"I tend to doubt that anything genuinely awful has resulted from the president's little illegal wiretap scheme"

 And nothing bad happened by outing Plame. Just the way the world works.

Nice of you to support their "confuse the issue" talking points / strategy, MY. 

In his radio address today, Bush admitted he signed the order allowing warrantless searches that clearly violate the fourth amendment. He has admitted to breaking the law. Impeach him.

1. Yoo is Bush's Carl Schmitt.

2. Alito is going to be questioned on this.

3. Enough with the "impeach him" nonsense. Only if there was a Democratic majority in the House and Senate would it be a (remote) possibility. Otherwise it's like saying, I hope a meteor lands on his head.  

The common thread between the abuses by the White House and Congress is that both are examples of contempt for the rule of law.

The White House has shown it by numerous policies that are violations of what normal people think are basic rights to privacy and civil rights. Torture, kidnapping, ghost prisoners and all the rest need complicated legal justifications because they are basically at odds with our ideals. This is a contempt for the rule of law.

In congress, bribery, vote buying, illegal contributions and the rest are also examples of contempt for the rule of law. So is ignoring the long-established rules of conduct of the senate and the house by the party leaders.

By constantly tying these two themes together a good case can be made for a "it's time for a clean sweep" campaign in 2006 and 2008. "Only by changing the balance of power in congress in 2006 will we be able to control a runaway administration for the next three years." Should be a message that resonates with voters.

It will play a lot better than impeachment which is a non-starter and may seem as an attack on the office of the presidency by just those conservatives who we want to flip to a feeling of moral outrage.

Choose a side:

Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Trent Lott: "I want my security first. I'll deal with all the details after that."

Matthew - most of your questions miss the point.  Usually you're sharper than this.

The only question that matters is whether or not the President has the authority to override a federal statute - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - by executive order.  If he does, then the activities of the FBI, CIA, DOD, and NSA are limited only by his discretion.  FISA, which was designed specifically to regulate the behavior of these agencies, will be quaint and obsolete.  Conversely, if he does not have the authority to do this, the President has clearly broken a serious law.

There are really only two outcomes here: the President either has unlimited power or brazenly broke the law.  There's very little in between.  

As for why the program exists...isn't it obvious?  The Administration wants to conduct surveillance that even the notoriously deferential FISA court won't approve.  What other possible explanation could there be?

What you blithely call the President's "little illegal wiretap scheme" could lead the country into the ugliest constitutional crisis since Watergate.  Bush appears to have drawn a line in the sand.  He says he will not stop.  This thing was informally known as "the president's program."  He's proud of it.  

If Congress fights him, it could get extremely ugly.  Then again, if Congress doesn't fight him, it would be much much more disturbing.

I tend to doubt that anything genuinely awful has resulted from the president's little illegal wiretap scheme

Really? What's "genuinely awful"? Given the number of wiretaps reported and the complete lack of oversight, it's reasonable to assume that some of those tapped were done so without any basis whatsoever. If you had been the target of such a wiretap, you might find this fact "genuinely awful" even if you hadn't been whisked off to some offshore prison as a result.

Actually, the existence of these wiretaps didn't even surprise me, but I have no doubt that many genuinely awful things are happening. It's genuinely awful, for instance, for someone to have their life and careers disrupted by inclusion on a poorly constructed "no fly" list. I also have no doubt that truly horrific things are happening as well (some of the people released from Gitmo could probably fill you in on that). I have no evidence one way or another to determine if anything truly horrific has resulted from illegal wiretaps, so I'll withhold judgment.

I have a feeling that the tendency to believe that everything is basically OK despite a few lapses here and there might be kind of a Washington insider trait. Since I don't have a vested interest in national politics, I'm free to assume that "genuinely awful" is the rule and not the exception, and tend not to dismiss the possibility that things may have descended into Kafkaesque nightmares for some people involved.

It will play a lot better than impeachment which is a non-starter and may seem as an attack on the office of the presidency by just those conservatives who we want to flip to a feeling of moral outrage.

