So from Krauthamer’s point of view, in order for someone to be arrested for speeding, it would have to be shown he’d run over someone in a wheelchair? Or hit a pedestrian?

An interesting defense…somehow I don’t think our local judges would buy it.

Wouldn’t you be willing to bet that the likes of supercritics like Richard Clarke were surveilled in an attempt to get information that could be used to silence them?

Mary,

Great and helpful run through the cases. It gives me a start into further delving.

Your post was cut off. Please post the rest.

So you’re what kind of lawyer?

Prof

.

goodnight and good luck – thanks for your response and for the consideration

when I was spending a lot of time corresponding with soldiers, I often felt a sort of schizophrenia – during the 60’s I had done draft resistance work and I have friends who spent long years in jail for refusing to be drafted so I have never been promilitary

when Michael Moore promoted Books for Soldiers, I was intrigued – and I had by then known several friends of my daughter who joined up or were considering it and I had a real sense of the pressures and attitudes that led to those decisions – again, not a decision I approved of and with the kids I knew well enough to talk to, I certainly talked a lot about realities of war, Bush, etc

I also realized with some surprise that I had almost zero contact with anyone who had been a soldier – my father was thrown out after 2 days during Korea (wise choice by the mil! he was a socialist and a bit of an agitator) – my bros were the wrong ages, etc . so I had zero exposure to who individual young soldiers really were

when I looked at Books for Soldiers, the first thing that caught my eye was that one of them had requested a copy of the Phantom Tollbooth and that made me cry … and made that soldier a real person to me

from there, I got very involved and spent a lot of time corresponding over the next 1 1/2 years and I was impressed with the honor of these young people and the willingness to sacrifice – very oldfashioned values in many ways and in many ways quite foreign to my own values and way of life – but still – honorable

(and by honorable, I’m not suggesting that war is honorable or that this war is honorable – I am very close to a complete pacifist)

when I sit comfortably at home and debate politics and all – and then get a lengthy letter from a young woman missing her kid and serving as a nurse in Iraq and writing of trying to make a better life in the future for herself and her child – and she is hyper happy just to get a good book or a box of healthy snack food since Halliburton only serves shit or decent tampax since mil issue is awful – well, it changes something, moves the issue from “my beliefs” or “my politics” or whatever to a dialogue between two humans trying to get by in this world

do I think that young soldier should have done something else – yes

but do I feel her loss if something happens to her – absolutely

I hate what BushCo has done and is doing – and I hate the fact that these kids are dying for it. In my 60s self, I believe that they should all refuse to go to Iraq but now I know that life and decisions and mistakes are more crazy and we make mistakes (esp at 19 or so) and I have always had a certain number of choices in my life and I’m not sure I can judge or condemn these kids who felt they did not have other choices for making the wrong choice

sorry for the ramble – not sure I can express this at all well and not trying to be argumentative but to convey something of what the experience was like for me – I don’t know what your contact with folks in the military has been, many of us on the left have had very little – and we then think of soldiers as abstractions who become pawns in our arguments in a way rather than seeing them as individuals

Krautheimer is right on the money even if he’s such an idiot he doesn’t know it. Make the list of the people Bush was spying on public and then try and justify it.

I saw a story on the news this evening about John Hinckley. While discussing it with my brother I mentioned the allegation about GHW Bush being behind the assassination of Kennedy and the attempt on Reagan. He thinks that’s nuts. Later I mentioned that the Hinckleys knew the Bush family. He just kinda stopped dead and gawked. To freak him out even further I put “Bush family John Hinckley” in my browser and pulled up the first webpage. I showed him the AP story about Neil Bush having dinner with Scott Hinckley and how the Hinckley family were in the oil business and had given a lot of money to the campaign of GHW Bush and how John Hinckley had lived in Lubbock Texas in 1978 when Dubya also did. He was really stunned. I even detected an uncontrolled twitch in his face.

I don’t bring this up to spread the rumors. Even if that is fun discussion.

What I’m saying is that the public is terribly ill-informed and aren’t easily moved. The Bush admin. depends on that and promotes misinformation.

We in the public who want to change things have to aggressively search out and discuss the facts of our generation. At times the press doesn’t seem terribly interested in that.

Bush won’t play ‘fair’, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. We just need to do our thing more aggressively.

