It's not just eloquent and impassioned as text; it is also an accurate expression of the law as it now exists. Mark my words: this matter will go the Supreme Court for ultimate resolution.
Saw the speech on C-span re-run. What a remarkable speech. The press ignores him at our peril.
Mark my words: this matter will go the Supreme Court for ultimate resolution. Reed Hundt
How? Where's the case? Where's the controversy?
For those of you who missed it or don't know where to find a link I have pulled some of the highlights from Al Gore's speech today where he describes Bush as http://www.algore.org/ breaking the law repeatedly and persistently.
....
The President and I agree on one thing. The threat from terrorism is all too real. There is simply no question that we continue to face new challenges in the wake of the attack on September 11th and that we must be ever-vigilant in protecting our citizens from harm. Where we disagree is that we have to break the law or sacrifice our system of government to protect Americans from terrorism. In fact, doing so makes us weaker and more vulnerable. .... Once violated, the rule of law is in danger. Unless stopped, lawlessness grows. The greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles. As the executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its actions, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police it. Once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we become a government of men and not laws. .... Justice Frankfurter once wrote: "To find authority so explicitly withheld is not merely to disregard in a particular instance the clear will of Congress. It is to disrespect the whole legislative process and the constitutional division of authority between President and Congress."
This is precisely the "disrespect" for the law that the Supreme Court struck down in the steel seizure case. Here Gore is describing President Truman's attempt to break a steel strike during the Korean War by invoking his war powers. .... <b>Over 100 of these captives have reportedly died while being tortured by Executive Branch interrogators</b> .... Vice President Cheney attempted to defend the Administration's eavesdropping on American citizens by saying that if it had conducted this program prior to 9/11, they would have found out the names of some of the hijackers.
Tragically, he apparently still doesn't know that the Administration did in fact have the names of at least 2 of the hijackers well before 9/11 and had available to them information that could have easily led to the identification of most of the other hijackers. And yet, because of incompetence in the handling of this information, it was never used to protect the American people. .... <b>It is the pitiful state of our legislative branch which primarily explains the failure of our vaunted checks and balances to prevent the dangerous overreach by our Executive Branch which now threatens a radical transformation of the American system. .... One of the other ways the Administration has tried to control the flow of information is by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest.
Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction.</b> any telecommunications company that has provided the government with access to private information concerning the communications of Americans without a proper warrant should immediately cease and desist their complicity in this apparently illegal invasion of the privacy of American citizens.
I included this one because I think the American citizens should sue the hell out of these telecommunications companies for violating their privacy without a court order. The civil liabilites should be in the billions of dollars.
Excellent speech. But might we hold off for a while on encouraging him to run for president in 2008? At the very least, shouldn't there first be some meaningful soul searching as to whether running for president would represent Gore's highest and best use to the republic?
There will likely be many of those convicted for various Patriot Act crimes, and perhaps many more, whose lawyers will challenge the convicts on the grounds that evidence was obtained illegally.
Ellen, i've been pondering that question too: where's someone with sufficient standing to show harm and get this to the supreme court? The Times tells us that the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional rights are planning on filing suit, but they appear to be fishing to find their victim:
Two leading civil rights groups plan to file lawsuits Tuesday against the Bush administration over its domestic spying program to determine whether the operation was used to monitor 10 defense lawyers, journalists, scholars, political activists and other Americans with ties to the Middle East.
The fact is, though, even if a case gets there, and even if a court containing roberts, scalia, thomas, and alito somehow didn't vote with bush, would we - even for a second - believe that the bush administration would stop?
as far as i can tell, bush is proud of breaking the law, pugnaciously so. i can't imagine him giving up on something that he's staked so much on....
which is the only legitimate reason to discuss impeachment at all: however do you make bush stop?
This is why the Democrats must stop the appointment of Alito. It should be the rallying cry!
Did Al Gore really stand up for anything except his hatred of Bush?
the Executive Branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress to prevent such abuses.
Exactly who makes up this "huge number" who have been wronged? Supposedly it was calls to and from foreign based Al-Quieda members that were intercepted. How many US based Al-quieda members are there? Or is Gore making it up? Also, according to the President, and his advisors, including the AG, the program was well within the law.
important to recall that for the last several years of his life, Dr. King was illegally wiretapped
Is Gore now comparing Dr. King to foreign terrorists?
the President went out of his way to reassure the American people on more than one occasion that, of course, judicial permission is required for any government spying on American citizens and that, of course, these constitutional safeguards were still in place.
