Yesterday, there was a hearing in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on the AT&T/NSA case. Down the rabbit hole, indeed:
Judge Harry Pregerson…suggests the government is asking the courts to “rubber stamp” the government’s claim that state secrets are at risk “Who decides whether something is a state secret or not? … We have to take the word of the members of the executive branch that something is a state secret?”
Garre counters that the courts should give “utmost deference” to the Bush administration.
Judge Pregerson: “What does utmost deference mean? Bow to it?”…
AT&T attorney Michael Kellogg…has taken the podium, and, not surprisingly, insists the case has to be dismissed. He says AT&T customers have no actual proof or direct knowledge that their communications were forwarded to the government without warrants.
“The government has said that whatever AT&T is doing with the government is a state secret,” Kellogg says. He adds, “As a consequence, no evidence can come in whether the individuals’ communications were ever accepted or whether we played any role in it.”…
Al-Haramain lawyer Eisenberg argues that the government’s rationale for dismissing the cases on state secrets grounds doesn’t apply to his clients, since they already know they were surveilled from seeing the secret document.
McKeown asks whether the foundation’s attorneys would have a case if the government hadn’t inadvertently disclosed the call log.
“We wouldn’t have known we were surveilled,” Eisenberg replies. “Had they not made a mistake and revealed it to the victims… who would be out here to sue?” (emphasis mine)
Trust us — just doesn’t cut it, now does it? Good lord, that truly is the biggest bunch of jabberwocky that I have ever heard. And I can see why this is going to undoubtedly end up at the US Supreme Court, where civil liberties have been so revered of late (thanks Alito and Roberts wafflers…you’re swell). Jeebus, now I’m pissed off about the FISA votes all over again…
(Huge H/T to Wired for the hearing blogging — much appreciated. Photo of Alice and the Cheshire Cat via lockacid.)
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
curious
Greetings!
Good morning Christy! Hope you are doing ok with the stormy weather there.
g’ morning… coffee is not ready yet…
all this secret stuff is creeping me out…
Twas brillig commentary, Christy.
Good morning to everyone
Oh, but they are going to “fix” FISA right?
Morning Christy and pups!
Anything the 9th Circuit does to curtail the Executive will be overturned by the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit has the worst overall record on upholding cases in the country. If they rule against the Administration that will actually be a victory because the Supreme Court will have a chance to make nationwide law. Be careful of what you ask for.
LibertyLee @ 9
Then there is no hope?
Sorry if this is bad form, but Friday night all DC denizens are encouraged to meet at Old Ebbitt Grill by the Whitehouse (sic) at Beer Thirty (5 PM).
I got first round.
Good morning Everybody,
Just a short splash and off to my day. Tough way to wake up.
Marion and eg, at the bottom of the last thread: a classic.
Out with the slithy toves!
Utmost deference!?! …at this point not even G*d gets my utmost deference.
Christ – so the judges are feeling like the Alice in Wonderland…..where’s that leave us?
Yep…I can feel it, getting pissed off again….and I was so looking forward to a mini-vacation of quietness and tranquility.
How do we know the only tapping room is at AT&T?
And is the government really just routing the calls outside the US so technically they can grab the data outside the US? Can the gov’t get away with violating the intent of the laws protecting our 4th amendment rights on such a technicality?
Boston “Then there is no hope?”
Where there’s life, there’s hope. I ain’t giving up and neither should anybody else. When we have ended this senseless slaughter and restored Constitutional government, then we can rest for real. But never yield, and never give up.
Wordsmith @ 14
Happy Birthday, in spite of it all!
Boston1775 @ 10
Sure there’s hope. There’s hope we might actually get actionable intelligence in a timely fashion that can be used to stop the Terrorists trying to kill us in time.
Elliott @ 17
/blushin’/ Thanks!
Christy, thank you for writing this and presenting it in a manner most befitting.
One small bit:
appears next to the Alice photo. Perhaps you could re-reference the judge?
It’s at times like these that I have to remind myself that it took Nixon to be gone, the CIA to reluctantly cooperate with the Church and Pike committees, and a number of sensible legislators to make FISA law, and a President in office who would sign it.
We don’t have those conditions now, and I’m not sure we have in Congress the analogues of Frank Church and Otis Pike these days. But, the fact remains that none of those changes could have gone forward with Nixon in office.
One more reason to throw the bastards out….
Has anyone noticed that the NYT has yet again given op-ed space to Cordesman, and this time he’s advocating for the US to arm the ME to the teeth?
Getting back to the real reason for US military presence: it’s what the corporations demand -good for business and all.
(edited to add the link I forgot during the first go – sorry)
The article I read (maybe in NYT?WaPo) indicated we pulled as good a bunch of judges as possible in today’s legal climate.
Now and then, a little incompetence on the part of government might not be a bad thing (wrt letting the records out unintentionally). ‘-)
Hope this is the hearing C-Span was talking about earlier in the week that they plan to show on Saturday. Would like to see the action in addition to reading partial transcript.
I suspect that these spooks are
“tapping” into satellites which handle all sorts of communications in addition to imaging satellites. This is clearing illegal or perhaps not covered under the law as the satellites are not in the USA or in anyplace and that is the gray area… but they are handling all sorts of things.
So they show a few congress critters what this can produce and they have stayed mum because it would open up a huge can of worms… but it can produce some quickie data for spooks.
Has it prevented and attacks? That is the big question. It does mean that they are able to look at everything and it outside the courts jurisdiction.
Anyone know about laws applied to satellites?
Happy birthday Wordsmith!
Then there is no hope?
Of course there’s hope. In this case, it is more commonly known as Justice Anthony Kennedy.
imo, it’s the Kennedy Court now.
Balrog at 5 — Good morning — how is the wee balrog?
n=1 — To see the photos of the various folks, you’ll have to go to the original Wired write-up that I link in my piece. Forgot to strip out that photo reference. It’s storming here this morning, and I’ve been writing in the lulls between the bouts of thunder and lightning. *g*
I rather like the visual of Christy at her keyboard, hurling down thunder and lightning onto the evildoers of the world :)
Smite ‘em!
Lee at 9 — I’m not asking for it — it just is how it is. Whatever the 9th Circuit decides, there is no way that this stays put there as a decision unless the Supremes deny certiorari. The opposing sides in this case are incredibly far apart — and a negotiated settlement seems highly unlikely — especially given that the government and AT&T have staked out a very extreme “state secrets” defensive posture after their screw-up discovery — and an appeal is highly likely no matter how the 9th Circuit rules.