When Fahrenheit 9/11 came out there were a lot of people surprised by the connections between the Bush family and the Bin Ladens. How much do we still not know?

The more I see of the Bush family the more I think of an old-fashioned mafia family. They’re not always the brightest, but they are well organized, very determined and well funded. It takes a lot of effort to stop the mafia, so you can imagine it will take a lot to get the president and all his men.

S.

Your comments referenced to my comments regarding military service, are noted. And respectfully so. However, the choice to serve in the military, particularly under commander in chief, George Bush, should involve considerations of principles, morality, ethics and not least, common sense. By which I mean self-preservation. There are, in most cases alternatives to joining the army to procure a college education or other goals without risking one’s life and limb. And those who enlist are responsible for the choice to do so. I am not convinced the risk involved in the decision to join the military today, which carries ultimately the very real possibility, and indeed perhaps the high probability of death or injury is off-set by possible future financial gains. Life is far too precious a thing to give up in vain. And especially, death sould not be the price paid by our young men and women in uniform to satisfy the vanity and ego of George Bush’s illegal and wholly immoral war. An infinate number or wrongs dust not make one single right.

First off,my deep thanks from a recluse in the pacific northwest who uses FDL as a window to the windings and workings of this rats nest of corruption in our .gov.

I turned 50 this year.The time when reflection and examination of ones life is the norm,as well as preparation for the remainder.In my darkest nightmares ,I never dreamed the country I love so dear would follow the path I have seen taken…torture,the gulag,wiretaps,”disappering” political foes….I am utterly dismayed and disturbed.I am heartbroken..I fear for my grandchildren

There is a cold ,bitter bit of wisdom that we should all consiter here at FDL.WE have 6-7% of the worlds population.The actions of this administration have seemed almost deliberately aimed at makeing as many enemies as possible,among the rest of the peoples of the world.

The Hubris of the leaders of this country may very well destroy us more effectively than any group of thugs in a cave in some faroff mountain

The core reason most of the insane actions this administration has taken are directly related to one key event.When you understand true breathtakeing severity of the nature of this key event ,all of their actions make perfect sense,if you have their backround ,and worldveiw.That event is Peak Oil

Most of the serious policy decitions made by this crew is directed to help establish the basis of a national security state with a iron grip on the levers of power….to maintain some sort of control when the true scope and nature of this event becomes mainstream . The Iraq war,the wiretaps,the gulags the secracy around cheneys energy task force…it all comes back to peak oil.And the sooner that link becomes known,and understood, the sooner efective alternitive actions can be started

If the writ don’t fit,
you must acquit.
signed preznit

RBG, thanks much. That’s what I was thinking, I just couldn’t rmember exactly what and who it was (many, many years since my philosophy degree).

FDL posters are the best!

goodnight and goodluck – I always really enjoy your posts but this seems insensitive to me. I don’t know if you have children Zach’s age but I do and while neither of mine would or have enlisted, friends of theirs have. They are very aware that they can’t get anywhere if they don’t go to college and for some of us, funding college is not just a grumble about another big expense, for some of us, it’s an impossibility. A ton of young people joined before 2001 when it looked like the military would never really go to war again and so it was a way to get $$$ for school and, to them, seemed honorable. Esp the National Guard kids (like Zach I bet) who saw themselves as maybe helping in hurricanes and disasters but never ever expected to end up in Iraq. Ok, us older folks told them – often – that that was a bad bet – but when you’re 19 or 20 and think you’re being hyper responsible, those words don’t have a lot of impact.

Of the 50 or so soldiers I have corresponded with, all but the 2 officers mentioned that they signed up to get $$$ for school and then felt that they had no choice but to follow through on their committment – and to be there for their buddies.

So I am bothered by your “don’t expect sympathy” etc – these are mostly very honorable young people, trying to to support themselves and get an education.

I have no sympathy for the evil men who have sent them to Iraq and Afghanistan – and for the congress who have not stepped in to stop this madness – and for all of us who have not provided real choices for our young people – all of them, not just the privileged middle class kids with parents who can foot the bill.

Well…if someone signs up for military service for whatever reasons today, or yesterday, or the day before for that matter, with all the available information on the, what boils down to an immoral Bush war, like in the Johnson Vietnam thing, and gets blown away, well then that’s their decision for sure. However, don’t expect sympathy from those of us with a minimum of dull-normal intelligence, who can easily see through the Bush Iraq war charade. My kid’s life is more important than college tuition, or some other Bush bribe. And not incidentally, why aren’t the twin party girls Jenna and Babs Bush doing grunt time in their old man’s war?