But surprisingly, the President's soothing statements turned out to be false. Moreover, as soon as this massive domestic spying program was uncovered by the press, the President not only confirmed that the story was true, but also declared that he has no intention of bringing these wholesale invasions of privacy to an end.
Again, Gore is interntionally misleading his audiance, not that they need much help in reaching an erroneous conclusion. He knows that this isn't "domestic spying" it is recording the conversations of foreign agents (unlike the domestic spying he did on Aldrige Aimes, a US citizen within the US not calling anyone outside the US without a warrant).
This is where he really goes off the deep end:
Over 100 of these captives have reportedly died while being tortured by Executive Branch interrogators and many more have been broken and humiliated...The President has also claimed that he has the authority to kidnap individuals in foreign countries and deliver them for imprisonment and interrogation
He failed to mention that "rendition" was first implimented while he was the VP.
Now from the inventor of the internet, a history lesson:
The internment of Japanese Americans during WWII marked a low point for the respect of individual rights at the hands of the executive. And, during the Vietnam War, the notorious COINTELPRO program was part and parcel of the abuses experienced by Dr. King and thousands of others.
He forgot to mention that all of these abuses took place under Democrat administrations.
Don't misunderstand me: the threat of additional terror strikes is all too real and their concerted efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction does create a real imperative to exercise the powers of the Executive Branch with swiftness and agility.
I thought Bush made up the WMD threat...it doesn't exist remember?
For example, CIA analysts who strongly disagreed with the White House assertion that Osama bin Laden was linked to Saddam Hussein found themselves under pressure at work and became fearful of losing promotions and salary increases.
Another lie, debunked by the 9/11 commission, but hey he's on a roll why stop to remind him of something as useless as the truth?
I mentioned that along with cause for concern, there is reason for hope. As I stand here today, I am filled with optimism that America is on the eve of a golden age in which the vitality of our democracy will be re-established and will flourish more vibrantly than ever.
If we're lucky we can get back to the days of clean government when all we worried about was the influance of Indonessian and Chinese campaign money influancing the government, where there was no "controling legal authority" where the Justice Department didn't listen in on private conversations with terrorist, they just stormed buildings with tanks, burned up women and children, raided homes in the dark of night kidnapping kids and shipping them off to communist countries... those were the good old days!
That's not generally how it works.
The government won't introduce NSA intercepts as evidence. Rather, it will introduce evidence which the intercepts led it to discover.
Defendants would have to convince a court that the evidence the government seeks to admit is, by virtue of illegal "wiretaps" being involved, fruit of a poisoned tree and thus, inadmissible.
And that's not easily done -- and especially not easily done when the government has placed all NSA records out-of-bounds on grounds of national security.
Will defendants be able to convince a judge that the evidence gathering process was illegal? Unless they can, there won't be a case or a controversy to take to the Supreme COurt.
you know, i've pretty much made up my mind to ignore the insufferable, ill-informed rants of sfcwallace, but on the day devoted to Dr. King's memory, i think i can make an exception and say to sfcwallace that of all the asinine and ridiculous comments you have graced us with, this:
important to recall that for the last several years of his life, Dr. King was illegally wiretapped Is Gore now comparing Dr. King to foreign terrorists?
is without question the lowest, scummiest, and stupidest. Normally i regard you as a joke, but this is far more substantial, this is a piece of real deal homey feel stupidity, dude.
a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
To paraphrase Lincoln's comment on Grant: we need this man. he fights.
I suggest you read the NYT story out this morning -- quoting lots of people both in the FBI and the NSA. They got literally no good information from these illegal wiretaps, and it is clear that they were gathering information from regular Americans, not terrorists. You are factually incorrect, plain and simple. If you compehended Gore's speech you would note that telecommunications companies gave the NSA access to huge volumes of calls that they sifted through, many of which were innocent American citizens' conversations.
The rest of your post was nonsense, yet again calling out your own hatred towards Clinton, all the while protesting the thought of hating Bush.
Your point on rendition is right on the mark. Gore didn't speak out publicly against the US state abducting people and sending them off to be tortured while he was VP. I'm happy he's figured out that this policy is wrong, but he owes us an explanation for his earlier silence when he actually could have done something about it.
Mark my words: this matter will go the Supreme Court for ultimate resolution.
Mark my words -- either it will not, or the 'results-oriented jurisprudence' of Bush v. Gore will be given another airing.
This country entered into the realm of quod rex vult, lex fit on 12 December 2000, and it isn't coming back.