It’s possible the Supremes will allow the ruling to stand, whatever it may be, and deny cert., but I’m not betting on that happening. I’m not wishing for it — not with the current make-up of the Supreme Court, believe me! — but the facts are what they are and, honestly, it’s headed that way no matter what.
This is completely OT, but I would like to see Busted Knuckles see this. (breaking creepy tension, I hope). Wrenchware for the handy person
Never trust anyone who says trust me.
But the law changed with the FISA fix, and this case is now moot:
See http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/081307.html
Elliott at 15 — We don’t. The only reason that we know about AT&T at all is because the government screwed up during discovery and handed defense counsel a memo that specifically discussed AT&T’s involvement — although even saying that here in the comments is probably a no no because they’ve declared their own mistake a state secret. *g*
Christy Hardin Smith @ 29
It’s also one of those cases where the Supremes can say, with very straight faces and smothered giggles, that they are doing what their detractors say they do not do–acknowledging stare decisis. All they will have to do in this case is cite Reynolds.
Waccamaw — If I remember correctly on the names, the judge that was being a bit snarky on the deference issue is a Republican appointee who has a solid record of libertarian positions in his judicial career. That sort of “deference to the President” language was a very bad call on the government attorney’s part — they didn’t do their research on the judge very well if they thought that sort of proto-monarchy, superior executive deference from the judiciary language was going to work.
Judge Pregerson is onto a basic principle here that needs fixing. Namely, the old WWII/Cold War practice that one branch of the government alone — the executive branch — has the power to classify and declassify national security matters, and that Congress and the courts may not get involved if the executive decides (arbitrarily or not) that the issues are too secret to allow any constitutional checks and balances. A somewhat related issue, IMHO, is that the Bush administration has single-handedly invented a new kind of tort — wrongful classification or declassification of “national security” information, e.g., for the purpose of frustrating civil remedies, or to punish political enemies. Obviously, this kind of wrongdoing does not have its source in the great tradition of English common law. Another way that the Bush administration has sought to “modernize” our Republic. OT: Rove seems to think he is Moby Dick. We all know, however, that he is just a dick. I’ve been wanting to say that for a few days now.
Reminds me of ee cummings:
wigwam at 32 — The new addition on the FISA law is not retroactive, and this case was brought prior to its passage. It is, therefore, not moot. And there will be challenges to the constitutionality of the new law as well — and hopefully amendments to the abomination of rights handovers. We shall see…
He says AT&T customers have no actual proof or direct knowledge that their communications were forwarded to the government without warrants.
Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K. . . (At least, that’s what this reminds me of.) In George Bush’s world, we’re all Josef K.
I think I like this Harry Pregerson fellow.
wigwam @ 32
IIRC, for these purposes, AT&T is a “person.”
Boston1775 @ 10
Sure there is. The more egregious the insult, the more likely impeachment can be brought, even against Supreme Court justices.
Once again, Christy and commenters, thank you for this education.
And now, a stupid question: is it possible to ever change the legal standing of a corporation as a person with entitlement of rights to that of a non-person akin to property or some other legal entity which doesn’t have any inherent rights? (I’m not even sure about whether I framed this question well, so I apologize in advance)
Judges Skeptical of State-Secrets Claim
my bold
Christy Hardin Smith @ 38
Thanks for the clarification.
It looks like the “attack” here is very similar to the MCA in that it doesn’t make things legal or illegal. Rather it limits the jurisdiction of federal courts: “… no cause of action shall lie in any court against any person for …” Right?
I lived in the Johnson-Nixon era. This is a much harder nut to crack because of the issues and players. In the 60s-early 70s it was a more “rich” stew of concerns (civil rights, sexual rights,generational conflict, freedom of dress, major changes in the Catholic church, the war, etc), each building on the other and in the end having an impact on the whole. The media was against us, but felt compelled to cover demonstrations. That is not happening now. The movement then was heavily youth in makeup, but there were sizable religious and other supporters (where are the modern Berrigan brothers? Where are the campus leaders?).
The draft is NOT the main difference, I think, it is far more complex. The Catholic Church with the new Opus Dei Pope has clamped down on activist priests- and because the church has sold its soul to the Bushies for abortion and birth control opposition, to say nothing of pedophile priests-they won’t allow push back on the war (plus the Pope supports the mission to attack Islam). The student leaders now are fearful of hurting their future careers in an increasingly tight market. Worse, a major student leadership group in the sixties (as in the earlier movements) are not on board. As with Lieberman, this young largely j*w*sh leadership group has to brook enormous family and community blow back if they press against the current Bush Mid-East policy (nor do they want to), because it is seen to be so wrapped up with the safety of Isr*el. This is part of the whole drill with Ford and Collins’ blogger calling the anti-war movement anti-semitic. They know how difficult the situation is in this regard. Ditto were these student leaders to move against something like the larger meme of fighting terrar.
How we counter this I don’t know, but I think the move here and through ActBlue to vote in more thoughtful legislators is important. And, as in the last election it seems to have worked, despite the opposition of the Rovians and MSM. Alas, we have lost the courts (thanks to Susan Collins and others) and that will take a long time to fix.
One more thing: If this mortgage and housing mess gets much worse, the Rethugs will have hell to pay in the elections because there will be vast economic damage, particularly if the rethugs go about this as they have to date and blame the “victims” as opposed to the irresponsible banks.
Food for thought: Why is this financial crisis bearing down on us now? Of course there are the bad mortgages, but here too the situation is more complex. It is being made far worse by the hedge fund people (who make money also on losses – these are the folks Schumer wants to support big time in terms of taxes). They are making the market even more volitile than it already is But equally importantly the money is tight in large part because of the huge expense of the Iraq war. Because the money is tied up there, it can’t be available to banks for loans here.
The chickens are coming home to roost. The U.S. gov has sunk in some 8 billion on this mess, but the Europeans have put in close to 150 billion I think. The latter clearly realize how dangerous this situation is.
All the more reason to be nervous about FISA. For well beyond the war, it will be used – along with the US spy planes – to maintain the interests of the corporate controlled big business government in the face of increasing opposition at the popular level.
Rant over, back to work.
Balrog @ 11
Dang, is that tomorrow night? I’m taking my son back to Va Tech this weekend. What say we get together again around 9/14 to organize our contingent for the 9/15 march.
Wapoo has an article up: Domestic Use of Spy Satellites to Widen
who do you suppose will do the oversight on those? warrants required? these things can “look” inside buildings!
also very creepy.