OT – End of the year charitable tax deduction? This organization is top notch…

Non sectarian, no hidden agenda whatsoever…

“Direct Relief International provides medical material aid including medicines, medical supplies and equipment to strengthen in-country health efforts around the world to improve the quality of life for the most impoverished people.

This year, Direct Relief has provided $217 million dollars in wholesale value of aid serving 29.7 million people in 52 countries worldwide.

For every dollar we spend, we leverage that support to help six people in need with medicines and supplies worth nearly $30 wholesale.

Forbes magazine once again recognized Direct Relief as one of only eight nonprofit organizations in the United States that is 100% efficient in fundraising.”

http://www.directrelief.org/

The whole thing is just a diversionary tactic.

Thanks all.

Zach’s story is pretty much what suin said.

He joined the guard in 1998. For college and to serve Iowa.

He knows I hate Bushco, but I don’t badmouth the war too much to him. He is is a very smart and gentle man of man of 25. Not the gung ho type at all.

Good night. And thanks for the good thoughts.

Folks – Colleen’s son is probably of an age and a mind where he will do what he wants – at a certain point Mom’s don’t get a veto. And young people sign up for lots of reasons – money for school, chance to “make something of myself,” training for specific careers (flight school, etc) and some because they believe it’s right or their duty. I’m sure Colleen has done everything she can to help her son understand her position and the reality he is facing.

So instead of telling her to do something, we should redouble our efforts to stop this war and also see how we can support her and her son.

new thread

Colleen – perhaps us FDL folks can “adopt” your son and his buddies when he ships over – I’d love to help keep them in books or dvds or snacks or whatever. As you know I used to do that a lot with Books for Soldiers and I just got christmas cards from 3 of “my” soldiers who are now home and realized that I miss the connection with the young people who are actually there.

Also Du is “shipping out” but I need to find out from Mark in Ireland what that “means” – so we could also do care packages for Du?

Valley G – with you on 9/11. Your comments here have always resonated w/me too.

God, colleen military mom. Bless you. You still have your son. Don’t be helpless. What would Cindy Sheehan do? Do everything you can to prevent the life of your beloved boy from being cannon fodder for the vanity of a monkey and a nation gone mad.

Why would anyone sign up to serve in the military knowing what we know about the perversions of truth that the WH used to railroad us into Iraq? And why serve the liar in chief, George Bush? And perhaps most importantly, for the sake of potential grieving loved ones, why not refuse to go to Iraq?

colleen military mom | 12.30.05 – 8:07 pm

Colleen, I don’t have children of my own (bad timing) so I can’t begin to imagine what this is like for you. Or, perhaps to imagine that it is heart-wrenching, and that it takes a good deal of emotional courage for you to put on a brave face every day, and to fight to enjoy every day that you have your son close and safe. Godspeed to you and your son. VG
-

I’m so proud of the ACLU card in my wallet and I give them extra bux every chance I can. Them and Americans United for Sep of Church and State. And the critter orgs. (But I’ve told the Humane Society, please stop using my monetary contributions as a pretext to assault me daily with mugs keychains plush critter toys stationery address labels etc etc etc – but so far to no avail).

Sharkbabe | 12.30.05 – 7:50 pm

Your words went to my heart and brain. You are so correct in what you say. I went through the VietNam era, and that was bad. I never imagined then that I would have to face the destruction of the US at the hands of an insane “leader”. I am still having a hard time comprehending it, even though I am an extremist by virtue of believing that 9-11 was an inside job. I guess I’m still in a measure of denial, even given that.
-

Valley Girl. That article lifted my spirits.

My son is home on leave till Jan 2. He won’t leave for Iraq for a 1 or 2 months.

It sucks.

Jane,

So true about having to dig through volumes of obscure muck in a MSM article to find that ONE LINE, that one sentence, that’s the real story.

Case in point from today in probably the 8th or 9th NSA (update) Leak Investigation story. The NSA requested the investigation, not the White House but for those who watched NBC Nightly News tonight, which is where Mr and Mrs Joe Six Pack get their news, you’d be left with the impression that it was the White House that requested the investigation. The “piece” was done by none other than Pete Williams, a former DOD propagandist in the early 90’s.

