"...Senator Lindsey Graham, who yesterday called the justification "very dangerous in terms of its application for the future," and "When I voted for it [the joint resolution], I never envisioned that I was giving to this president or any other president the ability to go around FISA carte blanche" "And, if Bush is so eager to attack judges who "legislate from the bench," can't the Senate go after him for "judging from the Oval Office"?"
Definitely, opposition to the NSA spying is not confined to those pesky liberals. David Bier http://www.stephensonstrategies.com/2006/02/07.html#a709 Gonzales on warrantless wiretaps: we wanted something even worse (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020600195.html?sub=AR) We should accept the Bush Administration's warrant-less wiretaping program -- because what they really wanted to do was even worse. That seems to have been the logic (?) behind Atty. General Gonzales' testimony yesterday (remember, folks, this guy's still on the short list if there's another vacancy on the Supreme Court. Take your vitamins, Justice Stevens!) before the Judiciary Committee. Here's the guy's justification, as reported by the WaPo: "Gonzales also suggested in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the administration had considered a broader effort that would include purely domestic telephone calls and e-mail but abandoned the idea in part due to fears of the negative public reaction. 'Think about the reaction, the public reaction that has arisen in some quarters about this program,' Gonzales told Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.). 'If the president had authorized domestic surveillance as well, even though we're talking about al Qaeda-to-al Qaeda, I think the reaction would have been twice as great. And so there was a judgment made that this was the appropriate line to draw in ensuring the security of our country and the protection of the privacy interests of Americans.'" So bad PR was the deterrent? How about, Mr. Attorney General (who swore to uphold it) the Constitution as a reason why either scheme was flat out wrong? As a public service to those public officials who seem to have never studied it, we reprint here the Fourth Amendment (and handy hyperlinks to the National Constitution Center's Interactive Constitution (http://www.constitutioncenter.org/constitution/details_explanation.php?link=132&const=11_amd_04) discussion thereof, which some Executive Branch employees might want to explore at length): "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. " Is that wording ambiguous? Doesn't seem so to me. And, if Bush is so eager to attack judges who "legislate from the bench," can't the Senate go after him for "judging from the Oval Office"? Back to the substance. Gonzales refused to answer dozens of questions about the program or -- get this -- "whether President Bush has authorized other types of warrantless searches or surveillance in the United States." When will the other shoe drop about any other un-authorized programs -- and what's in that shoe? (http://www.cia.gov/spy_fi/item15.html) Gonzales again fell back on the Administration's 42-page justification for the program, and cited Joint Resolution 23 (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html) as the justification. I went back and re-read the Resolution, especially the key phrase, "... the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks." I can't for the life of me see how, by any means, this program constitutes "necessary and appropriate force," especially if Bush gets to act as judge and jury without judicial or Congressional review. Here's the deal, folks. As heinous, IMHO, this program is in its own right as a violation of the 4th Amendment, history will judge that if it goes unchecked, the far bigger problem is the precedent it creates for future presidents of any party or ideology to ignore Constitutional limits on their authority and the balance of powers. That's why it's also opposed by conservatives such as Bob Barr, (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/16/sitroom.03.html) David Keene of the American Conservative Union, (http://www.conservative.org/) and Senator Lindsey Graham, who yesterday called the justification "very dangerous in terms of its application for the future," and "When I voted for it [the joint resolution], I never envisioned that I was giving to this president or any other president the ability to go around FISA carte blanche" (and don't forget, as Keene points out, the war on terrorism is open-ended, so Bush and his successors might well claim they could continue these practices ad infinitim). The best line of the day? It belonged to Sen. Patrick Leahy, after Gonzales once again refused to answer questions: "Of course, I'm sorry, Mr. Attorney General, I forgot: You can't answer any questions that might be relevant to this." And let's give Senator Leahy the last word as well, from the closing lines of his opening statement: "I have many questions for the Attorney General. But first, I have a message to give him and the President. It is a message that should be unanimous, from every Member of Congress regardless of party and ideology. Under our Constitution, Congress is the co-equal branch of Government that makes the laws. If you believe we need new laws, you can come to us and tell us. If Congress agrees, we will amend the law. If you do not even attempt to persuade Congress to amend the law, you must abide by the law as written. That is as true for this President as it is for any other American. That is the rule of law, on which our Nation was founded, and on which it endures and prospers." That whirring sound people in the District hear today is coming from across the Potomac, at Gunston Hall, where George Mason is spinning in his grave.... -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