Gore stands up for constitution. And George Bush clearly does not! As Justice Jackson wrote in 1950, our protection against all kinds of fanatics and extremists, none of whom can be trusted with unlimited power over others, lies not in their forbearance but in the limitations of our Constitution. Maybe Bush supporters need a little reorientation: while the Declaration of Independence was directed against an excess of authority, the Constitution was directed against anarchy. As Justice Burton wrote in 1946, the Constitution was built for rough as well as smooth roads; in time of war, the nation simply changes gears and takes the harder going under the same power. And as Justice Sutherland wrote, "if the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned." So what's it gonna be Bush supporters? Do you want the rule of law or do you want anarchy? Or are you content to measure your Constitutional acumen merely by what you like or don't like?
I would vote for Al Gore every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
He has already won one presidential election.
I would vote Al Gore over Hillary, over Kerry, over Edwards, over Clark.
And I do not speak only for myself. Even many Republican friends of mine agree that they would vote Gore in 2008.
We need the South? How about a Gore/Edwards ticket? Tennessee and North Carolina.
In my mind, that ticket is only contested by McCain/Powell, which ain't gonna happen.
Tracey Schmitt, a nobody form the RNC, says something about "Al Gore's incessant need to insert himself in the headline of the day is almost as glaring as his lack of understanding of the threats facing America".
This is the response to an accusation of persistent lawbreaking by the president, from someone who got 50+ million votes in 2000? Who says substance is important in modern political discourse?
Personal attacks and fearmongering. W's personal horse to ride to political victory at the expense of the nation.
We are paying the price of electing such a nonentity to 8 years of the presidency.
But, I was shocked to see even Keith at Countdown mock Gore last night with joking comments about Gore's speaking abilities. His guest, Newsweek journalist, Wolfe, laughingly agreed. It was a low moment for Countdown and for Keith Olbermann.
Gore delivered an incredible speech, eloquently and brilliantly. Moreover, his points hit right at the heart of the alarming propensity of the Bush administration's abuses of power. Anyone who jokingly dismisses such concerns just doesn't get it. Disagree on the merits of the argument, fine; but dismissing Gore's eloquence and courage makes me irate.
Mark my words: this matter will go the Supreme Court for ultimate resolution.
Amen, Reed, amen. It will go all the way up to the Supreme Court, all the way up to
John Glover Roberts Jr.,
Antonin Gregory Scalia,
Anthony McLeod Kennedy,
Clarence Thomas and
Samuel Anthony Alito Jr..
I already feel better, much much better.
SFCWallace, you either didn't understand a lot of Gore's speech, or you're being dishonest. I know I shouldn't, but several things come to mind:
1. Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. To keep repeating this really is cheap and dishonest.
2. Terrorists ARE trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction. But the argument made by the Bush administration concerning Sadam and WMD were not only wrong, those who wanted to knew they were wrong.
3. SOME of the Cointelpro operations did take place under Democratic administrations, and some took place under Republican ones.
4. Numerous news reports based on anonymous sources from inside the intelligence establishment that the conversations of perhaps hundreds of thousands of American citizens have been intercepted in this operation. And we know that civilian phone companies have assisted NSA in this effort.
You didn't really misunderstand Gore's point about Dr. King, did you?
Finally, given their record on torture, Texas reapportionment, and other matters, I don't think Alberto Gonzalez' learned pronouncements should settle too many bets concerning constitutionality.
3. SOME of the Cointelpro operations did take place under Democratic administrations, and some took place under Republican ones.
More important is the fact that Gore didn't imply that COINTELPRO was a Republican institution. Democrat or Republican, the program was wrong. Just as it's wrong for any President - Democrat or Republican - to subvert the law in pursuit of personal or partisan political gain.
I'm not even going to dignify the MLK/terrorist comment with a response, but there was one other thing that stuck in my craw. Extraordinary rendition has been around since the 50s. President Clinton, in PDD 39, stated that the US had the right to go get terrorists from governments that were holding them, but in the sources I've seen did not claim the right to send people to be tortured. Prior to 9/11, according to Human Rights Watch, the focus of renditions was primarily bringing criminals to face legal prosecution. It was only after 9/11, under the watch of GW Bush, that the policy changed. (See http://hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/canada/arar/2.htm)
Gore made no public criticism of the practice of abducting people and sending them to third countries with the full knowledge that they would be tortured when he was vice-president. These practices were and are illegal. Kidnapping is a crime, even when committed by the US government. Gore should explain how his earlier silence is consistent with his current position on the rule of law.