Bombing Iran – like duh.

These SOBs are rubbing their palms together, “ha, just wait’ll everybody sees THIS!”

C’mon Fitz. I am tired of your slow painstaking thoroughness. Dammit, somebody, anybody, throw a wrench into this morass of evil NOW.

HOLY CRAP!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01480.html

BTW, anyone who looks at this panel (with Fitz) and who doesn’t come away with a lot more respect for the ACLU and the library association … well that person doesn’t love America and the Constitution.

http://www.pritzkermilitarylib…..odeType=rm

Der Spigel: Is Bush getting ready to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

http://service.spiegel.de/cach…..83,00.html

Lots of speculation over there.

The Bush family has been waging war on America for a long, long time. It’s time past for accountability.

This country is so freaking finished. Still I enjoy the last bits of freedom of expression that’s left at places like this. And when the blogosphere is shut down, as it will be, I’ll likewise be drawn to the samizdat passing of notes and flyers. We’ll have to go way back, to Gutenberg, to the whole birth of mass literacy, to reclaim civilization from the hellmaw of television and what it’s done to people.

Sad to think that Bush and Cheney are not aberrations, they are the proud emblems of the cowardly, greedy, lazy, fear-driven, Pavlov-TV American mass personality brought to full fruition.

This afternoon I listened to Mike Malloy who played an excruciatingly comprehensive montage of Bush soundbites from the past year. It was the sound of the ongoing death of America, that this fucking obvious astonishing fucking idiot monkey who CANNOT EVEN TALK is not only treated like a grown adult but is still tolerated, succored and even cheered as an actual “leader” by our institutions of “information” and “thought.”

Blah blahblah more gloomy gus thoughts, but gods! How much can a normal half-intelligent girl take? This land of Washington, Jefferson, Whitman, Emerson, Lincoln, FDR & Eleanor, even Truman and Eisenhower and Chuck Berry – come to this? Fugly ass pundits like Kraut and Limba and Tweety just sucking out the brains of my neighbors for endless war and torture and economic self-ruin.

I admit it, it just fucking boggles me.

Too bad I was too late to hear Jane’s voice tonight. I bet it would have helped.

Krauthammer is a frigging fanatic. And the Post ought to drop the guy. I mean he sits on the President’s bioethics comission and then writes opinion columns about the administration. He assists the White House with Bush’s inauguration speech. Why cranks like him, Kristol and Schmitt still can get published in the Post, rather than marginalized as they deserve just escapes me.

Jane, sorry I missed it if you gave a heads up about your radio interview. After reading comments here I tried to tune in, but it took too long, and dial-up is slow, so I missed it. If there is a link to the interview so that I can listen after the fact, thanks much.
-

Great interview, Jane.

More like this, please, MSM. It’s called “conversation” not controversy. Learn the difference. Thank you.

colleen military mom | 12.30.05 – 7:22 pm

I hope that it was not “beg. of the end of the Bush admin” that got you depressed. These are such turbulent and unpredictable times. If I remember correctly, one of your sons is now in Iraq (US military) so it is no wonder that you are feeling depressed. I just keep hoping that the whole BushCo mess of an admin is going to bust wide open for all to see, and, I keep wondering *who* is going to provide the flash point. The one person who finally stands up and causes this whole mess to implode on BushCo. “Events” won’t do it, IMO. It has to be some one person, some one unexpected person, who galvanizes things, like Cindy Sheehan did at Crawford.
-

Great interview, Jane. Hope you have many more like it.

Long and tedious and unedited and probably type filled information on warrants and spying and Presidential power cases.

Background.
The issue of wiretapping has been brought into the courts several times, in differing contexts. Consideration of wiretaps has fallen into two categories: 1. wiretaps where the primary purpose is to gain evidence related to criminal activities and where the wiretap evidence will likely be used to pursue criminal charges, and 2. wiretaps where the primary purpose is for national intelligence or national security purposes and which may never result in criminal charges (for example, eavesdropping on bin LadenÂ’s phone to locate him in Afghanistan or Pakistan and bomb his location).

