Comments on: Out of Control http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/ Firedoglake weblog Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:11:23 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: mui http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58927 mui Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:19:15 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58927 <p>Max-1, a congressional resolution condemning the falsehoods sounds like a move in the right direction.<br /> Other topic. Re: Plant. Watching the clip, I just don’t get that. I think Harry Taylor is the real thing. Bush looked so awkward too.</p> Max-1, a congressional resolution condemning the falsehoods sounds like a move in the right direction.
Other topic. Re: Plant. Watching the clip, I just don’t get that. I think Harry Taylor is the real thing. Bush looked so awkward too.

]]> By: Max-1 http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58904 Max-1 Fri, 07 Apr 2006 10:34:33 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58904 <p>Hi,</p> <p>There is a matter that people are missing about the legitimacy of the AUMF of 2002 against Iraq.</p> <p>I’ve made my complete case over at POAC Forums<br /> <a href="http://oldamericancentury.org/bb/index.php?s=&showtopic=7959&view=findpost&p=50681">http://oldamericancentury.org/.....mp;p=50681</a></p> <p>And with the revelation of yesterdays speech at Central Piedmont Community College, Charlotte, North Carolina, the president admitted the fact that the information that was used to plead his case to go to war to the UN, US Congress, and the US peoples was based on false Intel.</p> <p>In his speech,<br /> <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060406-3.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news.....406-3.html</a><br /> the President gives his reasoning as to why the US needed to act and then admits, in a nonchalant, matter of fact way, that the Intel was wrong.</p> <p><i>“I also told you earlier that when America speaks, we got to mean what we said. I meant what we said when we embraced that resolution that said disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. Words mean something in this world if you’re trying to protect the American people. </i></p> <p><strong>I fully understand that the intelligence was wrong, and I’m just as disappointed as everybody else is.</strong> But what wasn’t wrong was Saddam Hussein had invaded a country. He had used weapons of mass destruction. He had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction. He was firing at our pilots. He was a state sponsor of terror. Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing for world peace and the security of our country.” </p> <p>The reason this is important is because the case to use a military force was based on false information and passed off as correct. Now that this revelation has been proved to be factual and admitted by the president as false information, the AUMF of 2002, created and voted by both halves of Congress, and signed by the Vice President and President of the United States of America, it would be up to Congress to recognize the illegitimacy of a resolution based of false facts. And by their failure to act accordingly so, Congress would be implicit to the falsification of the AUMF of 2002 against Iraq through their failing to correct their vote and right this egregious illegality, both to the Constitutional and International laws that guide war. </p> <p>Thank you,<br /> ~ MAX 1 ~</p> Hi,

There is a matter that people are missing about the legitimacy of the AUMF of 2002 against Iraq.

I’ve made my complete case over at POAC Forums
http://oldamericancentury.org/…..mp;p=50681

And with the revelation of yesterdays speech at Central Piedmont Community College, Charlotte, North Carolina, the president admitted the fact that the information that was used to plead his case to go to war to the UN, US Congress, and the US peoples was based on false Intel.

In his speech,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news…..406-3.html
the President gives his reasoning as to why the US needed to act and then admits, in a nonchalant, matter of fact way, that the Intel was wrong.

“I also told you earlier that when America speaks, we got to mean what we said. I meant what we said when we embraced that resolution that said disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. Words mean something in this world if you’re trying to protect the American people.

I fully understand that the intelligence was wrong, and I’m just as disappointed as everybody else is. But what wasn’t wrong was Saddam Hussein had invaded a country. He had used weapons of mass destruction. He had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction. He was firing at our pilots. He was a state sponsor of terror. Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing for world peace and the security of our country.”

The reason this is important is because the case to use a military force was based on false information and passed off as correct. Now that this revelation has been proved to be factual and admitted by the president as false information, the AUMF of 2002, created and voted by both halves of Congress, and signed by the Vice President and President of the United States of America, it would be up to Congress to recognize the illegitimacy of a resolution based of false facts. And by their failure to act accordingly so, Congress would be implicit to the falsification of the AUMF of 2002 against Iraq through their failing to correct their vote and right this egregious illegality, both to the Constitutional and International laws that guide war.