Clinton and Gore bear considerable responsibility for maintaining the attitude of the American government that "if we do it, it's not illegal."
Evidently some Democratic supporters prefer to believe that Bush alone is the problem, and prefer to suppress evidence that conflicts with their fantasies.
Hard to add anything to Gore's speech or the appreciation of it here. I just want to be sure we mention that Gore delivered quite a series of impassioned, dead-on speeches during Bush's first term, covering pretty much every area of policy I care about and tying each to principle, just as here.
And, in my usual broken record, I'll also just add that it shows what we're up against. The press greets this with silence. In 2000, dutifully reflecting the GOP noise machine, it alternated between ignoring his expressions of conviction and writing them off as signs of his condescension to Bush's good-natured stupidity, which the press flattered. (After all, you know those elitists, who can complete a thought.) While Gore's missteps and Nader's characterization of Gore were factors, I'd say the media has a lot to blame for our remembering him as, alternatively, either indistinguishable from the GOP (the idiotic Green canard) or a stiff. (Read again the coverage in Eric Alterman's book on the media of that election if you want your blood to boil.)
Burlington, I think you're eliding two different policies. Rendition has been used by many administrations, including Clinton's, to legally bring suspects to the US to stand trial. As I understand it, these sorts of renditions require legal finding of fact, a great deal of evidence, and long-term diplomatic failure to get the suspect to US custody.
Many of the renditions that Bush's administration have performed, however, have been of an entirely different nature. In most cases the 'suspects' have been apprehended with little or no due process (in US courts or anywhere else), and the country in which they are arrested has no knowledge of what's going on. Furthermore, these arrests are made not to bring a known or convicted criminal to justice but to spirit suspects away for interrogation in countries known to practice torture.
I am well aware that the Clinton administration performed the first kind of rendition -- indeed, Clinton signed at least two Presidential directives that made reference to the practice. What I am not aware of is Clinton practicing the second kind of rendition. If you could provide evidence of that, I would be most interested in seeing it.
Comparing Gore to Lincoln is like comparing FDR to Napoleon, it makes no sense.
Gore is a blubbering fool like he has always been.
I am a bit of a broken record on this point too, but we are not so much broken records as the Republican-television merged noise machine. I was until recently moderating politically as I aged. I even seriously considered voting Liberal here in Canada, not just strategically, but out of conviction. But, I am now so frightened by the United States that I will spend the rest of my years sounding like a broken record, though I would prefer to play golf and the stock market (how's that for leftist ambitions).
This is just by way of context for this: I believe that any potential candidate for President of the United States that is anywhere to the left of a pro-war, irretrievably pro-business Democrat will be systematically ignored and/or, if necessary, slandered by all of the U.S. media save the blogs, a few newspapers and, maybe, PBS, if they think that he/she might come anywhere near close, but given the bias in the general media coverage there is little chance of that in any case.
Because of this I think it is fair to ask the question: is the United States still a real democracy? And, if not, what on earth can the rest of the world do about it?
Well I have tried to pester Ken Baer about this in the past to no avail, thinking he definitely had the right contacts, but all that happened was that Ken Baer stopped posting here, so I am not going to push Gore no more, seems like if I do that, it get jinxed? Better luck to you with Reed Hundt. :-)
Mark my words: this matter will go the Supreme Court for ultimate resolution.
Which is precisely why it is so important how Democrats frame their opposition on this and thank god that Gore stepped up to the plate to provide leadership for that. And I hope that as many as possible use the speech as a template (that includes all you bloggers out there) instead of bloviating in thousands of directions on the issue.
No doubt the GOP would be thrilled, no, exalted if Gore decided to run. Perhaps a Gore/Kerry ticket...
UNROVE
Bush does not protect the Constitution? Is it not a well established fact that Dems vote against all conservative Supreme Court nominees like Scalia who favor strict interpretations of that document/ A bit of a hole in your argument it looks like.
Gore is un-electable by all odds.
However there is a poisonous fruit problem for the government. If lawyers challenge the source of the evidence the goverment will have two choices. Tell the court the source or face having the evidence dismissed. There is also the issue of whether the lawyers' conversations have been listened to. That will also be a grounds for challenging the dismissals.
I found this interview with Michael Scheuer rather interesting. The disrespect for the rule of law is plainly evident, even if you believe everything Scheuer says.
The original interview is in German, and as far as I can tell it was completely ignored by the mainstream media.