Timidity continues to keep liberals in power.

Brazen, a poster said.  Yep, a good choice of word.  Bush brazenly said in his live, televised radio address this morning that you bet he authorized the NSA secret surveillance outside FISA or any other law. Repeatedly. Whaddya gonna do about it?

Bush has gotten away with doing anything he wants for the last five years because he can.  He taunts Congress, and by extension all of us.  Like his indulgent parents, the country itself is one giant enabler.  So when are we going to put the tough in tough love?  Sen. Feingold is leading...more must join his efforts.

Theme may change from time to time, but the chorus remains the same:  [CNN v-bite of spring 2001, Bush fireside photo-op]  I don't have a problem with dictatorships as long as I get to be dictator.   Heh, heh, heh.

Can't say he didn't warn us.

Good God, what's it going to take to get through?

First, persons rendered and detained, some of them American citizens, without charges, without adequate access to the judicial system;

Next, 30,000 National Security Letters without adequate judicial review processed a year, on whom?  Terrorists in a network, or citizens labeled as "traitors" or "unpatriotic" or "unAmerican" by the right?

And now, warrantless spying on American citizens -- following a year-long suppression of this story under White House pressure.

Combine the above with the year-long delay of an indictment of an OVP official because of obstructive activities, DURING AN ELECTION YEAR.

Matt, we have been BADLY damaged.  It's not just one thing, it's the entire mess all wrapped up into a cudgel against our democracy.  Even the election itself was dramatically impacted by the deliberate machinations of this administration.

As mad as people on both sides of the aisle are right now, can you imagine what the outcome of last year's election might have been had the NYT printed their story on NSA domestic spying last year, had Fitzgerald been able to indict Libby last year?

Not to mention the possibility that like bungling plumbers 30+ years ago, some of the NSL's and the wiretaps might have targeted legitimate political opposition.
 

I tend to doubt that anything genuinely awful has resulted from the president's little illegal wiretap scheme

The fact that the president has an "illegal wiretap scheme" is genuinely awful.

Do the results of it -- good or bad -- even matter?

I mean, I thought the whole point of our democracy was that the means were at least as important as the end. Without that, why don't we just call ourselves fascists, tear up the Bill of Rights, and be done with the whole charade?

According to reports, the legal justification was provided by John Yoo (now at Berkeley). Yoo has an extreme interpretation of the extent of Presidential powers during wartime.

If this is an argument that has merit (which like you (I hope I am not assuming), I don't) I think that "war" needs to be better defined Purple.  Because if they are claiming that the GWOT is a "war" then they will be able to ignore our consititutionally protected rights for as long as the "war" continues, which is for the forseeable future.  So what is a "war"?  Is there some threat threshhold or qualifications needed to suspend our constitutional rights?  I say no, not even close.  With the laws in place currently all the administration needs to do is go to a FISA court and get the court's approval for the wiretapping and surveillance.

Matthew, the whole Bill of Rights is not there because during ordinary, average days in our lives we need to worry about the government overstepping its bounds. The Bill of Rights is there to protect us from the exceptions, the times when things are tough, the times when events seem to require extraordinary measures. Since that is the only time the Bill of Rights even enters into the picture, when a President choses to blatantly violate those rights for any reason at all, it is a very serious crime indeed. It is like when an armed police officer choses to kill someone on a whim - it an abuse of power that has to be corrected and the perpetrator punished as severely as the law will allow.

The law in this case is the Constitution itself. That "law" cries out for the impeachment of a President for doing exactly what Bush is doing. Failure to impeach him essentially repeals the Bill of Rights. So, you are far wrong to believe that nothing serious has happened. I am very disappointed in you, and not just a little angry with you.

You tend to doubt anything bad has happened?  Why?  What evidence do you have that nothing bad has happened?  What about this administration makes you think they haven't misused such information?

The question very simply is - are we a nation of laws, or are we not?