OldCoastie @ 48
Maybe there’s a market for tinfoil roofs. ;-)
Balrog @ 11
I work at 14th and L NW, am I nearby?
Christy Hardin Smith @ 38
Good morning, ReddHedd. Is there precedent in law or practice that renders such issues moot when the law is changed to make something legal that was once illegal? I realize the recent FISA changes were not retroactive – Bush/Cheney are still pushing for that. But I’m just wondering whether decisions have been made saying the illegal activity is now moot. Sorry to seem obtuse here. It seems like the other side of the coin from ex post facto doctrine. And, as you know, IANAL. Cheers! and throw a few more lightning bolts toward DC, would ya?
LibertyLee, you might want to reconsider the slam on the 9th Circuit.
TiredFed @ 51
I’m very curious about that question. But this has the extra twist that the cited passage seem to relieve the court of jurisdiction, right in the middle of an on-going trial. Can congress do that?
Good morning from L.A. Thanks for posting during an electrical storm, Christy. Those mornings are why surge protectors were invented…
I know I’m among friends when commenters reference cummings & Kafka first thing in the morning. In regard to this particular tale of mega-eavesdropping all in the name of “keeping us safe.” several Philip K. Dick novels also come to mind. Dick, arguably scifi’s most paranoid writer, has been turning out during this administration to be something like an historian for our times. One example, ably realized by Richard Linklater:
A Scanner Darkly
wigwam @ 53
well, Congress can pretty much do whatever it wants. It is up to the courts to decide whether what they’ve done is Constitutional, but they are the 3rd branch – they get to “legislate.”
OT
DemocracyNow is interview the shrink who interviewed Padilla for 22 hrs.
Christy,
This is exactly why FDL was far-sighted to go after Lieberman – if it walks like a Rep, quacks like a Rep, etc. There’s a lot of work in ‘08.
This is also why although I am pleased that the Dem party is putting a woman and a black man forward as presidential candidates, based on their policies, I am an Edwards guy. This crap must be rolled back, and Hillary and Obama are incrementalists.
Here’s a question I’d like to see the media ask each Dem candidate: Upon taking office, will you immediately restore h.c., correct FISA and stop warrantless surveillance of Americans?
TiredFed @ 55
The Supremes seem to have backed congress in relieving federal courts of jurisdiction over alien GWoT detainees who’ve been declared “illegal enemy combatants.”
Peterr @ 53
Now, Peterr, when have facts ever gotten inthe way of the right-wing meme and talking points?
IIRC didn’t you just move? Settled in? Having any fun?
I don’t want to get too tinfoil here, and mods can delete this if they wish. But doesn’t this era look a lot like the Stalinist era? And doesn’t it seem an odd coincidence that the Secretary of State is a scholar of the Soviet Union?
TiredFed @ 52
If it was illegal when you did it, they can go after you. Laws change all the time, but what the law meant when the acts in question occurred is the law by which you will be judged.
Here’s a simple example: Tax deductions change from year to year, but if you try to amend your 2005 taxes to take advantage of the larger 2007 deductions and exemptiosn, it will only get you in trouble.
dakine01 @ 60
Yep — from the SF Bay to Kansas City MO. Let’s just say I’ve got a lot of respect for oilfieldguy and his fellow big rig truck drivers after driving a 27 foot truck with most of our worldly possession 1900 miles. Mostly unpacked now, but still trying to get settled. Fun will commence shortly.
(Though a long stopover at Rocky Mountain National Park was glorious. The Kid wanted to forget about KC, unload the truck right there, and move in with the coyotes, elk, and beavers.)
state secrets
Homeland
Word by word, the American people are being conditioned to accept that they must relinquish their freedoms.
I have read recently (here, I think) some quotes of Hermann Goebbels that are quite like Repub-speak and Repub-think.
Peterr @ 63
I agree. I’ve driven a couple of 26-27 foot rental trucks hauling a car trailer through all kinds of weather.
And smart kid there…
Well, for what it’s worth, I was able to give my congressman an earful in person Saturday morning. And of course I e-mailed, called and faxed his offices about the FISA bill.
Then yesterday one of his staffers dropped by to see me at work. Her visit was work-related, but I did mention to her my disappointment with the FISA vote.
It may already be too late for our liberty and democracy, but just in case maybe I can help teach a blue dog new tricks.
And agreed, the current Supreme Court will certainly not rule in favor of anything even remotely consistent with the ideals of this nation’s founders.
These are dark days indeed. But maybe there’s truth to the adage that it’s always darkest before the
storm(sorry, that should read “dawn”).Jonathan @ 63
As far as I can see, neoconservatism is an attempt to establish the Fourth Reich via communist-party tactics.
Sufilizard at 65: I really, really hope you are right about it being darkest before the dawn.
wigwam @ 67
Difference though, it is only socialism for the corporations and wealthy. The people be damned.
wigwam @ 67
Now you’re just mixing your totalitarian metaphors.
Although the point is well taken, we seem to be tearing the most ominous pages from both the fascist and Soviet playbooks.
It’s beginning to seem that Orwell was just a naive optimist.
I’m thinking about the timing of this case and the likely appeal to the Supremes. If it isn’t clear now, it will be clear by January-February that the next President of the US will be a Democrat, and all the likely candidates fall fairly comfortably under the rubric ‘liberal’. Does anyone here really believe that the Supremes will certify the ‘trust us’ doctrine when they can see that in six months the next President will probably be Hillary Clinton? I can’t see Scalia or Thomas making that decision ever. As to the other troglodytes, it’s hard to say, as their consistency hasn’t been tested.
They will have to find some new argument to throw the case out. Any ideas what that might be? Standing? Not allowing the ’secret’ document into evidence?
Jonathan @ 64
I’ve been meaning to ask if anyone has a link to terminology like some of the ones you’ve mentioned that we’d like to see removed from the lexicon? “Mistakes were made” and “Lessons learned” come to mind. ;-(
The continuing conundrum of the national security state. As exemplified by the perversion of the Bill of Rights -particularly articles lV, V and Vl, the modern state has claimed exemptions beyond the ken of reasonable doubt. While the progressives couch their umbrage in terms of personalities of the opposition, the truth is within the corruption of human nature.
Our constitution has been under constant attack since its inception because it runs counter to the peripheral nature of man to manipulate others for material gain.
The conservative notion of regulation is for others whom they want to exploit. When you flim-flam the assets of another into your column, it is theoretically the police who will prevent him from acts of revenge. This is considered good law enforcement.
