The President Has Failed America
The Bush administration has betrayed America and its base as well by failing to deliver on any promise in their six years in office.
THE ECONOMY: From the fool-hardy adventure in Iraq, to tax-cuts for the super-rich, to hand-outs to big-oil and pharmaceutical companies, the Bush administration has put every American family in hock for $150,000 EACH with absolutely NOTHING to show for it. For many families, $150,000 is three to five YEAR'S salary, financed at long term interest, and I can guarantee that in 30 years of paying interest only on this massive debt, the government in 2036 will be forced to roll the debt because there will be no cash to retire it. In terms of the economy, President Bush has failed America, and the pain of this failure will be felt for generations to come.
THE DIVIDER: The Bush administration has failed to unite America, despite the President's insistence during his first campaign that he is a uniter, not a divider. His political team specializes in splitting constituencies, and creating cleavages in our nation that will take generations to heal. President Bush has divided America such that only the Civil War in 1861, One Hundred and Forty-Five years ago, was our nation more divided. As a uniter, this President has failed miserably.
THE ENVIRONMENT: The President, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence of melting icecaps, drowning polar bears, massive chunks of the Antarctic Ice shelf breaking off, the reduction of 150 Glaciers in Glacier National park 100 years ago to only 35 today, and a prediction by climatologists and polar studies scientists that in 35 years there will be NO glaciers in Glacier National Park. The President has completely ignored the Kyoto Protocol, or even any effort to live up to its goals. Once again, by failing to act and blocking attempts to help save the world we live in, the President has failed America.
NATURAL DISASTERS: The President has failed America when it came to dealing with Natural disasters, from the Indian Ocean with the tsunami, to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. With anemic and ineffective responses to tragic events, the President has failed America.
WAR ON TERROR: After 9/11, the President sought and received from Congress the authority to deal with Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan, who harbored him. He also received broad authority to defend America from terrorist attack in the form of the passage of the Patriot Act, and changes to the FISA Law that permitted a 3 day delay before it became necessary to seek a warrant for continued surveillance of persons suspected of terrorist activities or financing, etc. This was changed to a program that misused the National Security Agency to do domestic spying which is outside the scope of activities permitted by the NSA law.
The domestic spying program - Orwellian label: Terrorist Spy Program - was re-authorized over 30 times, and continues to be re-authorized in the face of calls by Congress to restrain such activities. Instead, Congress has been asked to, on an ex post facto basis to legalize the illegal activities. This is also a failure of the Congress to fulfill its duty to provide oversight over the Executive Branch. By failing to live up to his oath to "Preserve Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America", the President has failed America
IRAQ: The President failed to present an honest case for war against Iraq. The Congress was presented with information that has now been proven to be false, and it has become increasingly clear that the President and his National Security, Diplomatic, and Intelligence agencies knew to be false. As Commander and Chief, the President has failed America.
THE MILITARY: Yesterday (4/23/06), the President shamelessly stood in front of soldiers and said that this is a breakthrough and a major milestone in the creation of a free Iraq. He then said that victory in Iraq was coming. Not one soldier in the film clip was smiling. This was a show of contempt and no confidence by the soldiers, knowing full well that this man has no scruples about sending them out to die or be maimed. President Bush has failed his military.
INTERNATIONAL STATUS: The President has failed to maintain our prestige and strategic alliances around the world, while at the same time creating enemies, fostering an arms race, abrogated treaty obligations, promotes the spread of nuclear weapons, violated a basic American premise to go to war with non-belligerents, walked away from the ABM treaty, shamed America not only permitting, but condoning the use of torture, renditions, unlimited incarceration with no right of Habeas Corpus, no access to lawyers, no notice to families of those who are incarcerated, many of whom have proven to be not guilty of any crime. By squandering decades of good will around the world, the President has failed America.
CONCLUSIONS: It is abundantly clear that President Bush is a complete and utter failure as a President of the United States of America. Do I feel glee or joy from this sad state of affairs? No. I believe that when the President of the United States fails, that also means that America itself has failed. This is where America is right now. America has failed, and we were led to that failure by our President, and those in his administration.
I believe that millions of Americans are emerging from their slumber, learning of the mass betrayal by and failures of the Bush administration, and will come out of this slumber in a rage.