The first issue the Supreme Court addressed was whether or not wiretapping was a search and seizure, within the protections of the Fourth Amendment. This was addressed in the context of a criminal case use of wiretaps – Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Katz held that wiretapping is a search and seizure, overruling some prior precedents, including Olmstead v. United States , 277 U. S. 438 (1928) which had looked to more tangible property interests as being needed to invoke the Fourth Amendment protections. So Katz set the stage in the criminal context and Congress responded by enacting legislation, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, to allow federal, state ad local law enforcement authorities to tap lines, as long as they first obtained a warrant.

Even after Katz, however, the Nixon White House believed that, with respect to the second setting, the “national intelligence” or “national security” setting, a warrant was not required and the President had inherent rights to perform warrantless taps and surveillance. In United States v. United States District Court, 407 U. S. 297 (1972) (called the “Keith Case” after Judge Keith in the District Court who took the stand against Attorney General John Mitchell), the wiretaps without warrants in the context of national intelligence were addressed. Mitchell had authorized, without warrants, wiretaps that were purely domestic, on “national intelligence” grounds.

The Omnibus Crime Act had provided in18 U.S.C. 2511(3) that nothing in the Act limited the President’s constitutional power to protect against the overthrow of the Government or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government. Mitchell claimed that this meant that government surveillance for intelligence was exempted, by CongressÂ’s express language in the Act, and that the President had inherent powers for the surveillance in any event. The Keith Case, by an 8-0 vote (two separate concurring opinions though) first was careful to limit its holding to cases involving purely domestic surveillance. The Court stated that the language in the Omnibus Act was not an affirmative grant to the President, but just a disclaimer of Congressional intent to define the Presidential power; the GovernmentÂ’s duty to safeguard domestic security had to be weighed against the dangers of unreasonable surveillance vis a vis individual privacy and free expression; the Fourth Amendment cannot be properly guaranteed if domestic surveillance is left solely to the discretion of the Executive Branch, without review by a detached, neutral judge; and, finally, the requirement of a warrant does not frustrate domestic security.

Congress here responded with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and things became a bit more complicated. FISA set up a secret court, that was arguably not an Article III court (even though it was populated by Article III judges) because it acted solely in the context of Article II national security surveillance requests – and in that context it established very different requirements and standards for getting a “warrant” or Court order than law enforcement would have had to show to a normal Article III court to get a criminal surveillance warrant (most importantly, FISA did not require any showing of a need to allege probable cause to believe a crime was being planned or committed, and the 72 hour “freebie” surveillance that went even beyond the 36 hour freebie surveillance under the Omnibus Act, since under the Omnibus Act there were penalties if the warrant was not later approved by the Article III Court). As could be expected, surveillance initiated under FISA warrants began to turn up information that could benefit law enforcement branches (who either could not have received, or never requested, standard Article III Court warrants).

The Executive Branch and Courts wrestled with this and for awhile the approach was that ANYTHING that the FBI, NSA, CIA etc. learned by FISA authorized surveillance could not be shared with regular law enforcement. So even if regular law enforcement zeroed in on someone and perhaps got their own, independent Article III sufficient warrants – things that had been learned earlier in the FISA authorized surveillance could not be “shared”. Law enforcement was frustrated and ticked that they could get more information about suspects from foreign intelligence services than from our own.
There was discussion about whether the “primary purpose” of the FISA warrant was intelligence gathering or criminal prosecution, etc. and the Patriot Act amended the FISA requirement that intelligence gathering be a “primary” purpose to only requiring that it be a “significant” purpose and there was other discussion and amendment that indicated perhaps Congress was buying in to the concept that, even though the warrants had a different basis for being issued and were done by a secret court, the information should be made routinely available to law enforcement. (To be sure, the Congressional discussion on this is a bit murky, with Sen. Leahy suggesting that “it will be up to the courts to determine how far law enforcement agencies may use FISA for criminal investigation and prosecution beyond the scope of the statutory definition of ‘foreign intelligence information.’” 147 Cong. Rec. S11004 (Oct. 25, 2001))

Ashcroft took the position that all information should be freely shared and even wanted to have law enforcement who were handling criminal prosecutions have direct the warrant requests and have equal access and opportunity to get information under FISA warrants. The FISA courts were still not sure and so they began to impose requirements on their orders, specifically limiting what DOJ and NSA could do with the FISA intercepts, under the “minimization” procedures. DOJ and NSA were not happy and they appealed several of those decisions, which gave us the In re Sealed Case, No. 02-001 in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. That case is troubling, but is only an appellate case, not a Supreme Court case, and rests primarily upon interpretation of the Patriot Act, but it does also dip its foot into the “inherent” Presidential powers.