Thank you,
~ MAX 1 ~

]]> By: BetteB http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58806 BetteB Fri, 07 Apr 2006 04:22:01 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58806 <p>Way to go Harry … speaking truth to power.<br /> All this reminds me of sitting in a coffee house way back in the 60’s. Arlo was making an appearance and he sang a song he’d “just written” he said … it went on to become famous but there are some lyrics that apply to this particular case with Harry. Harry said what he had to say …. one lone man up against power. Others probably feel the same - and they should do the same. Like Arlo wrote in that song he sung that night, must’ve been over 40 years ago… it was “Alice’s Restaurant” - he sang this at the end:</p> <p>“….. the only reason I’m singing you this song now is cause you may know somebody in a similar<br /> situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if your in a situation like that there’s only one thing you can do and that’s walk into<br /> the shrink wherever you are,just walk in say “Shrink, You can get anything you want, at Alice’s restaurant.”. And walk out. You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he’s really sick and they won’t take him. And if two people, two people do it,in harmony,<br /> they may think they’re both faggots and they won’t take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice’s Restaurant and walking out. They may think it’s an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice’s Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it’s a movement.” (credit to Arlo Guthrie for the above lyrics)</p> <p>Let what Harry said become a movement … imagine 50 folks a day telling the President, “I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration,†or words to that effect, and then walking out. Folks, it could become a movement. </p> <p>I’m a Canuck lurker, coming out of the shadows, but ya know, you Yanks, it seems to me there are a bunch of folks (not readers here, those are definitely NOT the ones I’m thinking of) who’ve somehow lost the ability to speak up to power and get heard. But you can do it, I feel so much that you can.</p> <p>And ya know, if enough of ya do it, at every opportunity, out there in front of the American public, maybe they WILL think it’s a movement - and if they do — maybe they’ll get scared and maybe, one day, you’ll get that glorious country of yours back to where it belongs, in the right hands… god, I do so wish that for you all — you got a lot of folks up here, north of the 49th rooting for you. But right now, we’re just watching, dumbfounded, but wishing you all well. </p> <p>Kudos to FDL writers - you have something special here and I love the writing skills even though I think ya oughta knock off the fellatio references … I just get the feeling you know how say it wittier, you’re just lacking in time to think it up. Maybe I’ll be lucky and be the last person posting to this post of yours — so if I am … well “Go FITZ!”. Hugs to all of ya.<br /> Keep up the incredibly excellent work.</p> Way to go Harry … speaking truth to power.
All this reminds me of sitting in a coffee house way back in the 60’s. Arlo was making an appearance and he sang a song he’d “just written” he said … it went on to become famous but there are some lyrics that apply to this particular case with Harry. Harry said what he had to say …. one lone man up against power. Others probably feel the same – and they should do the same. Like Arlo wrote in that song he sung that night, must’ve been over 40 years ago… it was “Alice’s Restaurant” – he sang this at the end:

“….. the only reason I’m singing you this song now is cause you may know somebody in a similar
situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if your in a situation like that there’s only one thing you can do and that’s walk into
the shrink wherever you are,just walk in say “Shrink, You can get anything you want, at Alice’s restaurant.”. And walk out. You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he’s really sick and they won’t take him. And if two people, two people do it,in harmony,
they may think they’re both faggots and they won’t take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice’s Restaurant and walking out. They may think it’s an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice’s Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it’s a movement.” (credit to Arlo Guthrie for the above lyrics)

Let what Harry said become a movement … imagine 50 folks a day telling the President, “I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration,†or words to that effect, and then walking out. Folks, it could become a movement.

I’m a Canuck lurker, coming out of the shadows, but ya know, you Yanks, it seems to me there are a bunch of folks (not readers here, those are definitely NOT the ones I’m thinking of) who’ve somehow lost the ability to speak up to power and get heard. But you can do it, I feel so much that you can.

And ya know, if enough of ya do it, at every opportunity, out there in front of the American public, maybe they WILL think it’s a movement – and if they do — maybe they’ll get scared and maybe, one day, you’ll get that glorious country of yours back to where it belongs, in the right hands… god, I do so wish that for you all — you got a lot of folks up here, north of the 49th rooting for you. But right now, we’re just watching, dumbfounded, but wishing you all well.

Kudos to FDL writers – you have something special here and I love the writing skills even though I think ya oughta knock off the fellatio references … I just get the feeling you know how say it wittier, you’re just lacking in time to think it up. Maybe I’ll be lucky and be the last person posting to this post of yours — so if I am … well “Go FITZ!”. Hugs to all of ya.
Keep up the incredibly excellent work.