Adlai E. Stevenson points to the direction America must head in his Call To Greatness:"Throughout its history, America has given hope, comfort and inspiration to freedom's cause in all lands. The reservoir of good will and respect for America was not built up by American arms or intrigue; it was built upon our deep dedication to the cause of human liberty and welfare."
Written by: OhioDem1
Edited by: REB 84
QuestionItNow
THE ECONOMY: From the fool-hardy adventure in Iraq, to tax-cuts for the super-rich, to hand-outs to big-oil and pharmaceutical companies, the Bush administration has put every American family in hock for $150,000 EACH with absolutely NOTHING to show for it. For many families, $150,000 is three to five YEAR'S salary, financed at long term interest, and I can guarantee that in 30 years of paying interest only on this massive debt, the government in 2036 will be forced to roll the debt because there will be no cash to retire it. In terms of the economy, President Bush has failed America, and the pain of this failure will be felt for generations to come.
THE DIVIDER: The Bush administration has failed to unite America, despite the President's insistence during his first campaign that he is a uniter, not a divider. His political team specializes in splitting constituencies, and creating cleavages in our nation that will take generations to heal. President Bush has divided America such that only the Civil War in 1861, One Hundred and Forty-Five years ago, was our nation more divided. As a uniter, this President has failed miserably.
THE ENVIRONMENT: The President, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence of melting icecaps, drowning polar bears, massive chunks of the Antarctic Ice shelf breaking off, the reduction of 150 Glaciers in Glacier National park 100 years ago to only 35 today, and a prediction by climatologists and polar studies scientists that in 35 years there will be NO glaciers in Glacier National Park. The President has completely ignored the Kyoto Protocol, or even any effort to live up to its goals. Once again, by failing to act and blocking attempts to help save the world we live in, the President has failed America.
NATURAL DISASTERS: The President has failed America when it came to dealing with Natural disasters, from the Indian Ocean with the tsunami, to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. With anemic and ineffective responses to tragic events, the President has failed America.
WAR ON TERROR: After 9/11, the President sought and received from Congress the authority to deal with Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan, who harbored him. He also received broad authority to defend America from terrorist attack in the form of the passage of the Patriot Act, and changes to the FISA Law that permitted a 3 day delay before it became necessary to seek a warrant for continued surveillance of persons suspected of terrorist activities or financing, etc. This was changed to a program that misused the National Security Agency to do domestic spying which is outside the scope of activities permitted by the NSA law.
The domestic spying program - Orwellian label: Terrorist Spy Program - was re-authorized over 30 times, and continues to be re-authorized in the face of calls by Congress to restrain such activities. Instead, Congress has been asked to, on an ex post facto basis to legalize the illegal activities. This is also a failure of the Congress to fulfill its duty to provide oversight over the Executive Branch. By failing to live up to his oath to "Preserve Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America", the President has failed America
IRAQ: The President failed to present an honest case for war against Iraq. The Congress was presented with information that has now been proven to be false, and it has become increasingly clear that the President and his National Security, Diplomatic, and Intelligence agencies knew to be false. As Commander and Chief, the President has failed America.
THE MILITARY: Yesterday (4/23/06), the President shamelessly stood in front of soldiers and said that this is a breakthrough and a major milestone in the creation of a free Iraq. He then said that victory in Iraq was coming. Not one soldier in the film clip was smiling. This was a show of contempt and no confidence by the soldiers, knowing full well that this man has no scruples about sending them out to die or be maimed. President Bush has failed his military.
INTERNATIONAL STATUS: The President has failed to maintain our prestige and strategic alliances around the world, while at the same time creating enemies, fostering an arms race, abrogated treaty obligations, promotes the spread of nuclear weapons, violated a basic American premise to go to war with non-belligerents, walked away from the ABM treaty, shamed America not only permitting, but condoning the use of torture, renditions, unlimited incarceration with no right of Habeas Corpus, no access to lawyers, no notice to families of those who are incarcerated, many of whom have proven to be not guilty of any crime. By squandering decades of good will around the world, the President has failed America.