If we are not, then the President does indeed have the powers he claims (until someone snatches those away from him).

Clearly the Bush/Cheney/Yoo doctrine is that 9/11 changed everything including the fact that we no longer have a government of law - we have a government of whatever Bush wants to do. A clear victory for Mohammed Atta and his ilk!

Huh?

Nonsense? The guy lies us into a war and takes away the Bill of Rights and it's nonsense to talk impeachmen?. It's suicidal not to pressure this Congress. Of course, we hope we can kick most of their butts out in 11/2006. But we can't tolerate this until 1/2007.

It's hard to worry about the rules when you want your side to win.

That is exactly why the Bill of Rights was deemed to be essential, so essential they were added to the Constitution before it was ratified. My "side" may want to exclude Asiatic people from the country, so, to win, we have to violate the Bill of Rights. Your "side" may want everyone to be "saved" by immersion in a lake, but to do that we have to violate the Bill of Rights. His "side" may want all people who violate a crime to be drawn and quartered, but to do that we have to violate the Bill of Rights. Only the Bill of Rights stands between us and a totally Fascist government. And, that wall, the Bill of Rights, just got very seriously weakened by Bush.

> I tend to doubt that anything genuinely awful has resulted from the president's little illegal wiretap scheme

Groan. What an awful way to begin talking about the domestic NSA spying authorizations.

Hmmmm. The anthrax attacks targeted dem. pols and key media people. Perhaps the anthrax terrorists contacted one of their victims before the attack? Maybe they'll do it again. I guess we better provide transcripts of all key dem. pols conversations to the DoJ. And how about journalists? Some of them have been contacted by Al Qaeda members in the past. Hmmm, I guess we better spy on journalists. How about Patrick Fitzgerald? He's had contact with terrorists. Maybe they will try to attack him because he's prosecuting them. I guess we better provide full transcripts of his conversations to the DoJ.

Argh. There's no way of knowing what they did but I don't see how you can assume nothing bad happened.

Precisely the problem.  No end to war.  And thus suspension of rights, including perhaps even the suspension of election?

If the Democrats had any guts, which they most certainly do not, they would introduce an amendment to the Constitution limiting the powers of the "Commander in Chief".  What we really ought to do is impeach the Congress for being a bunch of unaccountable cowards who have surrendered their own constitutional responsibilities.

According to President Bush, only those with "clear ties" to al Qaida and similar terrorist groups were subject to the progam.  According to the Times, hundreds - perhaps thousands - of people were monitored.

I guess that means there are hundreds - perhaps thousands - of people running around this country with "clear ties" to al Qaida and similar terrorist groups.

It just goes to show you, terrorists are everywhere.  With that in mind, I want all of you people to read Senator Lieberman's words and consider them very carefully:

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

Remember, there are enemies everywhere.  

I tend to doubt that anything genuinely awful has resulted from the president's little illegal wiretap scheme

To be worth something, a hunch like that should proceed from much experience.

The results of secret, illegal government policies are always genuinely awful. If they think of it, they'll do it.

Full text of Chapter 119 from Library of Congress.

(2)(f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system, utilizing a means other than electronic surveillance as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.

There is a permanent "war against terrorism" which just about everyone seems to have accepted.  How can there be a war against  a tactic?  If terrorism means killing and maiming innocent civilians to try to achieve an end, then the US is the greatest terrorist.  War is just terrorism with a bigger budget.

Luigi Vampa writes:"The average Republican has no more integrity or respect for constitutional protections than Bush does."

It's not the "average Republican" that counts, rather the 15th farthest House Republican toward the edge of the bell curve. I figure that's Petri of Wisconsin.

This is irrelevant. We are discussing Constitutional limitations and rights. The Constitution defines war as something only the Congress can declare, and they haven't done so. So, we cannot possibly be at war, and this cannot possibly be "wartime".

Hold on, hold on.  I'm gonna do John Woo.  Are you ready?  Here we go...

Here's me doing Woo...