]]> By: richard ray http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58705 richard ray Fri, 07 Apr 2006 03:06:10 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58705 <p>R2 says<br /> good for harry taylor.<br /> no fun getting booed,and keeping your head and pressing on.<br /> made the preznit look like the frat-boy ass he is.<br /> pretty neat that it happened here in n.carolina-hope springs eternal.<br /> FITZ!!</p> R2 says
good for harry taylor.
no fun getting booed,and keeping your head and pressing on.
made the preznit look like the frat-boy ass he is.
pretty neat that it happened here in n.carolina-hope springs eternal.
FITZ!!

]]> By: Bryan@shotgunfreude http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58456 Bryan@shotgunfreude Fri, 07 Apr 2006 00:45:20 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58456 <p>Thanks for pointing this out. I’m so proud of Harry.</p> <p>I saw comparisons of this image of Harry with Rockwell’s “Freedom of Speech”, and <a href="http://shotgunfreude.blogspot.com/2006/04/harry-taylors-freedom-of-speech.html">I thought they would go perfect together:</a></p> Thanks for pointing this out. I’m so proud of Harry.

I saw comparisons of this image of Harry with Rockwell’s “Freedom of Speech”, and I thought they would go perfect together:

]]> By: ruprecht http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58230 ruprecht Thu, 06 Apr 2006 22:30:21 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58230 <p>Harry seemed like less of a plant than a screened questioner that might ask some real questions (Mr. President, how do you manage to RAWK so hard?), but one whom Bush could dominate and deride, even while magnaminously listening and responding.<br /> Watch the clip, Bush sneers and struts like a middle-school bully.</p> Harry seemed like less of a plant than a screened questioner that might ask some real questions (Mr. President, how do you manage to RAWK so hard?), but one whom Bush could dominate and deride, even while magnaminously listening and responding.
Watch the clip, Bush sneers and struts like a middle-school bully.

]]> By: EddyKilowatt http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58211 EddyKilowatt Thu, 06 Apr 2006 22:15:00 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58211 <p>The media spotlight is on… for the usual fifteen minutes. Don’t waste time debating the Presidential Powers to Declassify thing… it’s a red herring.</p> <p>Ask Bush WHY he declassified the NIE, and/or authorized Libby to discuss it with the press. While the spotlight is on him, make him explain how THIS USE of his extraorinary wartime powers was part of “protecting the American people”. </p> <p>The WHY is the question he doesn’t want to be asked… </p> <p>Eddy</p> The media spotlight is on… for the usual fifteen minutes. Don’t waste time debating the Presidential Powers to Declassify thing… it’s a red herring.

Ask Bush WHY he declassified the NIE, and/or authorized Libby to discuss it with the press. While the spotlight is on him, make him explain how THIS USE of his extraorinary wartime powers was part of “protecting the American people”.

The WHY is the question he doesn’t want to be asked…

Eddy

]]> By: stark http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58193 stark Thu, 06 Apr 2006 21:59:30 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58193 <p><i>Bush constantly reinforces the lie that he must have unlimited powers in order to fight terrorists, but in fact he uses this unchecked authority to fight journalists. To wage PR campaigns. </i></p> <p>Great observation Jane.</p> Bush constantly reinforces the lie that he must have unlimited powers in order to fight terrorists, but in fact he uses this unchecked authority to fight journalists. To wage PR campaigns.

Great observation Jane.

]]> By: southpaw http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58190 southpaw Thu, 06 Apr 2006 21:56:30 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58190 <p>Kerry is just weak. Sieze the moment. At least he would now support Fiengolds censure hearings. Just a little late there Sen.</p> Kerry is just weak. Sieze the moment. At least he would now support Fiengolds censure hearings. Just a little late there Sen.