CONCLUSIONS: It is abundantly clear that President Bush is a complete and utter failure as a President of the United States of America. Do I feel glee or joy from this sad state of affairs? No. I believe that when the President of the United States fails, that also means that America itself has failed. This is where America is right now. America has failed, and we were led to that failure by our President, and those in his administration.
I believe that millions of Americans are emerging from their slumber, learning of the mass betrayal by and failures of the Bush administration, and will come out of this slumber in a rage.
Adlai E. Stevenson points to the direction America must head in his Call To Greatness:"Throughout its history, America has given hope, comfort and inspiration to freedom's cause in all lands. The reservoir of good will and respect for America was not built up by American arms or intrigue; it was built upon our deep dedication to the cause of human liberty and welfare."
Written by: OhioDem1
Edited by: REB 84
QuestionItNow
posted by REB 84 at
5/07/2006 12:51:00 AM
24 Comments:
I was going to finish commenting on the other thread when I had figured out what to say, and then I saw this. While I believe I could thoughtfully debate on a couple of the earlier points, when I saw the following I knew that wasn't going to happen:
"The President has failed America when it came to dealing with Natural disasters, from the Indian Ocean with the tsunami, to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. With anemic and ineffective responses to tragic events, the President has failed America."
The only thing I can say is that there is nothing to say after reading that, as disconnect and hatred only matter here. Forgive me for wasting your time.
By
Steve, at 8:04 AM, May 10, 2006
Steve, There you go again, saying I hate the President.
I do not hate George W. Bush. I hate what he and his administration are doing to America.
What was not anemic and ineffective about the federal government response to these tragedies? Brown knew he was in over his head and has said this publically. He received no support from the top. These are his words. The cleanup for NO is still plagued by corruption and inefficency. Contractors feeding subcontractors feeding subcontractors, each taking a 50% skim.
Hurricane cleanup has never gone well, as witnessed by Hurricane Andrew several years ago. The site where Andrew hit still has not fully recovered. Having said that, FEMA in the 1990's was much more effective than it was in 2005, and still is, based on current accounts.
As they say, the Buck Stops Here. The leadership in both FEMA and the parent agency, Homeland Security are appointed and serve at the pleasure of the President. The organization failed, those in control of them also failed, the President failed by definition.
No need to apologize for wasting my time, I enjoy our exchanges. We have a different point of view, and we have a different feel for what is bad or good for America. We have agreed on facts, both of us have accepted factual information, or historical information. Neither one of us says D's or R's are infallible.
We have political differences, but there is no reason to hate each other because of that. Members of Congress differ vehemently on substantive issues, but can bury the hatchet and work out in the gym together and have a beer without having personal enmity. Why can't we?
By
Ohiodem1, at 2:57 PM, May 10, 2006
OhioDem1 touched on the hate aspect of Steve's comment. I would like to consider the disconnect assertion.
When a president sits in a daze in a Florida classroom after being informed that America is under attack, is this not a disconnect?
When a president is joking around and playing guitar while a major American city is being ravaged by one of the worst storms in history, is this not a disconnect?
When a president and his administration ignore any intelligence and/or science that contradicts their pre-conceived notions on almost any subject, is this not a disconnect?
When global warming and environmental degradation endanger the future of our planet, and the president asserts we need more studies before we act, is this not a disconnect?
I could keep going, but I trust any reader will get the point.
The bottom line is this: in order to have respectful and meaningful dialogue about the many serious problems America faces, Americans need to look in the mirror and ask themselves if their elected officials are doing the job. If not, it is time to throw the bums out and start over. With this president, the buck stops nowhere.
By
DTW 06, at 8:01 PM, May 10, 2006
I did a copy-and-paste of the whole paragraph but put the following in bold letters:
"from the Indian Ocean with the tsunami,"
to highlight my point. I somewhat agree with your opinions on the hurricane situation (especially with FEMA's handling of the recovery in the aftermath of the storms and rescue effort) and was not disputing that; just the part about the tsunami. That was outrageous and completely out-of-line.