The overall problem of allowing exemptions to the rule, is that eventually the exemptions become the rule.
The national security state has been held up through the Cold War and now the War on Terror as necessary to protect our freedoms. But if its end result is to destroy our freedoms, what have we gained?
Thomas Jefferson:
OT? from the Wapoo:
Oversight of the department’s use of the overhead imagery data would come from officials in the Department of Homeland Security and from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and would consist of reviews by agency inspectors general, lawyers and privacy officers. “We can give total assurance” that Americans’ civil liberties will be protected, Allen said. “Americans shouldn’t have any concerns about it.”
Feel better?
Anybody happen to catch the article on AT&T’s invoices to iPhone users?
300 pages of detail?
Um, why all the detail — are they used to providing this for other clients?
Peterr @ 53
I’m not reconsidering on the basis of the Slate article. I would view the chances on this case as being 100% in favor of reversal if the 9th CC goes against the Administration. The case law is with the Administration, not the plaintiffs. They wouldn’t even be there but for a screwup.
sofistic @ 67
It’s also darkest in a collapsed coal mine.
Where are the course corrections forever being spoken about? I keep coming back to motivations for action, and all I see is corporate pressure to keep the status quo per the power and control of those bodies over all of government and over all of us.
Congress is not doing the business of the people. It’s serving corporations’ interests to the exclusion of the people’s.
So now what? More months of the status quo means more destruction of the Constitution, if that is even reparable at this point. Where is the tipping point for failure and collapse of the great democratic experiment?
I think that it’s already behind us – I really do not see where we are living under democratic rule. Tell me what I’m missing?
This communication is likely surveilled – in fact I have no assurances that everything I say, write and do isn’t surveilled and can be used against me – in a secret proceeding.
The presumption is now clearly guilty until the accused proves his or her innocence, and again, in a secret court, the accused will not have access to the accusations or the evidence used against him or her.
Taxes are used to fund monstrosities for global warfare and to fund programs to be used against American citizens all the while gutting all support for workers, health, education, labor, transportation and infrastructure. A more programmatic destruction of the country isn’t possible.
Where’s democracy in the US? I think the only vestige left is a very thin veneer just for show.
TiredFed at 74: Yeah, I feel better. But why is my stomach churning and why do I feel queasy?
so we know as a fact alito and roberts are gonna come down on the side of buschco
what then?
Some of my favorite arguments from the Gov’t lawyers come further down in the link in regard to the Islamic organization’s suit against the gov’t.
How rich is that. We can’t even discuss if the lawyer’s were spied upon because even that itself is a super duper gov’t state secret so we gotta toss the case.
Only in Bushmerica.
Peterr @ 62
Welcome to KC Peterr you are in good company. It’s just a little hot though but this too will pass. Welcome.
TiredFed @ 75
No.
Another example of simple answers to simple questions.
SanderO @ 56
thank you. listening now. i’m having trouble with how upset this is making me. absolutely critical we understand what is happening.
this is a must see / must listen. the podcast will be available for download soon. or streaming here.
Any reaction in “the press” to the FDL press release yesterday?
perris @ 78
so we know as a fact alito and roberts are gonna come down on the side of buschco
what then?
Scalia and Thomas do the same, which makes it 4 – 4. Decisive vote belongs to Kennedy.
From the interview with the psychiatrist who interviewed Padilla it is pretty clear that he was abused and tortured.
What kind of people do we have working in this country who would do such things to any human being?
These people need to be located and brought to court and charged with crimes against humanity… All of them.. including the shrinks who advised them about interrogation.
This is really insane. I am sick to my stomach that I live next to these people… sit next to them at the movies of on the train.
Sibel Edmonds has the goods on this gang. She’s been gagged. What’s the deal with gagging people?
N=1 @ 44
Reclaim Democracy has a lot of information on corporate personhood.
N=1 @ 76
we will have reached the point of no return when a Republican is elected the next President of the United States. Going to look up old friends in Ontario after that happens.
Rayne @ 76
Probably found it easier to print and provide to all customers. (KO covered this last night showing a video one young woman had put together showing her “bill”)
I am curious about the concept of “interpreting” a law.
How is it that a law is so “flexible” that the right wing can read a law one way and the left another way? What’s with that?
I am beginning to hunger for the pretty birds and muffin pix (and topics) of the week-end during the mid-week. My nerves are definitely fried on this.
And, what are we going to do about the imminent Iran attack and resurging Surge movement in the weeks ahead?
msmolly @ 83
count me in as one of the curious. that was truly an awesome press release. I went looking all over for it after I saw it here. Did it actually get released?
OT
CSPAN 1
Dick Cheney tape about not going to Baghdad will be subject of part of Washington Journal tomorrow.
jayt @ 84
Scalia and Thomas do the same, which makes it 4 – 4. Decisive vote belongs to Kennedy.
He has been coming down on their side recently on these matters. I can’t tell you how pissed I am at Sandra Day O’Connor.
It’s pretty clear that we are under surveillance and it’s getting worse all the time.
When will the people FIGHT back.
I am sick and tied of the
NATIONAL SECURITY STATE that the USA is.
We live in a fascist nightmare. What’s with the people?
perris @ 79
Assuming the 2008 elections occur and the true winner is installed in the White House in 2009, the next president is likely to be a democrate, probably Hillary. Do they want Hillary to be an “imperial president”? (Someone made this same point earlier, but I can’t seem to find it.)
Morning! Did you see that the WH is trying to weasel out of having Patreas and Crocker testify publicly?
Loo Hoo. @ 96
Let me guess: no TV, no oath, no transcript?
wigwam @ 97
I am not certain they believe a democrat will win, they have drunk the kkkool aid after all, I think they believe the elections will either fixed or suspended
Loo Hoo. @ 98
I am curious as to what this all about. I wonder if Gen. Petreaus decided that he didn’t want the fate of America’s Iraq endeavour laid at his feet.
Crocker is an ambassador so he will toe the line. Petreaus must be under enormous pressure, especially after the reports of his glowing op-eds prior to the 2004 elections.
-GSD
Elliott @ 94
Ya just beat me to it. Should be a *really* interesting call-in, especially if Brian doesn’t take a day off. *g*
Loo Hoo at 96. Last night on KO, the subtitle on this subject was “Ghost Writer,” and I could not help but think of the tune (with altered lyrics), “Ghost Writer in the Sky.”
Latest updates in the GOP-er scumbag watch.
