bluebell

Is every American, including a war time President, covered by the Constitution?  Our answer to that question will determine if we can really remain a free society, ruled by law rather than strongmen.  

I didn't hear Dean, but if you have to depend on Daschle, Harman or Lieberman to preserve your liberties, you are toast.   They are the supporting chorus for the one party state.  All they do is go along to get along with the Repubicans and when something goes awry or gets exposed in the press they whine that they didn't know or that they were afraid to say anything because it might risk infringing upon a statute.  That Republican from the House was brilliant.  Where has Rove been keeping him?  He rightly says that if they believed Bush was breaking the law, they had an obligation to do something about it then.  And Harman, she says if Bush will just come to her and say "Mother may I" she'll just sign right on (and I mean right) to whatever he wants.    Were it not for Hagel and George Will you'd not be able to tell that anything more than a minor point of Congressional ego was at stake.

Whether or not Al Qaeda took evasive action more than a decade ago for fear of eavsdropping on the part of the U.S. government cannot be known unless classified documents are allowed to go public.  It stands to reason, however, that whatever was gleaned from Bush's wiretaps is now a thing of the past.  The semi-traitorous New York Times blew the lid off of a clandestine security operation being implemented by the Federal Government. 

When taking into consideration that more Americans SUPPORT President Bush's surveillance program than oppose it, this "trampling the Constitution" argument doesn't stand up.  For one, every president since Jimmy Carter has used this same vehicle.  Why were there no uproars for Carter, Bush I, or Clinton?  Second, as Larry points out, selected members of Congress WERE briefed on the program at its inception--thus putting the onus on THEM to blow any whistles, not a newspaper.

Finally, now that the "cat is out of the bag" with regard to the domestic wiretaps, it will be fairly easy to ascertain whether or not Bush is honest when insisting that only trans-Atlantic calls amongst suspicious individuals are being monitored.  It will be relatively easy to figure out if he is actually spying on regular, private citizens.  Personally, I'll give Bush the benefit of the doubt.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement:

When taking into consideration that more Americans SUPPORT President Bush's surveillance program than oppose it, this "trampling the Constitution" argument doesn't stand up.

What the Constitution says is not up to public opinion, especially this public, which has had the "terror faucet" turned on and off.  The Constitution doesn't change just because we are mad or afraid.

I'll bet that if someone brought Osama BinLadin to Times Square in New York and publicly beheaded him, more Americans would support it than oppose it.  That would not make it right OR legal.  The whole point of having laws and a Constitution on which to base those laws, is to provide a fair, safe, and civilized country.  

 If the Bush administration had not allowed him to escape from Tora Bora, he would have been killed in battle.  Since that did not happen, perhaps BinLadin  will ultimately receive the punishment he so richly deserves.  I would love to see him in court, hearing his accusers, and then his sentence.  That is how our country is supposed to work.

And what is this about?   it will be fairly easy to ascertain whether or not Bush is honest when insisting that only trans-Atlantic calls amongst suspicious individuals are being monitored.  It will be relatively easy to figure out if he is actually spying on regular, private citizens.

The only way we can find out about the level of wire-tapping is for us to get the information the administration is determined to keep secret, (like the oil company executives who set energey policy with Cheney), and on and on..... 

And this one:  Personally, I'll give Bush the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe you would, but considering his record of failure, lying and secrecy, I choose not to. 

Jan Knaus

Mr. Johnson,  are you saying that electronic surveillance of Al Qaida is of no value because they know that we're doing it...or is only of value because it makes their communications so much more difficult? 

If you're answer is no, the surveillance still has great value, then might not the additonal surveillance done by the Administration without FISA approval also be valuable...and might not their justifications (the need for speed) be correct?

All this is somewhat of an aside in response to one of your lesser points but still worth considering.

Your major point, that Risen's revelations contributed nothing to AlQaida's knowledge, is valid depending on Al Qaida's countermeasures, is it not? 

And guess what. The time for at least one congressperson, and it'll never be a repug, has come to do something about the Cheney problem. Just as not a stinking memebr of the United States Congress challenged what Bush has done and continues to do, who is going to call for the necessary action to institute impeachment proceedings for the VP creep. Either Libby is lying (again) or Cheney encouraged or directly authorized the outing of a CIA agent in an attempt to cover the respective asses of people in this administration. Fitzgerald knows more about this than anyone and probably has a lot of info. The U.S. House of Representatives needs to get on the stick and perform their sworn duty.

thepeoplechoose

I don't excuse or applaud Rockefeller.  As a United States Senator, it was his obligation, and that of everyone who was informed of the NSA program, to uphold and defend the Constitution by doing everything possible to stop it.  If private efforts wouldn't do that (which they wouldn't) then it was his solemn duty to put his career on the line and inform the public, through whatever means necessary.  That he didn't indicates he's more concerned with maintaining his own hold on power, and not in protecting the rights of American citizens or the integrity of our Constitution. 

And, yes, I'm well aware that Rockefeller was in a legal bind, that having been told in secrecy of a secret program he would be breaking the law in revealing it, and would probably suffer severe consequences.  Nevertheless that was his responsibility and moral obligation, and he utterly failed it, his miserable handwritten note notwithstanding.  I have nothing but contempt for him, and everyone else who supported the program and the Bush administration and who shafted the public by not revealing its existence.