And as long as I'm here, let me add this. The idea that Bush is breaking the law regarding the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program is utter BS for two reasons: 1) nobody, not even Democrats, are calling for an end to the program, just to have warrants and more congressional or FISA court notification (which I don't agree with); and 2) this was a covert operation as defined by the National Security Act (subsection (c)(2) of 50 USC § 413b, "Presidential approval and reporting of covert actions") until the New York Times published its story on it. Feingold's resolution never mentions that, and then goes on and lies (yes, I mean Feingold deliberately lied) about the courts involvement with this whole process:
"Whereas President George W. Bush inaccurately stated in his January 31, 2006, State of the Union address that `Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority.', even though the President has failed to identify a single instance since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 became law in which another President has authorized wiretaps inside the United States without complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and no Federal court has evaluated whether the President has the inherent authority to authorize wiretaps inside the United States without complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978:"
The original Times article goes on and highlights instances when the the FISA court has questioned some warrants, meaning the Justice Department was going to the courts. And in the hearings for the resolution, it came out that the FISA and other federal courts still cite United States v. Truong Dinh Hung as the precedent for allowing the executive branch to use warrantless monitoring in regards to foreign surveillance. It also came out that many of the FISA cases are sealed and not allowed to be known to the outside world. Feingold knows all of these things, but still presents his resolution. All it is is a legal farce.
I have a detailed write-up of it on my blog.
Let me get the rest of these.
The economy. It's in great shape, the tax cuts have done great things to get unemployment down to 4.7% (not seen in decades), and more people are spending money (in some cases, too much, and that's when problems can arise). Unfortunately, the government continues to spend more money than it brings in. In all of the major reduction-in-spending bills last year, Republicans voted overwhelmingly in favor of reducing government spending, while Democrats voted overwhelmingly against them. The problem is when both parties decide to go on a spending binge (the highway bill, for example), which happens far too often.
And I'm not even going to touch the affects of illegal aliens now. Not enough time here. I will say this. If you want to nail Bush on something, this is it. Conservatives hammer him incessantly on this because of the potential economic problems of not enforcing the law and the national security implications of not enforcing the border.
The divider. Senate Democrats filibustering judicial nominees for five years show they are the dividers, not the President. Ask Tom Daschle how that turned out.
The environment. It was brought up about glaciers in Glacier National Park. Al Gore is trying to say global warming is destroying the glaciers that sit within Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa. Only problem is, Kilimanjaro is a volcano in the geologically active Great Rift Valley system. Shifts in plates and the underground magma could possibly have more to do with the rising temperatures melting the glaciers in Kilimanjaro than global warming. Glacier National Park is not too far from the Yellowstone caldera (in Yellowstone Park), which is also geologically active. It can be argued that this is also having an effect on the glaciers.
Iraq. All I'll say is that intelligence existed saying Al Qaeda was in Iraq and supported in some measure by Saddam Hussein. Documentation of this is coming out slowly in the stuff captured by the military.
The military. Not going to argue this, but re-enlistments are still at a great rate.
International status. The only people complaining are the invalids at the UN and the weenies in Western Europe. Bush has expanded strategic alliances by signing a defense pact with India (this is not the nuclear pact signed later), continued excellent relations with Australia, Japan, Britain, Israel, Eastern Europe (except Russia), etc. Are there issues with some? Sure, but that is the nature of the beast of foreign policy.
The UN dumped the idiotic Human Rights Commission and created the already disgraced Human Rights Council. Any "human rights" group that is to be led by Cuba and Saudi Arabia is a failure from the get-go, and a slap in the face of freedom, human decency, and the American taxpayer whose dollars overwhelmingly pay for the disgraceful UN. The problem here isn't with the US or Bush, it's with the dictator-coddling fools in the UN.
I agree that Bush has problems, especially with illegal aliens. One of the more conservative bloggers I read (I won't name names) has also called for impeaching Bush on this, but not the war or anything else. But what bothers me about liberals is they have no problem finding fault with American politicians (granted, there's enough to find), but almost never say word one about the evils outside the US that do affect us, like terrorism and the governments that support it; or the environmental catastrophes occurring elsewhere (China had three major chemical leaks late last year and earlier this year, yet nary a word from the environmentalists); or the plight of women in Muslim countries (read about Ayaan Hirsi Ali), which many on the left refuse to address because of the fear of insulting the "culture" of Islam (Madeline "halfwit" Albright did this the other day in an insulting manner on Hardball).