An embezzeling GOP-er from Florida.
-GSD
SanderO @ 85
and why won’t henry waxman call her to testify before the house oversight committee (and the people she has gotten to agree to testify with her)?
MayDaze @ 88
Also, Thom Hartmann has had a lot to say about that stuff: http://www.thomhartmann.com/un…..tion.shtml
Richmond @ 93
Knowing her husband has dementia makes me unp*ssed at her.
perris @ 98
The general thinking is that she will continue the same war policy in the middle east (and surveillance at home). Also, you wonder what promises she had to give to Murdoch in exchange for his support. At the same time the Repugs seem to want her to win the primary so much, you wonder what they have on her.
N=1 @ 13
And out with the slimy roves!
LibertyLee @ 77
If you want to argue the merits of the case, that’s fine — let’s give it a try. But when you say if the 9th circuit rules against the administration it will be overturned because that’s what always happens to the 9th circuit because it’s filled with lefties, you aren’t arguing the merits of the case. You’re making an assumption based on a faulty premise.
“Garre counters that the courts should give “utmost deference” to the Bush administration.”
I believe the correct word Garre should utter is “genuflect”….
Geesh…
“Had they not made a mistake and revealed it to the victims… who would be out here to sue?”
That sentence encapsulates everything that’s wrong about the courts’ stance on standing in these cases, IMHO. There must be a way to challenge these programs on the basis that anyone could be a victim of it, and that there are many folks can reasonably expect that they are. This is such a clear case of misuse of secrecy that any sane court would have to give that though serious consideration, I’d think.
Of course, IANAL.
N=1 @ 78
My natural state is one of a pessimist, so I’m inclined to agree with you, but I’m trying to remain optimistic.
Assuming what you say is true, what course of action would you suggest?
Splitting the country before we’re completely fenced in is one options, but how long do you think it will be before this darkness envelops whatever land you expatriate to?
I am certainly not a proponent of any kind of violent revolution, and even if I were, I think the chances of success are almost nil.
That doesn’t leave a lot of options. We could try to organize MASSIVE demonstrations to force a peaceful revolutions, but with so much of the public brainwashed and/or scared into inaction, I’m not sure that has much hope either.
But I REFUSE to simply give up. So I continue to work for democratic change. But I’d certainly like to hear other suggestions. Seriously — I’m not trying to be sarcastic. I am quite close to hopelessness and I would love to hear ideas on what more we can do.
Assuming Hillary gets the Dem nod, you can count on a Labor Day ‘incident’ in ‘08. This after a year of the Repug slime machine.
Why do you think Rove stepped down? He’s planning it.
On a different note, I’m concerned Hillary just might like herself some unitary executive, ’cause God knows she has some scores to settle!
Richmond @ 108
my speculation is she promised him she wouldn’t eliminate his ability to own multibple media venue
they want her to win our primary because they beleive she is the easiest for them to beat
I agree with that analysis and if I were them I would be doing everything possible to get her as the democratic choice as well
Waccamaw @ 100
I still want to know where that tape has been all these years.
SanderO @ 96
No worries, the government cares about your opinion….
Just look out the window and wave at the nice spy satellite….
Geesh….
I am glad that the judges seem to remember what the constitution means.
SanderO at 90 — Because you argue your side of what the interpretation ought to be, you find cases which support your argument — it’s the advocacy side of the law. But advocacy is not “the law,” it is simply an argument of how the law ought to be interpreted. What is the law is the series of cases and precedents where judges have applied these principles over time so that they become settled interpretations — stare decisis — which everyone recognizes, but still has an opportunity to haggle over in terms of advocacy that things need to be changed.
The law is based on a solid foundation of principles and written legislative and case law specifics. But the interpretation of these can be incrementally fluid over time as there are shifts in society and in wording — see Dred Scott and then on to Brown v. Board of Education as a good example of that sort of shift.
wigwam @ 104
Thank you, Wigwam and MayDaze. Reading now….
Elliott @ 94
BTW, George H.W. Bush made much the same point in 1998:
Elliott @ 105
That is true, but did Edwards drop everything when his wife’s cancer got worse? Or did she insist on dropping out, or having him drop out? No. If the tables had been turned (if O’Connor had been one of the male justices), I think it would have played out very differently. Also, what are their hours “in the court”? I think thy are relatively few, alot of the reading probably could be done at home.
My thinking als is that you take a position such as that and you have responsibilities to the country as well as family. Her thinking was, I have to get out in a Republican administration, because a Republican named me, so I’ll do it now. Putting politics first is a Rethug thing I guess.
My district group – Democrats and Donuts had a surprise guest – Pelosi with Harry Mitchell yesterday morning.
http://www.azcentral.com/12new…..16-CP.html
http://www.ahwatukee.com/news/…..house.html
AND why did they HAVE to have a bill before recess?….. just asking…
GSD @ 104
Dropping like flies, they are.
Did you read some of the comments from people who continue to support him? Dog, he steals from the dead and he’s still a good guy. Gag. Just the pix are enough to turn your stomach.
GSD @ 104
Nice catch.
Liberty Lee, are you really afraid of terrorism? If you are, would you explain what is so frightening?
perris @ 115
The rethugs do seem to want to do everything that they can to assure that Hillary is the Dem candidate.
They should also be careful of what they wish for as they just might get it.
@ 118
For the moment. Remember, all our Senatorial Democrats with their remarkably rubber spines, approving those rightwing Supreme Court justices? There’s no guarantee the Roberts court is going to accept common sense and rule of law.
And while we’re at it, let’s bow once to Anatole France. The Nobel laureate wrote a devastating parody of the Dreyfus Case, in which a man was sentenced on what was said to be a mountain of evidence that could not be disclosed in court, because it was too sensitive.
Sound familiar?
Waccamaw: Yeah, I read the comments too. The ole’ “everybody does it” trick. What is wrong with people, or is that just family members drumming up support. I’d rather vote for a dead guy than a crook.
Richmond @ 93
I agree completely. I’ve been wondering whether a Sandra Day O’Connor voodoo doll would sell.
And Kennedy *has* been pretty consistently wrong lately. I’ve advocated here before that, instead of morning coffee, he be tazered just to be sure he’s awake. /s
I called AT&T to cancel my landline late last month. When the gal asked why, I told her it was because AT&T was spying on Americans. She said okay, didn’t deny it and continued on. Sounded to me like she’d heard many such calls.