Hard to add anything to Gore's speech or the appreciation of it here. I just want to be sure we mention that Gore delivered quite a series of impassioned, dead-on speeches during Bush's first term, covering pretty much every area of policy I care about and tying each to principle, just as here
Are you right on or what!
In 2003, Gore came to speak to Gavin Newsom's "Great Ideas Forum". Gavin's a re-inventor; was running for Mayor, and I was working in the campaign.
As I sat there listening to a superb presentation..GORE HUMOR!...I could not help but recall that dismal performance at the last campaign stop 2000 ..Pittsburg in early morning rain and wonder why again I was seeing the two persona of Al Gore
Get him to run, Reed.
January 16, 2006 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I miss something? Where's the link?
January 16, 2006 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saw the speech on C-span re-run. What a remarkable speech. The press ignores him at our peril.
January 16, 2006 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark my words: this matter will go the Supreme Court for ultimate resolution. Reed Hundt
How? Where's the case? Where's the controversy?
January 16, 2006 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
....
The President and I agree on one thing. The threat from terrorism is all too real. There is simply no question that we continue to face new challenges in the wake of the attack on September 11th and that we must be ever-vigilant in protecting our citizens from harm.
Where we disagree is that we have to break the law or sacrifice our system of government to protect Americans from terrorism. In fact, doing so makes us weaker and more vulnerable.
....
Once violated, the rule of law is in danger. Unless stopped, lawlessness grows. The greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles. As the executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its actions, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police it. Once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we become a government of men and not laws.
....
Justice Frankfurter once wrote: "To find authority so explicitly withheld is not merely to disregard in a particular instance the clear will of Congress. It is to disrespect the whole legislative process and the constitutional division of authority between President and Congress."
This is precisely the "disrespect" for the law that the Supreme Court struck down in the steel seizure case.
Here Gore is describing President Truman's attempt to break a steel strike during the Korean War by invoking his war powers.
....
<b>Over 100 of these captives have reportedly died while being tortured by Executive Branch interrogators</b>
....
Vice President Cheney attempted to defend the Administration's eavesdropping on American citizens by saying that if it had conducted this program prior to 9/11, they would have found out the names of some of the hijackers.
Tragically, he apparently still doesn't know that the Administration did in fact have the names of at least 2 of the hijackers well before 9/11 and had available to them information that could have easily led to the identification of most of the other hijackers. And yet, because of incompetence in the handling of this information, it was never used to protect the American people.
....
<b>It is the pitiful state of our legislative branch which primarily explains the failure of our vaunted checks and balances to prevent the dangerous overreach by our Executive Branch which now threatens a radical transformation of the American system.
....
One of the other ways the Administration has tried to control the flow of information is by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest.
Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction.</b>
any telecommunications company that has provided the government with access to private information concerning the communications of Americans without a proper warrant should immediately cease and desist their complicity in this apparently illegal invasion of the privacy of American citizens.
I included this one because I think the American citizens should sue the hell out of these telecommunications companies for violating their privacy without a court order. The civil liabilites should be in the billions of dollars.
January 16, 2006 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent speech. But might we hold off for a while on encouraging him to run for president in 2008? At the very least, shouldn't there first be some meaningful soul searching as to whether running for president would represent Gore's highest and best use to the republic?
January 16, 2006 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
There will likely be many of those convicted for various Patriot Act crimes, and perhaps many more, whose lawyers will challenge the convicts on the grounds that evidence was obtained illegally.
January 16, 2006 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two leading civil rights groups plan to file lawsuits Tuesday against the Bush administration over its domestic spying program to determine whether the operation was used to monitor 10 defense lawyers, journalists, scholars, political activists and other Americans with ties to the Middle East.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17nsa.html
The fact is, though, even if a case gets there, and even if a court containing roberts, scalia, thomas, and alito somehow didn't vote with bush, would we - even for a second - believe that the bush administration would stop?
as far as i can tell, bush is proud of breaking the law, pugnaciously so. i can't imagine him giving up on something that he's staked so much on....
which is the only legitimate reason to discuss impeachment at all: however do you make bush stop?
January 16, 2006 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is why the Democrats must stop the appointment of Alito. It should be the rallying cry!
January 16, 2006 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did Al Gore really stand up for anything except his hatred of Bush?
the Executive Branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress to prevent such abuses.
