we are not in a time of war, I think the answer to that is straight forward.

It may be a case that it must be legally determined if Congress gave the Constitutional Equivilant of a Declaration of War. Then, if they did, the question on the Presidents and/or Congress rights to bypass currently granted Constitutional rights during a time of war.

Hopefully, Congress and the President can come to an agreement without having to resort to the SCOUTUS. So maybe hearings are a good idea after all. If they can't, I think that these will have to be the issues that are argued infront of the court.

Posted by: Jim M at February 6, 2006 06:48 PM

Jim, as for your secondary question, the answer is no, although Presidents from Lincoln through FDR have anyway. But the 4th Amendment does not generally apply to cross-border transactions. There is no constitutional right to not be searched when you cross the border coming into this country, whether you are a citizen or not. I'm not sure if the Court has addressed international phone calls specifically, but I think the same result would apply.

The arguments will be addressed to the Court, ultimately. But rather than taking place in a vacuum or as part of a political circus, they will take place in the context of specific cases with specific facts by specific individuals asserting their own particular rights were infringed. One Al Qaeda operative is already challenging the case against him on the grounds that it stemmed from the NSA program. If you or any other citizen is harassed or harmed by the government as a result of the program, you will also have an opportunity to seek redress in court.

As to your suspicions of the President, I do agree that we should always be skeptical of power. But if the Bush Administration has already used this program to eavesdrop on purely domestic calls for political purposes, or even for ordinary law enforcement, I feel quite certain that the lawbreakers who revealed this classified information to the New York Times would have revealed that abuse of the program as well. They have not. To me, that is a strong indication that no such abuses have occured thus far.

Posted by: PatHMV at February 6, 2006 06:58 PM

As far as the declaration of war. I have to be honest, I never saw one. This is a grey area. Congressional intent would be paramount. If it is not a true declaration of war, does Congress have the power to remove certain authorizations?

A congressional authorization to use military force IS a "declaration of war" for all intents and purposes. The only difference is rhetorical, not substantive. Congress has NO power to authorize the use of military force other than the power to declare war, and the power to punish piracies and "offenses against the law of nations," which are functional equivalents of war. An AUMF is an exercise of the Congressional war power--the rest is puffery. But the execution of all military powers is vested in the executive.

I've heard the "no declaration of war" argument endlessly, since I was a kid during the Vietnam years. Almost always from someone wanting to promote the "illegal war" argument. But it's an empty argument if Congress has authorized war powers--and they did.

Posted by: Tully at February 6, 2006 07:30 PM

I would like to see the cout issue a definitive answer to the question as to if an authorization to use force is a declaration of war. Going back to a more originalist stance, I do not think it is a Declaration as defined by the Constitution. A Declaration was a specific tool has had specific meanings in International Diplomacy. However, my opinion, nor anyone elses is really of consequence. It would be the opinion of the nine Justices that do.

My questions as to legality do not refer to the international aspect. If there is no check on if this is not being used for domestic purposes, how can rights be protected? Simply put, there is no way to know if the NSA is only listening to calls with International endpoints. This is another case of the Executive branch saying "trust us." I don't think the idea of trust was ever in the Constitution. It was meant to force these arguments to prevent one branch from running without proper balance. To me, submitting records after the fact of domestic contacts to a secret court is perfectly reasonable. The only reason that the President has not asked for a modification of FISA is that he feels that there is no Constitutional check on that power.

My personal feeling is that the prior precedents may apply; but I do not feel that there is a strong enough case to say it is so without bringing it before the Court. The Court may agree that Congress gave a Declaration. If that is the case, my guess is that they will become much more difficult for future Presidents to get. I would like to see some answers. I prefer that to a witchhunt hearing.

Posted by: Jim M at February 6, 2006 10:27 PM

Pat,
Perhaps you've never bothered to read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which states, "Congress has the power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." Since, as you point out, the NSA counts as "land and naval forces" the President does NOT have the authority to make rules governing them. In other words, the Constitution unambiguously grants the power to Congress to create things like FISA that "govern" the NSA. As Commander in Chief, the President's duty is to lead the armed forces under the laws spelled out by Congress. Sorry, but that old canard about the President being able to set up military policy in wartime is against the Constitution.