When this practice was first revealed in late 2005, I emailed AT&T, and they shot back emails denying it. Interesting.
Wow, that whole thing is just surreal. I’ve been skipping around in the comments (working on my first cup of coffee here on the left coast) but –
Yes, I think I like Judge Pregerson, too.
I am astonished someone said, with an apparently straight face, that the “utmost deference” should be paid, ha ha, to this, *snort*, administration (falls off chair, setting cup down just in time, chortling). Oh yes. I got your utmost deference RIGHT HERE.
Satellite piccies able to count shingles, look inside buildings, etc — I’ve long considered whether to put something obscene — a flipped finger, something — on my rooftop. But maybe a tinfoil roof could be the ticket ;-)
Re: Petraeus’ report: I actually wonder if he suddenly smelled the coffee and refused to do a report himself. If he’s over there, and he has more than two brain cells, he must be able to realize there’s no more pig to put lipstick on at all.
As for “interpreting a law” — there’s a reason for that — consider that some of these laws run to hundreds of pages of dense, lawyerly text. Some clauses may modify previous ones, and even the meanings of individual words may be disputed. The legislature may have had a specific intent in mind, but hte language might not quite match it, OR as a compromise, language “suitable” to both was used, with a resulting slight ambiguity. Or, cases not forseen by the writers might come up in which case, a court may be needed to decide how to apply the law to this unforseen case, if it can be applied at all.
Lawyers provide plenty of their own job security ;-)
Also, I too am interested in the reaction, if any so far, to yesterday’s press release?
LibertyLee @ 9
Hold up a sec, there, Bunky.
Aren’t you just a wee bit concerned that those committed originalists at the Supreme Court might actually enforce the Fourth Amendment as it was understood at the time it was adopted in 1789? Or are you secure in the knowledge that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are nothing but a bunch of result-oriented hypocrites?
Richmond @ 108
It all boils down to whether she’s “an honest politician,” i.e., one that stays bought.
Cujo at 112 — Ther is a very good reason that standing issues are constructed that way. Otherwise, you’d have a rash of unscrupulous filings for people who have very tenuous connections, if any, but who want to jump on some perceived “settlement gravy train” trying to sue over any number of issues. You can’t tie up the courts that way — it isn’t feasible — so that has tended to be a rational way to limit suits by having someone be able to show some form of connection to establish the standing that they do, indeed, have a valid claim against the other party.
The problem with this sort of case, and why they are rarely brought forward, is that proving standing is very, very difficult. And that’s the conundrum for the court in any case where a “state secret” argument is put forward. It will be quite interesting to see how this resolves itself — because in this particular case, the government outed both themselves and AT&T with a mistaken discovery document that they are now trying to sweep back under the cloak of secrecy. That almost never happens, and it creates a cloud for them that is difficult to purge.
SufiLizard @ 113
My natural state is one of a pessimist, so I’m inclined to agree with you, but I’m trying to remain optimistic.
Assuming what you say is true, what course of action would you suggest?
Splitting the country before we’re completely fenced in is one options, but how long do you think it will be before this darkness envelops whatever land you expatriate to?
I am certainly not a proponent of any kind of violent revolution, and even if I were, I think the chances of success are almost nil.
That doesn’t leave a lot of options. We could try to organize MASSIVE demonstrations to force a peaceful revolutions, but with so much of the public brainwashed and/or scared into inaction, I’m not sure that has much hope either.
But I REFUSE to simply give up. So I continue to work for democratic change. But I’d certainly like to hear other suggestions. Seriously — I’m not trying to be sarcastic. I am quite close to hopelessness and I would love to hear ideas on what more we can do.
That’s where I am, too. I don’t feel educated enough to know what course of actions is still open and will be effective.
the only thing that comes to mind is to perhaps take a look at regionalization – for example a California with more than states rights, a new New England as a coalition of states, a Mid-Atlantic coalition, a Pacific Northwest coalition, etc. That might break up the global military industry – maybe. It might refocus the regions on domestic interests such as local economy jobs, infrastructure, education and health care.
But really, I’m pulling this out of my ass, because there is no progresive think tank working full time with a major media presence working collectively and intensively on these issues.
This is my major concern with the progressive blogosphere, as well. Policy and programs aren’t addressed in any programmatic and intensive way. There isn’t a nexus blog for policy and program. It seems to be almost all politics and candidates-focused.
I have a dormant blog called Progressive Policy waiting for group bloggers. It also could be sued as a link reference site, but no one has been interested in contributing.
Sorry for this lame response, but I just don’t know what can be done….
Richmond @ 122
I hope you never have to face such decisions in your life.
jayt @ 130
No violence here please, you meant that metaphorically I know. But I think the Opus Dei group of Supremes (Thomas,Scelia, probably Roberts) got to him on the “god and authority” thing, and he has found it easier to hang with them than the others.
Elliott @ 137
I have. You work it out as best you can; some days work better than others. Alas there are alot of people facing this situation every day, and it is always difficult.
katymine @ 123
IIRC, the court ruling was several months old, and Bush had been operating without FISA being fixed for several months.
SufiLizard @ 70
Good Morning.. I hope you post this because i have a tad bit different view….
I am a lifelong Dem so i hope i have some standing with this group.
After 9-11 people cried out about not connecting the dots..we still need to connect the dots per say..I think what the GOP has done is push it so far that we maybe have pushed back too hard and by doing so have made our party look silly on National Defense issues. We are at war..yep, stupid as it may be to invade iraq.. But here we are stuck trying to figure our way out of this mess.. just overreacting to Rove’s method of politics makes the dems look like far left loony’s..
I know we aren’t..But the appearances might lose us the election again…I’m a Big Bill Clinton fan so I’m hoping the magic rubs off on Hillary..We can’t afford to lose again.
Hope you post this..
Christy Hardin Smith @ 34
All of FDL is now TOP SECRET. Scram, y’all.
Richmond at 122 — That’s really quite unfair to Justice O’Connor. Her husband has had dementia/Alzheimer’s issues for quite a while, and she managed to balance her duties at the Court and with him very well until he reached a point where that became untenable, from what I hear from folks who know them. She could not give her full attention to her court duties the way she needed to do so, and also take care of things at home the way she wanted. It is my understanding that this was a wrenching decision for her — she understood full well what it could mean for the balance of the court — but that her family had to come first. Frankly, in her shoes, I likely would have done the same thing because I love Mr. ReddHedd and The Peanut more, so I can completely see where she’s coming from on that.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 142
thank you for saying what I couldn’t quite say
jayt @ 130
I liked his opinion in Hamdan v Rumsfeld.