]]> By: Mary http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58189 Mary Thu, 06 Apr 2006 21:56:29 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/out-of-control/#comment-58189 <p>Teak111 - I’m going to actas if your question is not a kind of “planted to sound aw shucks but not†question and really answer in detail. It may take two posts. But -nNo way, no shape, no how do I buy any of it AT ALL. First off, he authorized the program before the AUMF was even in place – so that is bull about “thinking his lawyers arguments made sense†and it is also bull to have him relying on his handpicked yes men for that anyway – show where he got some competing input to evaluate. Finally – the incompetence of his officers is his burden and if he chooses, as he has repeatedly, to select for loyalty over competence, he is bound to his choices. Hayden could not even REMEMBER the WARRANT CLAUSE in his presser. !?!?!<br /> As to <i> OK, let the courts figure it out. But he also made clear that he wan’t going to sit around while that happened if he had an opportunity to tap into some of these suspect calls.</i> I think that is complete bull again. Where was there any indication he was going to do anything to let the courts figure it out? He had every opportunity with EACH Patriot Act round to include provisions to authorize – he did not. He knew that he was not complying with FISA. He knew that he and Gonzales were both making misleading and incorrect statements over and over to the American public about warrants, not for a day, a week, a month – but what is now going on FIVE YEARS!!!!!!!<br /> <i>his explanation made me feel like Bush wants to protect the country and doesn’t want to get caught with his pants down again. </i> Nope. Not me at all. If he wants to protect the country, he would have gone with competence right out of the gate. Why is Gonzales AG? Bc he is best suited to handling the counterterrorism threats (as opposed to someone, like – for all my gripes about him – say Comey, who was in line to be AG?) No- he’s there bc he’ll do and say ANYTHING THE PRESIDENT WANTS. Since when is that how you “make the country safe?’ Is he networking to bring in competent outside influences and sources to address the issue?<br /> NO – he took us into Iraq and completely diverted from terrorists and people like Scheuer who have boatloads of expertise on bin Laden are not networked. People like Gary Bernstsen who had bin Laden “in their sights†at Tora Bora are forced out of the agency. Bush sends Goss in to take over CIA and IMMEDIATELY crank down with the “we are here to support the President, not to question him†baloney. Lots of good people left. People like the CIA agent who gave him good, correct info on Iraq – that was not what he wanted to hear, are brought home and yes men are promoted. Where is the interest in “keeping us safe†over “having my cronies who won’t deny me anything?†What makes you think it applies within his NSA programs? You don’t know, do you? That’s why we have the Fourth Amendment – so you do know, so there is a judicial check that says — let’s do this in a way that makes sense and isn’t a big cronyfest screw up.<br /> <i>The NSA can tap away and let the courts fight it out. In the meantime, Bush won’t be caught not using an important tool becasue he’s afraid the legal intrepretation won’t go his way.</i> I have no idea what you are talking about here. Bush absolutely CAN tap away – he could under FISA – for any suspicious and problematic calls. He had 3 days of tap away without warrant time for each tap – away-er. He was OFFERED MORE than 3 days of “freebie†time in connection with Patriot Act revisions and turned it down. He has NO requirement to EVER get a warrant on a foreign citizen outside the US under FISA.<br /> All he has to do to be legal is to put the info about what he is doing before the judiciary branch via the secret FISA court and have them give him a warrant, even the “after we’ve already been wiretapping for 3 days†warrant that FISA allows. He REFUSED to do even that. Why? If you watched the ex-FISA judges, too, you’d know – it’s not hard to get a FISA warrant. They made that very clear – it is a much different standard that they use than is required for a criminal wiretap. So WHY NOT GET THE WARRANT? Especially when you can tap away ASAP from the get-go, without a warrant, for up to 3 days and you can tap any foreign citizen pretty much as much as you want without ever having a warrant?<br /> The only thing that makes any sense is that he was tapping people for longer than 3 days who he felt certain he could not get a FISA warrant for – WOW!!! That is big. That is incredibly big. And it means that he was tapping for reasons other than “protecting the country†bc FISA would give him those warrants. <i>Isn’t there a place in the Const. that says the Prez can do what he deems necessary to defend the country, then throw himself at the mercy of the public.</i><br /> Couple of things First, he never threw himself on the mercy of the public. He lied to us. Over and over and with the political purpose of being re-elected. He directed others to lie to us. He had Hayden lie to the Joint 9/11 Joint investigation. That is flat awful and completely contrary to defending the country. The purpose of the 9/11 joint investigation was to come up with ways to make us more safe – lies from NSA and the President don’t do that. Nest thing – you are really doing kind of a poor job on the “hoke this up†front, IMO. There is the “necessary and proper†clause and I’m thinking you are working this like a stripper works a pole, but fwiw, here goes.