Exactly who makes up this "huge number" who have been wronged? Supposedly it was calls to and from foreign based Al-Quieda members that were intercepted. How many US based Al-quieda members are there? Or is Gore making it up? Also, according to the President, and his advisors, including the AG, the program was well within the law.
important to recall that for the last several years of his life, Dr. King was illegally wiretapped
Is Gore now comparing Dr. King to foreign terrorists?
the President went out of his way to reassure the American people on more than one occasion that, of course, judicial permission is required for any government spying on American citizens and that, of course, these constitutional safeguards were still in place.
But surprisingly, the President's soothing statements turned out to be false. Moreover, as soon as this massive domestic spying program was uncovered by the press, the President not only confirmed that the story was true, but also declared that he has no intention of bringing these wholesale invasions of privacy to an end.
Again, Gore is interntionally misleading his audiance, not that they need much help in reaching an erroneous conclusion. He knows that this isn't "domestic spying" it is recording the conversations of foreign agents (unlike the domestic spying he did on Aldrige Aimes, a US citizen within the US not calling anyone outside the US without a warrant).
This is where he really goes off the deep end:
Over 100 of these captives have reportedly died while being tortured by Executive Branch interrogators and many more have been broken and humiliated...The President has also claimed that he has the authority to kidnap individuals in foreign countries and deliver them for imprisonment and interrogation
He failed to mention that "rendition" was first implimented while he was the VP.
Now from the inventor of the internet, a history lesson:
The internment of Japanese Americans during WWII marked a low point for the respect of individual rights at the hands of the executive. And, during the Vietnam War, the notorious COINTELPRO program was part and parcel of the abuses experienced by Dr. King and thousands of others.
He forgot to mention that all of these abuses took place under Democrat administrations.
Don't misunderstand me: the threat of additional terror strikes is all too real and their concerted efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction does create a real imperative to exercise the powers of the Executive Branch with swiftness and agility.
I thought Bush made up the WMD threat...it doesn't exist remember?
For example, CIA analysts who strongly disagreed with the White House assertion that Osama bin Laden was linked to Saddam Hussein found themselves under pressure at work and became fearful of losing promotions and salary increases.
Another lie, debunked by the 9/11 commission, but hey he's on a roll why stop to remind him of something as useless as the truth?
I mentioned that along with cause for concern, there is reason for hope. As I stand here today, I am filled with optimism that America is on the eve of a golden age in which the vitality of our democracy will be re-established and will flourish more vibrantly than ever.
If we're lucky we can get back to the days of clean government when all we worried about was the influance of Indonessian and Chinese campaign money influancing the government, where there was no "controling legal authority" where the Justice Department didn't listen in on private conversations with terrorist, they just stormed buildings with tanks, burned up women and children, raided homes in the dark of night kidnapping kids and shipping them off to communist countries... those were the good old days!
January 16, 2006 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not generally how it works.
The government won't introduce NSA intercepts as evidence. Rather, it will introduce evidence which the intercepts led it to discover.
Defendants would have to convince a court that the evidence the government seeks to admit is, by virtue of illegal "wiretaps" being involved, fruit of a poisoned tree and thus, inadmissible.
And that's not easily done -- and especially not easily done when the government has placed all NSA records out-of-bounds on grounds of national security.
Will defendants be able to convince a judge that the evidence gathering process was illegal? Unless they can, there won't be a case or a controversy to take to the Supreme COurt.
January 16, 2006 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
important to recall that for the last several years of his life, Dr. King was illegally wiretapped
Is Gore now comparing Dr. King to foreign terrorists?
is without question the lowest, scummiest, and stupidest. Normally i regard you as a joke, but this is far more substantial, this is a piece of real deal homey feel stupidity, dude.
a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
January 16, 2006 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
To paraphrase Lincoln's comment on Grant: we need this man. he fights.
January 16, 2006 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rest of your post was nonsense, yet again calling out your own hatred towards Clinton, all the while protesting the thought of hating Bush.
January 16, 2006 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your point on rendition is right on the mark. Gore didn't speak out publicly against the US state abducting people and sending them off to be tortured while he was VP. I'm happy he's figured out that this policy is wrong, but he owes us an explanation for his earlier silence when he actually could have done something about it.
January 16, 2006 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark my words: this matter will go the Supreme Court for ultimate resolution.
Mark my words -- either it will not, or the 'results-oriented jurisprudence' of Bush v. Gore will be given another airing.
This country entered into the realm of quod rex vult, lex fit on 12 December 2000, and it isn't coming back.