The NY Times had a piece just recently saying that congress could add justices to the Supreme Court and increase their number to better balance it. Why isn’t this getting more play?
Solai at 145 — Because it’s called “court packing,” and it didn’t work out well for FDR either. That’s not a viable solution, in my opinion, because it simply leads to an escalating court packing battle on all sides, which means a nasty stalemate with no real solution to the problem. I’m afraid we are dealing with a mess of political making — and the solution is to elect a Democrat as President next time around and to, hopefully, have no more Supreme Court nominations between now and then.
Christy- On O’Connor. I don’t mean to be unfair to her, and this is a difficult situation all around. But by this statement you are also chastizing those of us who who deeply love our parents, or husbands, or wives and must still continue to work to pay the mortgage, and insurance, and school bills. That is what it comes down to for many.
And, there are also many among us who for our own well-being (and those of our loved ones) feel that despite the guilt, it is better to put them in a day program, with occasional overnights, and eventually full-time care. There is no ONE RIGHT WAY on this one. O’Connor made a decision, and there were ramifications. Others feeling equally great love for their loved ones might have made a different one.
burnspbesq @ 133
The originalists on the Supreme Court understand that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, per Mr. Justice Jackson. In the face of demonstrated terrorist intent posed by Islamo-Fascists and those they are communicating with in the USA, they will let the assertion of the Executive (and Congress) that the threat is such that these procedures are called for in a time of war.
is impeachment only discussed through high crimes or can we impeach for incompetence?
if alito and roberts lied or misled to get approved, and lied or misled to congress, isn’t this a high crime?
we need them off the bench
masaccio @ 126
I do not want my way of life destroyed by Sharia law enforced with the power of guns and terror. I want to live my Western style of life uncluttered by these enemies who are trying to kill us everytime we fly or spread deadly diseases or chemicals or bomb our cities because we live too near ports because they don’t like Jews or Christians or just plain Americans. On the theory that we have to kill them before they kill us.
Richmond at 147 — No, I’m not. What I’m asying is that O’Connor made the personal decision to do the thing that she felt was right both for the Court and for her family. And I think it is incredibly unfair to second guess it from the outside when she had a very good idea of what was required — both intellectually and time-wise — to do her court job adequately. And when it reached a point where she no longer felt that she was able to balance both, she had to make a decision to step down.
You are putting your own personal feelings into her situation — but what her criteria were and what yours are constitute two different things. I’m making the point that she balanced these issues for years — not just a couple of months, but for years — and eventually she had to make a choice. We all have to do that — we had to do that with my granny when she broke her hip and dementia issues began to sink in. LOTS of families do. But I wouldn’t want someone from the outside telling me how I should have handled things in my family, and I think it is unfair to Justice O’Connor for anyone here to do the same.
There is no one right way. But trying it impose your idea of the right way negates that Justie O’Connor also has a right to her own decision. And you are trying to say that she should have done it the way that you think she ought to have decided — which, I think, is unfair to her set of circumstances and the difficulty of the decision for her, which I’ve heard was considerably tough, and something that she wrestled with for quite a long time.
God bless Sirota.
Here’s how you peel off Rep votes in the south!
http://davidsirota.com/index.p…..l-primary/
Lee at 151 — I think we can both agree that threats to national security need to be dealt with in the national interest. I think the question is how to best neutralize them — you clearly come from the “kill them before they kill us” school of right-wing thought. Have heard and read that a lot. But what if that isn’t the most effective means of undercutting them? With any number of reports, including the latest NIE, saying that our current policies using just that mindset have, in point of fact, resulted in more money being directed toward al qaeda and other extremist factions, more support for them in countries where there were not so many radicalized pockets, more volunteers for extremist training and so on. What if we are making things worse by not attacking the ehart of the problems that produce that anger and violent reaction toward us? Iraq has made things far worse, and that is the truth of it — it was a blunder of substantial proportions and a war that we went into for reasons that, honestly, are still awfully murky. And we are reaping a lot of ill will and nastiness from it, despite the enormous sacrifices made by military personnel and their families every damn day.
Wouldn’t we be better served over the long haul to implement a two-pronged approach wherein we (a) do intercede in terms of investigative (constantly) and military action where it is absolutely warranted — but ONLY where it is warranted; and (b) more diplomatic, economic, and social initiatives to get at the root of the problems, including cooperative school efforts to undercut indoctrination against us in Madrassahs, actually LIVING our human rights values instead of just mouthing them, etc., etc.
Loo Hoo. @ 131
iPhone = exclusive to AT&T.
Just sayin’ [and sorry if redundant. wait. nope. not sorry.]
Christy: Thanks for responding. There is something clearly in this that I am not getting, because if O’Connor had been dealing with it for years, the general situation with this disease is for increased need over time for more outside professional care (at home or in an institution). And, this generally wouldn’t be a counter indicator to continuing work. Yes there are personal issues for me in this, but the subject came up for discussion this week-end among friends, and those who had brought it up originally -and others-shared this opinion. That said, I am sure that this has been very hard on her (and she has said as much).
Richmond at 156 — A Supreme Court job, more than a lot of other jobs frankly, relies on an enormous amount of intellectual rigor and substantial concentration, and a command of a broad range of case law and facts at one’s fingertips and quick-witted debate and sharp analysis. When a justice reaches the point where they do not feel that they can do the job, it is their responsibility to make that assessment and to bow out of the seat. Some have been better about it than others through the years — but O’Connor reached that point for herself. At least, that is my understanding from folks who knew her at the Court, and it wasn’t easy to face that reality but she truly felt that she was not able to do the job 100% — and that this was what the job required of her because she owed it to the court and the nation. I don’t know that she was right, considering how some justices in the past have kept going when they were doing far less than she was at the time of her retirement — but it is up to each individual justice to make that decision because theirs is a lifetime appointment and, short of impeachment for some grave offense, they alone make that call.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 147
I argue for the opposite side of the court packing coin: impeachment of justices. Impeach ANY justice that consistently rules in a manner contrary to what they stated during their confirmation hearings. A lie is a lie is a lie…and under oath makes it perjury. Impeach Roberts AND Alito…and Thomas, that sack of sexually harrassing shit.