<br /> The President can not suspend the Bill of Rights as an incident of what he deems “necessary and proper†in defense of the country. This has already been decided by the Supreme Court in the Civil war. Habeas can be suspended, the Bill of Rights can not AS LONG AS COURTS ARE OPEN AND OPERATING. Look around. They are open, they are operating, and we even have special private ones just for this kind of thing. So the judicial supervision requirement of the warrant clause is in effect and has remained in effect.<br /> Now, let’s say that there was something really time sensitive that had to be addressed (although with the existing 3 day freebie in FISA, it’s hard to even imagine what it would be) that caused the President to feel he had to act in the interests of national security. Well, that is very similar to the situation of the cop who hears screams from a house and doesn’t have time to go get a warrant – it’s called exigent circumstances and it can authorize action without a warrant in those kind of pressing circumstances. So, in such a specialized case, the President’s “necessary and proper†authority could kick in. However, a five year underground, illegal program that has never been sought to be brought within the bounds of the law - — – that’s not “exigent’ in anyone’s book. It is not “necessary†to have a five year lawbreaking program that you never seek to get authorized. It is not “necessary†to break FISA to wiretap, even to begin “immediate†wiretaps (bc of the 3 day freebie) Similary, those actions are not only NOT “proper†they are contrary to the President’s constitutional obligations.<br /> Whatever he may have done for a day, a week or a month in good faith – the good faith period has been over for a long long time. YEARS worth of a long long time. And it is hard to ever claim “good faith†in the face of a pattern of lies and cover up. Who knows what has been wiretapped? We don’t. We have to rely on the President’s representations (you may remember, for example, his representation that “no one†expected the levees might top or that “everyone†thought Hussein had WMDs) and that is EXPRESSLY what the Fourth Amendment tells us we should not have to do – in exigent circumstances (and you do throw yourself on the court for this – they may not see the exigencies) there may be an issue, but a five year illegal program does not even begin to fall into that category. When the President is going to engage in a systematic program for years of spying on American citizens, on American soil, using and American agency — he needs a warranted and judicially supervised program. He never tried to “throw himself†on the mercy of the people and the courts. Instead, he lied, evaded, covered up, and went after those who were not loyalists. And never gave up the Bolton intercepts for that matter.</p> Teak111 – I’m going to actas if your question is not a kind of “planted to sound aw shucks but not†question and really answer in detail. It may take two posts. But -nNo way, no shape, no how do I buy any of it AT ALL. First off, he authorized the program before the AUMF was even in place – so that is bull about “thinking his lawyers arguments made sense†and it is also bull to have him relying on his handpicked yes men for that anyway – show where he got some competing input to evaluate. Finally – the incompetence of his officers is his burden and if he chooses, as he has repeatedly, to select for loyalty over competence, he is bound to his choices. Hayden could not even REMEMBER the WARRANT CLAUSE in his presser. !?!?!
As to OK, let the courts figure it out. But he also made clear that he wan’t going to sit around while that happened if he had an opportunity to tap into some of these suspect calls. I think that is complete bull again. Where was there any indication he was going to do anything to let the courts figure it out? He had every opportunity with EACH Patriot Act round to include provisions to authorize – he did not. He knew that he was not complying with FISA. He knew that he and Gonzales were both making misleading and incorrect statements over and over to the American public about warrants, not for a day, a week, a month – but what is now going on FIVE YEARS!!!!!!!
his explanation made me feel like Bush wants to protect the country and doesn’t want to get caught with his pants down again. Nope. Not me at all. If he wants to protect the country, he would have gone with competence right out of the gate. Why is Gonzales AG? Bc he is best suited to handling the counterterrorism threats (as opposed to someone, like – for all my gripes about him – say Comey, who was in line to be AG?) No- he’s there bc he’ll do and say ANYTHING THE PRESIDENT WANTS. Since when is that how you “make the country safe?’ Is he networking to bring in competent outside influences and sources to address the issue?
NO – he took us into Iraq and completely diverted from terrorists and people like Scheuer who have boatloads of expertise on bin Laden are not networked. People like Gary Bernstsen who had bin Laden “in their sights†at Tora Bora are forced out of the agency. Bush sends Goss in to take over CIA and IMMEDIATELY crank down with the “we are here to support the President, not to question him†baloney. Lots of good people left. People like the CIA agent who gave him good, correct info on Iraq – that was not what he wanted to hear, are brought home and yes men are promoted. Where is the interest in “keeping us safe†over “having my cronies who won’t deny me anything?†What makes you think it applies within his NSA programs? You don’t know, do you? That’s why we have the Fourth Amendment – so you do know, so there is a judicial check that says — let’s do this in a way that makes sense and isn’t a big cronyfest screw up.