Posted by: Elrod at February 7, 2006 12:46 AM

"Does the President need Congress to give him the authority to sign bills into law? Does the President need Congress to authorize him to grant a pardon or reprieve of a convicted criminal? Of course not. Those powers are granted to the President in Article 2, section 2 of the Constitution. The Constitution likewise grants the President the authority to be the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States".

Pat,

The President has full power to act as Commander-in-Chief, but he doesn't have unlimited power. I understand your argument that the President has inherent powers in this case, even if I don't entirely agree with it. What I'm trying to say is that this point is debatable.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at February 7, 2006 04:04 AM

OK, I just want to set some things straight. Some people are getting the false idea that I'm trying to simply bash Bush here. That's not my intention. I'm no partisan hack, as one commenter pointed out. I'm just trying to understand all this, and call for honest debate.

As Elrod pointed out, Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress powers to regulate conduct in war. Also the Congress, in its inherent power to declare war (or to authorize AUMFs), can determine the limits of the power to give the President. FISA is an example of this. With regards to warantless wiretaps of Americans, IMHO, the President needs FISA approval. If this is too restrictive to fight an effective terror war, then he can go to Congress or FISA, and settle it there.

As far as what Clinton did or didn't do, I think there's some dispute.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at February 7, 2006 04:22 AM

I got very well what you were trying to say and I totally agree with you.

Posted by: christ at February 7, 2006 07:36 AM

Rafique, I agree that the answer is not crystal clear one way or the other, and I at least certainly do not think you are just engaging in "bashing" (although I do think you begin from a position of having already decided the President broke the law, though not "knowingly"). I'm just debating the issue, as you call for. Elrod's comment is a fair point, but not an absolute answer. The Congress can pass the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, but it cannot, for example, pass a law designating what targets should be hit and when.

I won't repeat all the citations to judicial opinions discussing the President's inherent constitutional authority over a variety of matters under the foreign affairs category, including wiretaps in particular, but they are all cited in the Powerline articles I cited above. Here's a very brief summary of the argument:

Let me start with a general proposition that I believe to be uncontroversial: there are circumstances in which the President may appropriately decline to enforce a statute that he views as unconstitutional.

First, there is significant judicial approval of this proposition. Most notable is the Court's decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There the Court sustained the President's view that the statute at issue was unconstitutional without any member of the Court suggesting that the President had acted improperly in refusing to abide by the statute. More recently, in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." Id. at 906 (Scalia, J., concurring); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (recognizing existence of President's authority to act contrary to a statutory command).

Second, consistent and substantial executive practice also confirms this general proposition. Opinions dating to at least 1860 assert the President's authority to decline to effectuate enactments that the President views as unconstitutional. See, e.g., Memorial of Captain Meigs, 9 Op. Att'y Gen. 462, 469-70 (1860) (asserting that the President need not enforce a statute purporting to appoint an officer); see also annotations of attached Attorney General and Office of Legal Counsel opinions. Moreover, as we discuss more fully below, numerous Presidents have provided advance notice of their intention not to enforce specific statutory requirements that they have viewed as unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has implicitly endorsed this practice. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 942 n.13 (1983) (noting that Presidents often sign legislation containing constitutionally objectionable provisions and indicate that they will not comply with those provisions).

That, of course, was the opinion of Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger, who headed the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton Administration.

Additionally, you might want to read FISA itself, paying particular attention to the definition of "Electronic Surveillance" and "United States Person", to see if it truly is "violated" by interceptions of international calls as the program has been described by the Attorney General.

I really, truly do not want a Congressional debate disclosing in public the details of who we decide to listen to and when. And thus far, few critics of the Administration have shown any desire to "debate". They want to decry. Look at the Congressmen who have lined up to already state, point blank, that the President has engaged in "domestic spying" without any even colorable authorization in law. That's just not true no matter how you slice it.