As an initial matter, the Court of Review found that there was no disagreement between the government and the FISA court as to the propriety of the electronic surveillance in the case before it, since the government had shown probable cause to believe that the target is an agent of a foreign power and otherwise met the basic requirements of FISA. The Court of Review then examined whether it was required, by FISA (as amended by the Patriot Act) or by the Constitution, that the information obtained under a FISA warrant be prevented from being shared with law enforcement. It held that neither FISA (as amended) nor the Constitution required the “wall” and that the FISA court should quit requiring it.

The Court of Review begins by finding that, whether or not the “wall”should have existed pre-Patriot Act, the Patriot Act amendments show Congressional intent to lower that wall, at least provided that the Government does initially certify to the FISA court that a “significant” (if not primary) purpose of the surveillance is intelligence gathering. Fine so far.

The Court then goes on to why it believes that there should Constitutionally be no “dichotomy” in the handling of information obtained under the FISA warrants with regard to counterintelligence v. criminal prosecution. (“…we are obliged to consider whether the statute as amended is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.” In re Sealed Case) To do this, the Court of Review is forced to address the case of United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980). That case had arisen before FISA and involved 3 months of warrantless surveillance on a Vietnamese citizen in the United States who was charged with passing information to the Vietnamese Embassy. The Truong decision had conceded the President’s ability to conduct warrantless foreign surveillance (in a context that did not involve a U.S. citizen and did not involve FISA, which was not in existence) and held that the Executive Branch could 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.” Id. at 915 (“That case, however, involved an electronic surveillance carried out prior to the passage of FISA and predicated on the President’s executive power.” In re Sealed Case.)

To deal with the Constitutional issues, the Court of Review spends a lot of time comparing the required showings of FISA warrants to those of a normal Article III court warrant and this part is pretty tortuous. The Court of Review then makes some statements, which are mostly non-sequitor in the case before it, but which are now being seized on by the DOJ in their letter to the House and Senate ranking Intelligence Committee members.

“The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to co

I dont’ think it should even be a matter of needing immunity for testimony. IMO, Congress needs to get on the ball and make it presumptive that any revelation of actions by the Exectuve or Congressional members or staff that are in violation of law are not confidential and not subject to being grounds for any type of action.

If the President is going to break the law openly, it is his burden to prove how and why he can do that, not on those challenging his actions.

Here’s my take, trying to reduce and simplify, which is very hard for me – I ramble a lot.

GWB & The Outer Limits.

The President has violated the law of the land and has violated his oath of office to uphold those laws and his Constitutional duty to uphold, defend and protect those laws. He has violated FISA. There is no argument that he has not. He has gone on national television and said he has violated FISA. Both the President and the Attorney General have reassured American publicly, the AG as recently as the December 14th Washington Post “chat” that all wiretaps and surveillance were being done under court issued warrants, which were required even “before FISA” (i.e., when you were looking at the President’s “inherent” and not statutory powers).

The President says that his violation is based upon someo r all of: i) inherent rights he has, under the Constitution to conduct foreign surveillance, or ii) upon Congressional authorization to trigger his “war powers” under the Constitution, or iii) upon that same Congressional authorization somehow acting as a statute that modified FISA so as to allow the President to dispense with the FISA court and warrants and judicial review and Congressional oversight.

In the context of a United States citizen, located in the United States and not officially serving in the U. S. military or the military of a belligerent, all those arguments fail under Ex Parte Milligan, as long as the civil courts are open and operating, unobstructed. Milligan recognized that the United States Constitution does have a provision for the suspension of habeas corpus, even with respect to citizens, in the right kind of conflict. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld has, in part, attempted to deal with that issue in our current situation and has found that even the writ has not been fully suspended, although it may have been modified by our current situation and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress. So Hamdi already recognizes that we are in a “less dire” situation than existed in Milligan, where the country was in a state of civil war and habeas had been suspended by act of the President, ratified by Congress.