The NSA can tap away and let the courts fight it out. In the meantime, Bush won’t be caught not using an important tool becasue he’s afraid the legal intrepretation won’t go his way. I have no idea what you are talking about here. Bush absolutely CAN tap away – he could under FISA – for any suspicious and problematic calls. He had 3 days of tap away without warrant time for each tap – away-er. He was OFFERED MORE than 3 days of “freebie†time in connection with Patriot Act revisions and turned it down. He has NO requirement to EVER get a warrant on a foreign citizen outside the US under FISA.
All he has to do to be legal is to put the info about what he is doing before the judiciary branch via the secret FISA court and have them give him a warrant, even the “after we’ve already been wiretapping for 3 days†warrant that FISA allows. He REFUSED to do even that. Why? If you watched the ex-FISA judges, too, you’d know – it’s not hard to get a FISA warrant. They made that very clear – it is a much different standard that they use than is required for a criminal wiretap. So WHY NOT GET THE WARRANT? Especially when you can tap away ASAP from the get-go, without a warrant, for up to 3 days and you can tap any foreign citizen pretty much as much as you want without ever having a warrant?
The only thing that makes any sense is that he was tapping people for longer than 3 days who he felt certain he could not get a FISA warrant for – WOW!!! That is big. That is incredibly big. And it means that he was tapping for reasons other than “protecting the country†bc FISA would give him those warrants. Isn’t there a place in the Const. that says the Prez can do what he deems necessary to defend the country, then throw himself at the mercy of the public.
Couple of things First, he never threw himself on the mercy of the public. He lied to us. Over and over and with the political purpose of being re-elected. He directed others to lie to us. He had Hayden lie to the Joint 9/11 Joint investigation. That is flat awful and completely contrary to defending the country. The purpose of the 9/11 joint investigation was to come up with ways to make us more safe – lies from NSA and the President don’t do that. Nest thing – you are really doing kind of a poor job on the “hoke this up†front, IMO. There is the “necessary and proper†clause and I’m thinking you are working this like a stripper works a pole, but fwiw, here goes.
The President can not suspend the Bill of Rights as an incident of what he deems “necessary and proper†in defense of the country. This has already been decided by the Supreme Court in the Civil war. Habeas can be suspended, the Bill of Rights can not AS LONG AS COURTS ARE OPEN AND OPERATING. Look around. They are open, they are operating, and we even have special private ones just for this kind of thing. So the judicial supervision requirement of the warrant clause is in effect and has remained in effect.
Now, let’s say that there was something really time sensitive that had to be addressed (although with the existing 3 day freebie in FISA, it’s hard to even imagine what it would be) that caused the President to feel he had to act in the interests of national security. Well, that is very similar to the situation of the cop who hears screams from a house and doesn’t have time to go get a warrant – it’s called exigent circumstances and it can authorize action without a warrant in those kind of pressing circumstances. So, in such a specialized case, the President’s “necessary and proper†authority could kick in. However, a five year underground, illegal program that has never been sought to be brought within the bounds of the law – — – that’s not “exigent’ in anyone’s book. It is not “necessary†to have a five year lawbreaking program that you never seek to get authorized. It is not “necessary†to break FISA to wiretap, even to begin “immediate†wiretaps (bc of the 3 day freebie) Similary, those actions are not only NOT “proper†they are contrary to the President’s constitutional obligations.
Whatever he may have done for a day, a week or a month in good faith – the good faith period has been over for a long long time. YEARS worth of a long long time. And it is hard to ever claim “good faith†in the face of a pattern of lies and cover up. Who knows what has been wiretapped? We don’t. We have to rely on the President’s representations (you may remember, for example, his representation that “no one†expected the levees might top or that “everyone†thought Hussein had WMDs) and that is EXPRESSLY what the Fourth Amendment tells us we should not have to do – in exigent circumstances (and you do throw yourself on the court for this – they may not see the exigencies) there may be an issue, but a five year illegal program does not even begin to fall into that category. When the President is going to engage in a systematic program for years of spying on American citizens, on American soil, using and American agency — he needs a warranted and judicially supervised program. He never tried to “throw himself†on the mercy of the people and the courts. Instead, he lied, evaded, covered up, and went after those who were not loyalists. And never gave up the Bolton intercepts for that matter.

]]>