Look at the Sudan situation. George Clooney comes out recently saying something needs to be done with the Darfur situation, although he doesn't say what. Good. It's about time. Where were he and other liberals when Bush had Colin Powell (when he was Sec. of State) try to get the UN to admit genocide was going on there, and that resolutions were stopped by Russia and China because of the oil contracts they have with the Sudanese government? And what does Clooney want? More money for the refugees? How about getting them back to their homes, unmolested by the Sudanese government and the janjaweed terrorists that government created. Why nothing from the black political leaders (like Conyers), who have to see that the Arabs running the Sudanese government are as racist against the Sudanese blacks as the Afrikaaners were to South African blacks before the end of apartheid?
Well, I've said too much (have to get ready for work).
By
Steve, at 7:07 AM, May 11, 2006
When George W. Bush has to get Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush to bail himself out of the anemic response to the tsunami you know he has screwed up. The administration sent some ships and helicopters and maybe a few Marines initially, and offered a very small dollar amount to the relief efforts. They were embarrassed into upping that amount, and after quite some time passed, Clinton and the Bush 41 came riding to the rescue by organizing a massive private relief effort. I stand by my statement.
Why don't you agree with a court making a finding of Probable Cause prior to issuing a Search Warrant? This is constitutionally protected by the 4th Amemdment. The administration's attempt to water down the probable cause provision to "reasonable cause" is just flat unconstitutional. Not obtaining a warrant is similarly unconstitutional. The FISA law was changed to match the presidential request for the 72 hour look back before seeking the warrant. The administration has chosen to flaunt, and hold the FISA court in contempt. Unconstitutional behavior cannot stand.
I fail to see a lie in the statements of Feingold. Shall I run down the lies attributed to the president, his AG, his National Security chief, his VP, his SEC State, and whatever. This is a massive case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Feingold's resolution IS a legal farce, and I will tell you why. Normally censure is a method to in effect, shame the person being censured into returning to good behavior. If a senator is censured, normally it is a kiss of death to his position in the power structure, and usually a guarantee of his defeat at the polls the next time he is up for re-election. (He is the pronoun of choice here because so few she's are in the Senate, and I do not think any have been censured.) Having said that, no one in this adminstration is capable of feeling shame, therefore it is wasted effort. Does the president deserve censure, of course he does. He violated the law.
Visiting your blog, it is clear that you have a research staff, which I lack. The very long post also indicates to me that you have a mindset that will not accept the reality that the President and his administration are failing. I did not have time to read the long article, but will try to do so in the next few days.
The Economy - $9 Trillion debt ceiling, interest on the debt the third largest expenditure in the budget, and it is inevitable that this will rise. This deficit spending will put Americans in debt hell for a hundred years. I live in Ohio. We are losing our manufacturing base, which, along with farming drives our economy. Last year we lost more manufacturing jobs. These jobs are gone permanently. Delphi will close 3 plants in Ohio soon. They are making money with their offshore plants, losing money with their onshore plants. More jobs gone forever. Airlines nearly ready to go under. Fuel prices going through the roof. The oil cost increases are just beginning to work their way through everything we purchase through increased transportation costs. Increased cost for petrochemical plastics. Rising interest rates. Misery index at 12.9 and on a bullet. The economy is not as good as you think. We have a massive trade balance, we are exporting billions in interest to our international commerical and political rivals and will do so for many years. We have a different viewpoint here as well.
The president has gotten over 95 per cent of his judges, including two extremely conservative justices on the Supreme Court. Your comment does not wash.
I raised empirical evidence about the glaciers in Glacier National park. This study was done by researchers at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State. Mr. Lonnie Thompson is one of the premier polar scientists, and his research and comments in the press support this view. Bringing in Al Gore about Kilimanjaro is irrelevant to a discussion about the park. Supposing a cause about geothermal activity as a cause is speculation on your part.
We will probably disagree forever about Iraq. You see ties where I see very tenuous contact. The 9/11 commission unanimously said no operational ties. I can live with that assessment. I have never said that Hussein was not a despicable despot, and that he supported some terrorist activity. It does not seem likely that he participated in 9/11 as many in the administration asserted prior to the war. President Bush has also said Hussein was not involved with 9/11. What more do you need?