January 16, 2006 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
And George Bush clearly does not! As Justice Jackson wrote in 1950, our protection against all kinds of fanatics and extremists, none of whom can be trusted with unlimited power over others, lies not in their forbearance but in the limitations of our Constitution. Maybe Bush supporters need a little reorientation: while the Declaration of Independence was directed against an excess of authority, the Constitution was directed against anarchy. As Justice Burton wrote in 1946, the Constitution was built for rough as well as smooth roads; in time of war, the nation simply changes gears and takes the harder going under the same power. And as Justice Sutherland wrote, "if the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned."
So what's it gonna be Bush supporters? Do you want the rule of law or do you want anarchy? Or are you content to measure your Constitutional acumen merely by what you like or don't like?
January 16, 2006 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has already won one presidential election.
I would vote Al Gore over Hillary, over Kerry, over Edwards, over Clark.
And I do not speak only for myself. Even many Republican friends of mine agree that they would vote Gore in 2008.
We need the South? How about a Gore/Edwards ticket? Tennessee and North Carolina.
In my mind, that ticket is only contested by McCain/Powell, which ain't gonna happen.
Gore/Edwards 2008!!!
January 16, 2006 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd prefer a Gore/Clark ticket in 2008.
January 17, 2006 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 84200
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 9770
AUTHOR: Hopeful
DATE: 01/17/2006 12:34:18 AM
January 17, 2006 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tracey Schmitt, a nobody form the RNC, says something about "Al Gore's incessant need to insert himself in the headline of the day is almost as glaring as his lack of understanding of the threats facing America".
This is the response to an accusation of persistent lawbreaking by the president, from someone who got 50+ million votes in 2000? Who says substance is important in modern political discourse?
Personal attacks and fearmongering. W's personal horse to ride to political victory at the expense of the nation.
We are paying the price of electing such a nonentity to 8 years of the presidency.
January 17, 2006 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gore delivered an incredible speech, eloquently and brilliantly.
Moreover, his points hit right at the heart of the alarming propensity of the Bush administration's abuses of power. Anyone who jokingly dismisses such concerns just doesn't get it. Disagree on the merits of the argument, fine; but dismissing Gore's eloquence and courage makes me irate.
January 17, 2006 3:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark my words: this matter will go the Supreme Court for ultimate resolution.
Amen, Reed, amen. It will go all the way up to the Supreme Court, all the way up to
John Glover Roberts Jr.,
Antonin Gregory Scalia,
Anthony McLeod Kennedy,
Clarence Thomas and
Samuel Anthony Alito Jr..
I already feel better, much much better.
January 17, 2006 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. To keep repeating this really is cheap and dishonest.
2. Terrorists ARE trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction. But the argument made by the Bush administration concerning Sadam and WMD were not only wrong, those who wanted to knew they were wrong.
3. SOME of the Cointelpro operations did take place under Democratic administrations, and some took place under Republican ones.
4. Numerous news reports based on anonymous sources from inside the intelligence establishment that the conversations of perhaps hundreds of thousands of American citizens have been intercepted in this operation. And we know that civilian phone companies have assisted NSA in this effort.
You didn't really misunderstand Gore's point about Dr. King, did you?
Finally, given their record on torture, Texas reapportionment, and other matters, I don't think Alberto Gonzalez' learned pronouncements should settle too many bets concerning constitutionality.
January 17, 2006 5:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
3. SOME of the Cointelpro operations did take place under Democratic administrations, and some took place under Republican ones.
More important is the fact that Gore didn't imply that COINTELPRO was a Republican institution. Democrat or Republican, the program was wrong. Just as it's wrong for any President - Democrat or Republican - to subvert the law in pursuit of personal or partisan political gain.
I'm not even going to dignify the MLK/terrorist comment with a response, but there was one other thing that stuck in my craw. Extraordinary rendition has been around since the 50s. President Clinton, in PDD 39, stated that the US had the right to go get terrorists from governments that were holding them, but in the sources I've seen did not claim the right to send people to be tortured. Prior to 9/11, according to Human Rights Watch, the focus of renditions was primarily bringing criminals to face legal prosecution. It was only after 9/11, under the watch of GW Bush, that the policy changed. (See http://hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/canada/arar/2.htm)
January 17, 2006 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gore made no public criticism of the practice of abducting people and sending them to third countries with the full knowledge that they would be tortured when he was vice-president. These practices were and are illegal. Kidnapping is a crime, even when committed by the US government. Gore should explain how his earlier silence is consistent with his current position on the rule of law.
Clinton and Gore bear considerable responsibility for maintaining the attitude of the American government that "if we do it, it's not illegal."