In 1998, President Clinton didn't go to Congress to ask if he could invade Yugoslavia.  We were not at war then?  And how about Vietnam?  Did Congress declare war then?  Clearly, HoppyCalif, the need for Congress to "declare war" is an outdated, outmoded concept.  As Clinton proved in Yugoslavia, only the president can lead the armed forces and thus declare war.  

Ok, I'm done.

Yikes, I feel dirty.

Libertine . . . you bring up a great point. The Constitution says congress declares war. No war has been declared. But Yoo has argued that the Iraq resolution was enough . . .

I disagree with you Luigi (I think Specter is pretty sincere), but it doesn't matter: if the voters are concerned we should be holding the Republicans' feet to the fire and putting pressure on them to stand up for the Constitution. I don't care if they are sincere or not, I just care if they do the right thing.

Exactly right !

The "we needed to streamline the process" argument does'nt fly.

They did'nt even need to wait for a warrant - they could start the tap and get the warrant later under the FISA rules.

In any case, it would have been simple enough to put a different provision in the Patriot act. 

If Bush can issue an executive order like this, then he can issue an executive order to bypass whatever provision of the Patriot Act or the Torture law he does'nt want to follow.

This has to be a line in the sand for anyone who does not believe the US is a dictatorship. 

We haven't declared war since 8 Dec. 1941.

"I tend to doubt that anything genuinely awful has resulted from the president's little illegal wiretap scheme."

Mr. Yglesias is one of the smartest young men in America, but intelligence is sometimes displaced by naivete, especially in youth.

Libertine . . . you bring up a great point. The Constitution says congress declares war. No war has been declared. But Yoo has argued that the Iraq resolution was enough . . .

Yes but the Iraq resolution was just that...a resolution about Iraq.  As far as "wartime powers" goes it seems Bush is claiming that his self titled "War on Terrorism" should be viewed, under the law, the same as our military actions in Iraq.  Bush and his apologists (Yoo, Gonzelez, et al) are all wet the two are completely different.  Under their interpretation all the POTUS has to do is utter the word "war" and any or all constitutional rights can be suspended...that is tyranny.

I sometimes wonder if they believe we are "at war" because we "were attacked."  Perhaps this is why they keep linking 9/11 and Iraq.

I agree that is exacly why they try to link the two FreudianSlipper, good point.  And that is why the POTUS so steadfastly resisted changing GWOT to GSAVE.  GSAVE removed the word "war" from their acronym.

Yikes, I feel dirty.

A hot shower will help. The flaw in your logic is that every military action has to be war, and that clearly isn't true. The US military entered Haiti to try to bring some legal order to the mobs there. That couldn't possibly be war. The US enter Korea to defend S. Korea from an attack by N. Korea, with the UN later approving that intervention. That was not war. The US didn't invade Yugoslavia. No US ground troops participated there, only air attacks were used. So, that wasn't war either, and NATO requested the US to join in that activity. Because the constitution specifically and exclusively gives Congress the authority to declare war, there cannot be a war minus that declaration, especially as far as any constitutional "war powers" are concerned. The Congressional vote to allow Bush to invade any nation he wished to, was not a declaration of war, but just a cowardly act of people afraid of losing votes.

Ever since Arlen's ludicrous single bullet theory I have a hard time putting the words "sincere" and "Specter" into the same sentence (although I just did it).

"I tend to doubt that anything genuinely awful has resulted from the president's little illegal wiretap scheme"   Here for what must be the thousandth time we have a progressive cutting these criminals slack. WHY. I guess it is because we are a civilized country, and people here do not do evil things, besides if the power was on the other hand they would cut us some slack. With all due respect we do need some tenacity here.

Matt: I have a lot of respect for you but my bet is that eventually, assuming we retain a democracy, we will discover that the spying was directed toward an enemies list, and i bet everyone in tpm cafe will be on it.