I don't claim the President's power is unlimited (and neither has the President). If he were using the NSA program to knowingly monitor calls between two "United States persons" (as defined by FISA) who were both inside the United States without obtaining a FISA warrant, that would be illegal. But this program, as it has been described by the Attorney General and the leakers to the New York Times, is not, in my opinion, illegal.

Posted by: PatHMV at February 7, 2006 08:16 AM

Pat, I agree with what you saying about the program as stated being legal. I am not with the Democrats in calling this illegal. It is wrong for Congressman to state that he has engaged in domestic spying, without any proof.

However, events can not be held in a vacuum. I think the President is trying to assert a legitimate Presidential power. This assertation of power also brings it very close to the ragged edge of powers that it does not have and has abused in the past(not this administration; but others). If there is no oversight on the process, what assurances exist that the program does not cross over from right to wrong, even if by accident?

The President is playing hard ball in an area that he knows he has public opinion on his side. The Democrats are barking up the wrong tree and going at this the wrong way. There is a legitimate need for a check and balence just to make sure the power is not being abused. A three ring circus comittee meeting is not the way to handle this. This should be behind closed door sessions to hammer out a frame work of oversight. Both sides are too hard headed to do this approach. Democrats want to inflame and the President thinks he does not have to tell anything. In my opinion, both sides are in error. Take it behind closed doors, hammer something out. If that can't be done, then the Supreme Court should be asked to decide. Neither side seems to be acting in the best intrests of this country right now.

Posted by: Jim M at February 7, 2006 09:11 AM

Just as an historical highlight, the Myers v. United States decision mentioned above affirmed that laws such as the Tenure in Office Act, wherein Congress passes statutes that encroach on the executive's constitutional authorities, are themselves unconstitutional.

If you wonder why that's important go bone up on the impeachment of Andrew Johnson--who was impeached for refusing to abide by the Tenure of Office Act.

Posted by: Tully at February 7, 2006 09:46 AM

There is no doubt that the Tenure in Office Act was unconstitutional. It was a very clear violation of Constitutional executive power by Congress. Not sure that it applies to this argument though. The question should be, is there a consititutional reason for the legislative or judicial branch to have oversight on an area of executive branch where such activities could [key word, could] encroach on the Constitutional rights of individual citizens? The power to do the stated act exists. I think that has been laid out.

Posted by: Jim M at February 7, 2006 10:03 AM

There is no doubt that the Tenure in Office Act was unconstitutional. It was a very clear violation of Constitutional executive power by Congress. Not sure that it applies to this argument though.

Clear violation, yet it took sixty years to get a case before SCOTUS and obtain a ruling (by which time the Tenure of Office Act itself was long gone--Myers was a different-but-similar unconstitutional encroachment).

The application is obvious. No one really wants to step into the arena of a "powers and authorities" dogfight, because the stakes are too high in terms of institutional precedent. If it were a clear-cut winner for Congressional authority they'd be lining up to claim the territory. They're not.

This is why you won't see Congress doing anything but posturing on the issue. At best, they'll issue a limited statutory authorization to "allow" the executive to do what the executive can do anyway--and the executive will follow along "as a courtesy" without conceding one ounce of authority to Congress. Just as they have for decades. (The War Powers Act is a case in point.)

Not arguing, just noting the political realities. Yep, the issue is a loser for the critics. It's a bigger loser for Congress as a whole if they try to swing their weight around too far. The only other tools they have to weigh in with are defunding and impeachment. Not happening.

The point I have trouble with is the calls for expanded Congressional "oversight." Multiplying oversight details to Congresscritters is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenagers. There's a limit to how much oversight power you can give Congress when it comes to classified programs if they are to stay classified. The more who are "in the loop," the greater the odds that you might as well just take out full-page ads in the NYT.

Frankly, there's quite a few in Congress I wouldn't trust to keep a birthday party secret, much less a classified national defense program. Pat Leahy (among others) absolutely LEAPS to mind.