Every whistleblower faces the same dilemma, whether to follow the law or to do the right thing.  The ones we celebrate mkae the hard choice, and put what's good for the country over what's best or most convenient for them.

I previously posted about this in a Daily Kos diary and on my own weblog, unfutz.

   The Bush Administration may have intimidated and coerced  individual members. Just because they failed, doesn't give excuse, to an arbitrary Executive. yes, they probably should have told the American people, but then they would have been attacked for letting Al Qaeda know. Another Rove Catch 22 to embarrass the Legislative Branch. (Contempt) 

   Gettysburg writes "When taking into consideration that more Americans SUPPORT President Bush's surveillance program than oppose it, this "trampling the Constitution" argument doesn't stand up."

"thus putting the onus on THEM to blow any whistles, not a newspaper.

   Blue bell writes:"He rightly says that if they believed Bush was breaking the law, they had an obligation to do something about it then."

   Who had the obligation to inform the whole committee? What party is in charge?

   self interest writes: If you're answer is no, the surveillance still has great value, then might not the additonal surveillance done by the Administration without FISA approval also be valuable...and might not their justifications (the need for speed) be correct?

   If  FISA is slow, then amend the law. The American people do not have to trust any elected official, and in fact the BILL OF RIGHTS IS OUR PROTECTION to protect us from inepet politicians or coerced politicians, what ever the reason the President failed to follow the proper rules, Anything else being said by the Administration is passing the responsibilty.

   OVERSIGHT, would not only have protected our civil liberties, but would have protected the President from accusation of abusing his authority. He obstructed Judical oversight, He obstructed the 9/11 commission, he obstructed the release of records of Cheneys energy meeting.He obstructed the release of Reagan documents. NO WE DON'T HAVE TO TRUST THIS ADMINISTRATION. 

   Washingtons Farewell Address  "All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. Toward the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what can not be directly overthrown."

   "may now and then answer popular ends,...however specious the pretexts."   BUSH DECLARES We're at war , THEN TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHTS

I'll let Washingtons words speak to this generation, about how our government could be highjacked.

George Washinton again "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all.

   Telling only a select few does not fulfill the Presidents obligation

Oh, and by the way, if Cheney doesn't like what you're saying, he just might shoot you!

Jan Knaus

bluebell

Well, I'd like to know how our "democracy" has gotten itself so tied in knots that our elected Congress cannot by law tell the American people if the President if breaking the law.  Who is the secrecy protecting?  The government is not competent to act in secret. How did we manage to give up our freedom to know what is going on and why are we such a nation of sheep that we'll allow these incompetents to continue this farce?  If the people I'm allowed to vote for aren't allowed to know what the government is doing, how am I living in a free country?

CVilleDem

Granted we will not know the extent of the wiretaps until Bush leaves office, but it would be a relatively easy matter to disclose such findings after the new president takes control. 

If there is any gray area at all in this case it is whether Bush knowingly utilized a loophole in the law for his own purpose.  His wiretaps are not unconstitutional and are very legal.  The only problem is the "war-time president" clause.  Bush certainly has the legal right to utilize any loophole in the law (we saw he and Kerry do that when raising campaign funds during the 2004 election).  Whether or not that is morally sound is another matter.

That means wiretaps in general, and illegal taps in particular, are very effective.  And that Risen's revelations were not in the interests of this country. 

So that's it?  There are lots of illegal things that might be very effective in doing a lot of things, but is it really in the interest of this country to sacrifice the idea that we are governed by law?

And by the way, if there was an illegal wiretap program that the government kept under wraps, and is very disturbed to see come to light, how is it that you uncovered it in five minutes?  If it's that easy, can't we assume that every terrorist with a search engine knows about it?  And in that case, can it really be all that effective? 

I zero-rated this because I'm pretty sure there are users of this site who did lose people on 9/11, and I don't think they should have to have you picking at their wounds like this.  Really, this isn't appropriate for a grown-up conversation.  But if you want to rephrase it, I'd be more than happy to respond.

Hey, Jan!

Just so you know, I quoted that from another post.

Good to have you back, though, by the way. 

By the way, my first girl friend of 40 years ago, was nearly killed in 911 because she lives nearby and I know how she feels about illegal wiretaps and those who try to prevent them.

The more I think about your smarmy comment the more it infuriates me.  Who are you to speak to confidently for others you don't even know exist? Who are you to say what is appropriate for grown-up conversation?  You sound like you've spent most of your life baby-talking to idiots.  Are you in the psycho-babble business?  Have you been in "treatment" because you can't stop wetting your diapers?

Wow.

But you know what?  I still value living in a free country governed by laws.

Well, gee whiz, that settles it, doesn't it?  So now I know why you think you have a right to say what is a proper idea and how it should be expressed. 

No, it's all I have to say about yours.  My friend, you are pretty unhinged.

As Katrina showed protecting citizens is not priority number one all of the time.

tlees2, I'd have to ask if it is ever the first priority?  Getting power and keeping power is No. 1 with the Bush administration.