If re-enlistments are so high, how come they are not letting National Guard officers resign their commissions. Where are the statistics that back up your view. I expect if war is started against Iran, which appears to be a significant possibility, then conscription will be the only way to keep the army at authorized troop levels.
I will get to the international status later. There are too many points to address, and I am tired.
Good night. OD1
By
Ohiodem1, at 1:37 AM, May 12, 2006
I have often heard Bush supporters state that our economy is doing great. We are definitely not experiencing a strong economy in Michigan. Like Ohio and most midwestern manufacturing states we are hurting badly.
While other areas of the country are doing better, I suspect that deficit government spending - with huge amounts of money being spent on the military/homeland security industrial complex - are artificially inflating economic numbers over the short-term.
In the long-run this same deficit spending will undermine the economic status of the USA these Bush supporters assert to love.
By
REB 84, at 10:45 AM, May 12, 2006
Steve - International status.
India-Pakistan - First we sell fighters to India, which upsets the balance of power in the region. Pakastan complains, then we sell jets to them. We agree to sell nuclear power plants to India. What will Pakistan demand in exhange. It looks more like an arms race started by us. In the mean time OBL is probably being harbored in Paksitan.
NATO - This sixty year-old strategic alliance has been weakened under Bush. France has been driven away, as has Germany. I do not see NATO as being ready to send 100,000 peace keeping troops to Iraq anytime soon.
You rail against the UN and the weenies in Europe. The French argued for more inspections in Iraq to verify WMD violations before going to war with Iraq. The UN, through its IAEA wanted more inspections, and the IAEA had intelligence based on inspections and monitoring activity over a long period of time that said Iraq had no Nukes. The UN Weapons inspectors were unable to locate any WMD, and found only a technical violation with a missile with a range of 150 miles instead of the specified 143 miles. All of these missiles were destroyed. No substantive violations of the 13,000 page declaration were found. Bush threw the inspectors out when he wanted to start the war. France and the UN Intelligence and Inspectors were right, Bush was wrong. Bush knew he was wrong. I do not see how you can blame this on the UN.
UN Human Rights issues. You are right on both items. I will say this, John Bolton chose to gut the Human Rights agreement which had been negotiated in good faith by Bush's previous Sec State, Colin Powell. He introduced about 700 very substantive changes at the 11:59 hour which substantially weakened the agreement which created the second commission. Again, this is the Bush admin undermining the effectiveness of the UN as a place where disputes at least have a chance of being resolved peacefully, and directing various humanitarian programs, and most effectively. Before you say it, Oil for Food was not a success because of corruption on both sides of the equation. Some of this was winked at by both the Clinton and Bush administrations.
We are willing to coddle dictators, just different ones. Think Pinochet, the Saudi royal family, the Shah of Iran, several others around the world. Two of the examples are from earlier times, but we had a hand in establishing those authoritarian regimes that met our criteri for an acceptable dictator.
Am I aware of evils outside the USA. Of course I am. I was in the Navy during Viet Nam and I saw first hand stuff that was happening internationally that was unacceptable to an American. I had an old woman in Tiajuana beg me to take her to America. That was a very squalid location 35 years ago. I have not been there to make a comparison to today, so I cannot comment on conditions now. I assume conditions in Mexico are bad because there is still significant demand for Mexican nationals and those from points south of Mexico to come here. If one wants to improve their lot in life and find work when none exists in their home nation, I cannot blame them for wanting to do that. Should they be legal? Of course. But a dose of reality is that there is no way to send 11 millon people back. What transportation system can handle that? Will 11 million people self-incriminate themselves? If they are criminalized in the way some want to see happen, then they will be required to have a day in court, where even for an illegal ailen, once you are in our court system, the standard rules of evidence and protection from self-incrimination will apply. How long do you think it would take to try 11,000,000 cases? Talk about welfare for attorneys! What do you think it would cost to try 11,000,000 cases? Once a case hits our court system, even if there are convictions, there will be appeals that drag on for years. Nothing could be done in our courts for nearly any purpose other than dealing with the immigration issue. I believe that approach is futile, and totally impractical.