Milligan, however, stands firmly for the proposition that, with respect to a U. S. citizen that meets the requirements listed (located in the US, citizen of a state not in active rebellion, not serving in the military of either the US or the belligerent), if the civil courts are open and operating, the Executive Branch and President may not suspend or disregard any other Constitutional protections inuring to that citizen. Specifically, the 4th, 5th and 6th are mentioned, however, the Supreme Court in Milligan refers to the whole of the Bill of Rights and a citizens constitutional protections and very clearly states: “Not one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus.”

We are not even at a stage where habeas has been suspended. If the President has gone further, and disregarded the fourth amendment protections of U. S. citizens who are not in military services and are located in the United States, he has committed unconstitutional acts, unless he can point to the fact that our courts, and in this case the FISA court in particular, is not open and operating. He can not. He has violated the Constitution. There is no other conclusion.

Great job, Jane!

That radio show sounded like what “elevating the discourse” is supposed to be.

Fabulous, Jane!!!!!

Good for you and FDL!!

xoxoxoxo

z

Good job, Jane!

Bravo!

LJ/Aquaria,

“See? We’re not all hicks here in TX.”

No, we’re not! ; ) LOL

OK, I found the KTSA feed, thanks.

Thanks forthe link, Valley Girl. I’m starting to get depressed.

KTSA interviewed me a few years ago over my son’s “issue” with school.

San Antonio! Jane, I’m listening live locally. :)

Jane – “World’s Foremost Plameologist” is the intro.

See? We’re not all hicks here in TX.

Jane’s on!

Yikes, I’m a middle-age FDL groupie..

Give em hell, Jane!

http://www.opednews.com/articl…..of_the.htm

THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

Good summary with great fodder for letters.
-

John Casper,

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” – Benjamin Franklin”

Spot on back at ya. Consider this angle…the NYT says they sat on the story for a year also to “develop more sources” which they now claim are “almost 12″. By not going public earlier and then giving up that “almost 12″ wouldn’t they have been acting as an agent of the government? IF, they give up the sources that is.

Streaming KTSA right now. I loves me some internets!

Ron Russell | 12.30.05 – 6:37 pm

re: political enemies. The one person who comes to mind as a likely political enemy *and* who might be willing to challenge BushCo by asking for his “dossier” is Bernie Sanders- http://bernie.org/ ( “The Most Important U.S. Senate Race in 2006″) I am going to write him an email… maybe others will do the same.

To make this quick, I’m not including a lot of extra info about Sanders, but I have been watching him for a long time. Previous statements of his are to the effect “Bush is not a conservative. He is a right-wing extremist.” (Actually, I think he said the BushCo admin is not… they are…)
-

Merciless,

They came for the Communists, and I didn’t object – For I wasn’t a Communist;
They came for the Socialists, and I didn’t object – For I wasn’t a Socialist;
They came for the labor leaders, and I didn’t object – For I wasn’t a labor leader;
They came for the Jews, and I didn’t object – For I wasn’t a Jew;
Then they came for me – And there was no one left to object.

Martin Niemoller, German Protestant Pastor, 1892-1984

i think it’s more appropriate that there be repercussions for the government creating abusable situations with their policies. there is a certain kind of crime which will be allowed but never publicized because it involves secret materials and people and programs. that the secrecy isn’t documented should compound the crimes involved, and since there are certain crimes that are facilitated by the political atmosphere, this in itself should be a crime: creating a situation in which a secret crime could occur.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” – Benjamin Franklin
emptywheel (NextHurrah) has some very disturbing speculation about what they did to Scott Ritter. They have installed an Attorney General, who missed law school the day they taught law.

Great foto, better caption: “illegal but gratifying….” And while playing club rugby, the New Haven equivalent of intramural football — playing other Yalies (in other words, your own guys, not Dartmouth or Harvard).

Kinda like spying on your fellow Americans, eh? “illegal but gratifying” indeed!

Paul Greenberg, in my paper’s editorial, said today that it would be perfectly ok if the NSA spied on thousands, if they could catch one terrorist.

I say, arrest 50,000 men without cause or warrant. If we catch just one thief or rapist then it’s ok, right?

These guys truly think it doesn’t affect them. It’s ok, as long as it doesn’t affect their lifestyles. Who was it who said that, when they finally came for me, that no one was left to stand up for me?