Posted by: Tully at February 7, 2006 10:37 AM

Jim says: Pat, I agree with what you saying about the program as stated being legal. I am not with the Democrats in calling this illegal. It is wrong for Congressman to state that he has engaged in domestic spying, without any proof.

Democrats have all of the proof that we need in the fact that Bush admitted it live during a press conference . It's pretty simple Bush said he spied without FISA warrants end of story.

As for proof that Bush did anything wrong it will be impossible for the Democrats for two reasons.One the Democrats are in the minority in both Houses and so only Republicans have subpoena power to obtain documents from the White House. Even if the Democrats did have subpoena power then the White House would stall until it was out of office and if the case happened to go to the Supreme Court Bush has five stooges who would definitely rule in his favor. So we will never know exactly whom Bush was spying on, but if the story of Bush calling the editor and owner of the NYT to the Oval Office I have a feeling it was more than terrorists.

Posted by: Roderick at February 7, 2006 03:37 PM

Democrats have all of the proof that we need in the fact that Bush admitted it live during a press conference . It's pretty simple Bush said he spied without FISA warrants end of story.

Simple lines for simple minds.

Posted by: Tully at February 7, 2006 03:43 PM

Sure, Roderick, certainly don't bother to actually read FISA or anything. Uncle Teddy told you what FISA says and that's all you need to know, right?

Posted by: PatHMV at February 7, 2006 03:55 PM

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but please, don't throw sticks and stones. :-P

Let me stick my devil horns on here and ask that if what W did was perfectly legal, and a political winner, then why is Turdblossom going to the mattresses with his own party? (This is from Insight, by the way, about as far from a lefty blog as you can get.)

Posted by: Blue Jean at February 7, 2006 06:21 PM

Because this is an institutional fight between the Office of the President and Congress, Jean. It's partly partisan too, of course, but as Tully pointed out earlier, it is merely the latest in a long string of tussles between two constitutional branches of government each trying to protect their constitutional turf. The checks and balances of the system are designed to be between the branches of government, not between the parties. Those Senators who have been in the Senate for a long time, like Specter and Byrd, tend to be Senators first and partisans second (very, very loosely speaking).

Posted by: PatHMV at February 7, 2006 06:51 PM

Pat;
I don't often agree with Jean (and I'm probably not here) but I did listen to all this and think of just two words "lame duck"

PS I agree that there's much of this that is a executive/legislative branch fight.

Posted by: c3 at February 7, 2006 07:13 PM

Nothing wrong with agreeing with Jean, Chris. She's generally right about everything except politics... ;)

And yeah, I'm afraid there is a hint of lame duck in there, which I think is unfortunate for the system generally. Campaigns start waaayyyy too early these days.

Posted by: PatHMV at February 7, 2006 07:39 PM

I'm shocked--shocked!--to discover politics going on in Washington in an election year....

Basically, Jean, it's the admin telling GOP Congresscritters that if they wanna promote Congressional authorities into a "powers" dogfight, they can't expect to get any party support. Nothing new there.

The admin left Congress an "out" in their offered authorities, room to dodge the "authorities and powers" fight. By offering the statutory argument, they left it open for Congress to disagree and still offer them a narrowly crafted statutory exemption if they disagreed with the "authorities and powers" argument. No precedent set, narrow non-abusive statutory authority granted (or endorsed, depending on POV), and fighting it would be electoral poison. All without going into the muddy ground, or conceding anything.

The alternative is to go into a fight that Congress could easily lose, one that the polls indicate the public backs the admin on by 3 to 1.

Posted by: Tully at February 7, 2006 08:45 PM

Awww, guys, you're making me blush. ;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at February 7, 2006 11:34 PM

Though Pat is quite correct; I'm not right in politics: I'm usually slightly left of center. ;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at February 8, 2006 12:22 AM

Funny; GOP Rep. Heather Wilson has just come out for an investigation. I say it's funny because her state is near red, and she's in a tough fight. You'd think she want to run to the WH, not away from them.

Posted by: Blue Jean at February 8, 2006 11:41 AM