This is so wrong on so many levels.  The essence of our constitutional, republican form of democratic government is that we are a nation of laws and not men.  The idea that the President is inherently endowed with the power to ignore a federal statute was expressly prohibited by the framers.  Even Scalia in the Hamdi case acknowledged that the President's powers are no limitless. 

FISA was enacted to allow the government to engage in surveillance of U.S. citizens who may be engaged in terrorist activities.  FISA allows the government to perform wiretaps without a warrant for up to 72 hours.  Therefore, the only real purpose behind GWB's use of the NSA to perform warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens is to avoid judicial review.  This is all the more troubling when one considers, as has been so aptly pointed out by Josh on TPM, that the FISA court essentially acts as a rubber stamp for the government and that the FISA court rarely denies a request for a warrant.  GWB doesn't want the FISA court/judge to know the target of his surveilance because, IMHO, he is unlawfully spying on citizens for political purposes.  God only knows just how many innocent people have been subjected to these warrantless searches and other activities expressly forbidden by the Fourth Amendment.

We ought to be very concerned. And, if impeachment is appropriate for a President who lies about blowjobs, then it ought to be required for a President who admits that he has violated the constitutional rights of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of U.S. citizens.

I learned in freaking elementary school that Republicans and conservatives believe in limited government, in the notion that the President is not all powerful.  To read and hear so many self professed "conservatives" defend patently illegal and unconstitutional conduct by GWB is proof positive that the Repubublican party is power mad and anti-ideological.  Theirs is an ideology of convenience.  The ends justify the means.

Unlike MY, I have no confidence whatsoever that GWB has not violated the rights of U.S. citizens. I do not trust this man with power to run a McDonalds let alone the most powerful military government on the planet.  Can one seriously claim that the Republican leadership would not be in an effing full on tizzy if we had a Democrat President engaged in this activity during an undeclared war of choice. 

We have all been had.  There was a cout de etat in 11/00 and it was just confirmed on national television by our smirking chimpaholic.  And, btw, why did GWB refuse to confirm the existence of the secret orders to Lehrer yesterday but go on national teevee during a Saturday radio address one day later and confirm it.  Why did it risk national security to confirm it yesterday but be okay today? It's all campaign style pr with GWB.

I recall a couple of weeks ago that Kevin Drum had a post about "secret laws" and I thought, nah, can't be. Maybe Kevin was just paranoid.  Now, GWB admits it all.  Secret prisons, citizens held without due process, NSA engagingin warrantless searches. What's next, the GWB decides he has the right in a time of war to suspend habeas corpus and declares martial law to protect us from "potential" risk.

There has always been and always will be those who want to harm the United States.  So what.  Men of greater stature though have not felt it necessary to arrogate for themselves the omnipresent belief that they are annointed to destroy democracy to save us.

It may be time for a revolution.  I suppose we should all assume we are being watched.  I would also assume that TPM Cafe, and the rest of the lefty blogosphere, is being monitored for "subsersive" elements. Act accordingly.  

I figure there are 2 reasons why w could be doing this. 1 to throw his weight around. He's the president by golly and he doesn't have to ask anyone permission. He's flaunting his power, asserting his authority and if he gets away with this what the hell can't he get away with. Why as FISA when he can do it without asking.
Reason number 2 is even more sinister. Of course the question comes up is he using his powers to spy on people who aren't possible national security threats but political threats to him? Is he spying on people that FISA wouldn't allow him to spy on?
These bozos are trying to use the "brooklyn bridge plot" as an example of a case that was broken by these wiretaps. Bullshit. They would have gotten the same information with a legal wiretap. And the reason the bridge came to no harm was because the supposed plotters realized that it was too well guarded and they couldn't cut the cables with blow torches without being noticed.
And of course there's always the question of their guilt. They were not given the evidence of the wiretaps as they're secret. They were probably given the choice of pleading guilty or being tried in a secret tribunal without ever seeing the evidence against them. So perhaps they're innocent and 20 years seemed like a good deal as opposed to being dissappeared for life.