Evidently some Democratic supporters prefer to believe that Bush alone is the problem, and prefer to suppress evidence that conflicts with their fantasies.
January 17, 2006 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hard to add anything to Gore's speech or the appreciation of it here. I just want to be sure we mention that Gore delivered quite a series of impassioned, dead-on speeches during Bush's first term, covering pretty much every area of policy I care about and tying each to principle, just as here.
And, in my usual broken record, I'll also just add that it shows what we're up against. The press greets this with silence. In 2000, dutifully reflecting the GOP noise machine, it alternated between ignoring his expressions of conviction and writing them off as signs of his condescension to Bush's good-natured stupidity, which the press flattered. (After all, you know those elitists, who can complete a thought.) While Gore's missteps and Nader's characterization of Gore were factors, I'd say the media has a lot to blame for our remembering him as, alternatively, either indistinguishable from the GOP (the idiotic Green canard) or a stiff. (Read again the coverage in Eric Alterman's book on the media of that election if you want your blood to boil.)
January 17, 2006 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Burlington, I think you're eliding two different policies. Rendition has been used by many administrations, including Clinton's, to legally bring suspects to the US to stand trial. As I understand it, these sorts of renditions require legal finding of fact, a great deal of evidence, and long-term diplomatic failure to get the suspect to US custody.
Many of the renditions that Bush's administration have performed, however, have been of an entirely different nature. In most cases the 'suspects' have been apprehended with little or no due process (in US courts or anywhere else), and the country in which they are arrested has no knowledge of what's going on. Furthermore, these arrests are made not to bring a known or convicted criminal to justice but to spirit suspects away for interrogation in countries known to practice torture.
I am well aware that the Clinton administration performed the first kind of rendition -- indeed, Clinton signed at least two Presidential directives that made reference to the practice. What I am not aware of is Clinton practicing the second kind of rendition. If you could provide evidence of that, I would be most interested in seeing it.
January 17, 2006 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 17, 2006 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gore is a blubbering fool like he has always been.
January 17, 2006 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Direct link to C-span video of the entire speech:
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter011606_gore.rm
January 17, 2006 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is just by way of context for this: I believe that any potential candidate for President of the United States that is anywhere to the left of a pro-war, irretrievably pro-business Democrat will be systematically ignored and/or, if necessary, slandered by all of the U.S. media save the blogs, a few newspapers and, maybe, PBS, if they think that he/she might come anywhere near close, but given the bias in the general media coverage there is little chance of that in any case.
Because of this I think it is fair to ask the question: is the United States still a real democracy? And, if not, what on earth can the rest of the world do about it?
January 17, 2006 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well I have tried to pester Ken Baer about this in the past to no avail, thinking he definitely had the right contacts, but all that happened was that Ken Baer stopped posting here, so I am not going to push Gore no more, seems like if I do that, it get jinxed? Better luck to you with Reed Hundt. :-)
January 17, 2006 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark my words: this matter will go the Supreme Court for ultimate resolution.
Which is precisely why it is so important how Democrats frame their opposition on this and thank god that Gore stepped up to the plate to provide leadership for that. And I hope that as many as possible use the speech as a template (that includes all you bloggers out there) instead of bloviating in thousands of directions on the issue.
January 17, 2006 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 17, 2006 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush does not protect the Constitution? Is it not a well established fact that Dems vote against all conservative Supreme Court nominees like Scalia who favor strict interpretations of that document/ A bit of a hole in your argument it looks like.
January 17, 2006 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gore is un-electable by all odds.
January 17, 2006 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
However there is a poisonous fruit problem for the government. If lawyers challenge the source of the evidence the goverment will have two choices. Tell the court the source or face having the evidence dismissed. There is also the issue of whether the lawyers' conversations have been listened to. That will also be a grounds for challenging the dismissals.
January 17, 2006 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I found this interview with Michael Scheuer rather interesting. The disrespect for the rule of law is plainly evident, even if you believe everything Scheuer says.
http://www.counterpunch.org/kleine01072006.html
The original interview is in German, and as far as I can tell it was completely ignored by the mainstream media.
January 17, 2006 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you right on or what!
In 2003, Gore came to speak to Gavin Newsom's "Great Ideas Forum". Gavin's a re-inventor; was running for Mayor, and I was working in the campaign.
As I sat there listening to a superb presentation..GORE HUMOR!...I could not help but recall that dismal performance at the last campaign stop 2000 ..Pittsburg in early morning rain and wonder why again I was seeing the two persona of Al Gore
When he's not running for President, he should be