OT from previous thread
—-(from Josh Marshall)
Signatures, Abramoff’s restaurant in D.C. is looking for a new name. http://www.signatures-dc.com/suggestionsTop.asp
I submitted “Pardon Me” as my suggestion.
Primordial Ooze | 12.30.05 – 2:46 pm—

My own submission is “Under the Table”
-

Yeah, harm was done. By sitting on this so long, the harm was in the reelection of Bush. That set off a domino effect of many “harms”.

OK, here’s the only way they can convince me they didn’t do anything wrong. Turn over the already known “Bush’s enemies list” and provide the source for all the data collected on each entry in that database.

Something tells me that they used this NSA spying program to get dirt on their political entries. If they won’t turn over that list and how the data is collected, then I’m not buying Krauthammer’s baloney!

Valley Girl | 12.30.05 – 6:14 pm | Thanks for the very depressing link on the prior thread to the national debt. I think those numbers reflect current interest rates, which have been at historic lows for the last decade. Please someone correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that if those rates go even a little higher, servicing the debt grows exponentially more difficult.

And one other rule: all who testify must be granted immunity wrt to their testimonies.

“Yet, the White House sat on this for a YEAR!” Spot on Cozumel. This Grand Canyon sized contradiction is something I hope the MSM can figure out. Maybe someone will ask Scottie Pottie at the next WH Bluffing, why the WH waited for a year AFTER it knew about the NYT’s story to notify the DoJ. According to Bush’s last press conference, this “leak” hurt our national security.
OT Did the WH tell the NSA a year ago that the NYT’s had a story about Bush’s secret spying (GST)? If there is not a paper trail, the WH will have a tougher time blaming this on the NSA.

OT: check out this amazing list/littany of the year’s forgotten and under-reported stories. It’s quite a compilation, in the sprit of Project Uncensored (?) at Sonoma State University.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…../55450/698

Be care what you ask for Mr. Krauthamer.

But if this is a rhetorical battle with the Administration’s leading apologist for torture etc, so be it. But who has the burden of proof?

Since those who might have been “abused” by warrantless surveillance cannot know without forcing the government to reveal it, we need to reverse the burden of proof. If the FISA statute says it is the exclusive method by which surveillance of this type can occur, and the subjects would be known to the FISA courts, but the Administration ignored this statute, then the burden of showing that an abuse has not occurred should shift to the government, because it has deliberately destroyed any pretense of after-the-fact oversight and accountability. Surely Mr. Krauthamer can understand that.

Accepting his challenge is astute politics. So let’s define the rules. Challenge him first to support calls for a Congressional investigaation, public hearings, subpoena powers wrt to all relevant officials and putting all witnesses under oath. Then let them swear, under oath, and before the cameras, that no US citizen or person lawfullly in the US was improperly subjected to surveillance — and — that whatever surveillance occurred could not have been implemented pursuant to the warrant procedures of FISA. Those who think they might have been surveilled can offer their cases as examples to test.

And don’t just subpoena the Director of NSA or the attorneys in the WH and DoJ, who have already shown they could’t pass the ethics exam of the D.C. Bar. Call in the operational people who actually implement the surveillances.

My bet is that these people will not commit perjury to protect this President.

It’s the modern, up-to-date, technologically sophisticated version of the Watergate break-in.

I’ll bet cash money that the folks at the NY Times already know what’s up.

I’d guess it hits the papers the day before the State of the Union address or the day after.

I see no hands in the air so I guess we can just move on to the next steaming pile of ReThuglican PR crap

“There’s this peculiar asymmetry in time which is that you can know
everything you want about the past and you can’t change a bit of it
and you can know absolutely nothing about the future but what you
do changes everything.” – Stewart Brand

The “abuse” happens when the government reads people’s communications. We may find the idea of penumbras suspect, but the Fourth Amendment certainly protects us from having the government go through our stuff. Or maybe Krauthammer wouldn’t mind it if I walked through his house, so long as I didn’t take anything?

off thread but a slogan to tag the Republicans-
Spy, Lie and Plunder

CNN’s David Ensor said earlier that the NSA was “required by law” to request an investigation. I would assume that law states in a timely manner (when discovered) and that they found out about the leak when it was made public via the NYT.

Yet, the White House sat on this for a YEAR! Bush said on December 19th that he hadn’t asked for an investigation while he blasted the leak itself.

I’m convinced it was used to gather financial information for personal gain

wow: digby, derenegade and FDL all in one post. Talk about an all-star cast…

fitz?