OK Christy. I cave. But then, I think of Thomas and go OMG! At her worst (say 25%) she would have beaten him on any issue. I wonder too if this isn’t a gender thing here. Women feeling they have to do things 100% while men feel very successful and satisfied at 70% (far healthier in the end, even if their 70% is what a woman would call 49%). Now back upstairs, carrying the laundry as I go.
perris @ 150
Impeachment can be conducted for whatever reason the Congress decides is worthwhile. It need NOT be a “high crime or misdemeanor” as it might be defined in criminal courts. Impeachment CAN be initiated, and should be initiated, against Alito, Roberts, and Thomas for lying to get confirmed and subsequently ruling in direct contravention to the Constitution since.
My mother has had Alzheimer’s for ten years, so I’m well acquainted with the phases and alternatives for care. My beef with Sandra Day O’Connor goes back to her scoffing at 2000 Florida voters (read old, senile) who couldn’t figure out the butterfly ballot. My young, smart cousin in Florida is sure his vote for Gore did not go through and his wife made sure only by leaving the voting booth and holding the ballot up to the window. Sandra Day O’Connor cast the deciding vote imho that gave us President Bush. This vote came right after her much publicized dinner drama about whether she could retire unless there was a Republican President in office. I think the reaction to her decision to retire is fraught for many of us with an already frustrated relationship with the most important member of the Supreme Court.
Whoops. Looks like someone has sh#*@t on his face. Nice to see this bunch of BooBs trying to cover for the Republicant’s one more time. When will this end and where will it lead? Down the rabbit hole indeed…
Christy Hardin Smith @ 154
Christy, that sounds good, but in practice it comes off like the appeasement view of the Communists during the Cold War. Carter sort of tried that approach and it failed miserably. In the meantime, our version of reasonableness and considered action, is viewed by bin Laden as weakness. I use as my sources Bernard Lewis, ibn Warriq, Richard Miniter and other terror experts who tell us that they are prepared–and we have seen them–kill small children in the name of their “holy goal”. Any society that sacrifices its children cannot be trusted. Hence, I believe that all national means of military power, all forms of counter-terrorism must be employed against these folks. I believe that even if it contravenes domestic law, because if you aren’t alive, you can’t have any freedom at all.
Lee at 163 — Well, it also sometimes sounds good in real life — as in Nixon’s detente or the two-pronged approach that Reagan took with the Soviets. But maybe that’s just me and my “liberal” view of history. *g* And a whole lot of reading and discussions with intel and state department and military types over the last few years…including Churchill’s histories (which are wonderful reads, I have to say, just for reading’s sake).
All big stick and no carrot doesn’t entirely work. It simply doesn’t. The sooner we learn that, the better off we will all be over the long run and not just the short run. This needs to be done in a smart and long-term way, not a short-term stopgap with long-term bad consequences way, which is how things have been done for far too long. Squandering the good will we had in our pockets after 9/11 was a grievous error and one that I fear we will be paying for a long time yet.
maggierose @ 161
I agree, and as I note at 159, I think not only was she voting on the “right” side of the issues more often at the end, but when you compare her to Thomas, even her 25% far supercded whatever he could offer.
Given that Lee thinks that we should drop Constitutional protections any time the executive says we are at war, for example during the Cold War and now with the “War on Terror” (which is perpetual)…I’d really like to know when he thinks that the Constitution EVER applies?
And it’s strange that the Constitution was not voided even during the War of 1812 when the British actually DID invade and burn down Washington DC. There was no suspension of habeas corpus, and the government didn’t open and inspect the contents of mail without warrants.
In fact, the Constitution was created at a time when there were major insurrections in the United States. There was a very real risk of the collapse of the nation and a descent into anarchy. Yet the Framers STILL incorporated these protections into the document.
Your insane fears that some sort of mass takeover by invading Islamists forcing you to abide by Shari’a law is interesting, though. Seen a psychiatrist about this problem lately?
LibertyLee @ 151
Wow. There it is, folks. In all its awful glory.
egregious @ 25
Thank you. I missed yours. How about some fish?
Christy Hardin Smith @ 34
It wasn’t on an employee’s hinting?
AT&T attorney Michael Kellogg…has taken the podium, and, not surprisingly, insists the case has to be dismissed. He says AT&T customers have no actual proof or direct knowledge that their communications were forwarded to the government without warrants.
Mr. Kellogg is quite the bluffer. He knows that individuals are waiting for the SCOTUS ruling. If the ruling ignores the law and favors ATT, the individuals are going to produce the smoking gun evidence of illegal activity. It should be quite interesting watching the high court wiping the egg off their reputations.
omg..they can take their UTMOST DEFERENCE and shove it up their bloody rear ends. How arrogant is that? I loved the judge’s response — “So we should just bow to you?”
Gawd, I just want to strangle something now. ugh
wigwam @ 33
One other thing about immunity clauses: they cannot be repealed. You can make it a crime to do “X” from some point forward, but you can never undo the immunity for the time in which it was given (Violates the Ex Post Facto clause of the Constitution).
Unless they file a motion for “change of venue” to the FISC (FISA court), they will be reversed for “lack of standing”, just like the ACLU case. If the judge takes “judicial notice” of evidence that has been removed from his court, he will be reversed on that ground.
No good way forward unless you go before a court that can hear secret things – and never publishes an opinion, so no one else can benefit.
LibertyLee @ 149
I’ve deleted the previous post and much of this one in order to focus on this small part which is a political argument in itself.
Republicans have been saying “The Constitution is not a suicide pact” for quite some time. I don’t know who among them began using it, but it’s emblematic of their philosophy that ‘government is the problem, not the solution’.
What they mean to say (fully) is that we should not accept horrific results by constraining ourselves to upholding the Constitution. We shouldn’t accept that it’s a suicide pact and go to our fates. Instead we should challenge the Constitution or find wiggle room around it’s Law, so we can survive.
However, inherent in that argument is that there is some freedom for a federal officer, whether that is a Supreme Court justice, a President, a Congressman or a Senator, to NOT uphold the Constitution. Bush is pushing, in his typical bully style, to find all the weaknesses and all the wiggle room and all the ways around Law to get his way (just like a 3-year-old). In short, they are saying on one hand that we are in danger for our lives and we cannot support a Constitution which inhibits us from protecting our lives. Just what in that Constitution is inhibiting them from protecting us isn’t clear, and they don’t want to make it clear.
Basically, this is their way of overthrowing the Constitution with political argument and these small, but very significant cases (like Padilla, FISA and the like) to prove that when push comes to shove the People would rather have a dictator to protect their lives than a Constitution.
They are arguing for and pushing for the destruction of the Constitution! They are traitors to America.