The Bush proposal is actually better than most being kicked around Congress. Credit where due. Remember he is from Texas and has experience with this issue, and he actually made sense on the immigration question until he went off about the Star Spangled Banner issue. I expect our national anthem has been translated into many languages. There are a lot of things worse in this world than singing the Star Spangled Banner in any language.
I have been on board about "doing something" about Darfur ever since I became aware of the problem. I cannot think of a single person I know or even know of who does not think this is a disaster. I agreed with Colin Powell when he identified it as a Genocide. That is what it is. The entire world should be working to stop this.
I keep hearing that some progress is being made by the adminstration. I hope it has high priority. The government doing the genocide appears to be a weak, corrupt illegitimate dictatorship which is probably run by the military, such that it is. Their military strength is probably less than that of the Taliban. This appears to be where an international peacekeeping or peacemaking force, primarily of middle easterners could make the difference in stopping this tragedy. I support ending this.
If Clooney wants to lend his name, good. I believe many members of Congress have expressed a desire to help in Darfur. I do not know if Conyers is among them, but it seems very likely. From all reports I have seen, it does appear to be a racist and ethno centric attack against an indigenous population. We don't disagree on this.
OD1
By
Ohiodem1, at 5:01 PM, May 12, 2006
I don't have much time today, but I did want to address a couple of things.
OD1
I take is as a compliment that you believe I have a staff working on this NSA thing. This is not the case. Just one person who works for a living at a 40-hour-per-week job and enjoys following up on things like this (sometimes too much, as my wife has complained to me). I've been following the NSA story since it broke in December and took a week to write up the post on Feingold's resolution.
India-Pakistan.
For the first time since both countries were created, both are allied with the US. We've always had at least adequate relations with Pakistan, even with the dubious military dictatorships (which include the present one), but our relationship with India has been less than cordial over the same period, despite their being a democracy. The fact of the matter is that both countries are now actually talking to each other and Musharraf is taking on the more radical elements within Pakistan (although he needs to be prodded now and again). Look at Greece and Turkey; both are very antagonistic to each other and are constantly pissed off at each other regarding Cyprus (long story, don't want to get into it here). But the fact is, through their respective alliances with the US, and that both are NATO allies, keeps them from wanting to start shooting at each other.
I will say that Pakistan does need to move to becoming a democracy again (it has in the past) and do everything it can to remove sharia as the basis of its laws. Musharraf has an extremely tough job ahead to do that, all the while under a death sentence from the whacko Islamists that still infest Pakistan.
UN
French obstruction through "inspections" was caused because of that government's involvement in the UN Oil-for-Food scandal. It was in their interests to keep Hussein in power, along with the German and Russian governments.
And as far as WMDs, it must be remembered that Sen. Rockefeller went to Syria (and Jordan and Saudi Arabia) in January, 2002, and told Bashar al-Assad that he (Rockefeller) believed the US would invade Iraq within 18 months (it was 14 months). Now, being a fellow Baathist who is worried about the spread of democracy, and that the Syrian government was (and is) one of the worst offenders of supporting terrorism, it can be speculated that ol' Bashar may have put in a call or two to Saddam. While there is no hard evidence, there is speculation that the WMDs were moved either into Syria and/or Russia. There is already hard evidence of Russian military being in Baghdad before the US invaded, giving advice to Hussein.
Where Bush went wrong about WMDs was actually making it as high a priority as it was and not pushing Hussein's support of terrorists, including Al Qaeda. One doesn't need to be operationally involved to be a supporter, despite what the 9/11 Commission states. Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the invasion. A request by King Abdullah of Jordan to have Hussein extradite Zarqawi was rebuffed by the Iraqi dictator. I'll grant that there's no evidence that Hussein had a hand in 9/11 (and I'm not suggesting it here). But there can be no doubt that US intelligence believed (rightly) that Al Qaeda had a safe haven in Iraq before the US invasion. Information coming out of captured Iraqi documents, information not provided to the 9/11 Commission at the time, are proving the intelligence.
When I get some more time, I'll finish my reply. And yes, we do agree on Sudan.
Reb 84
We don't have a great economy here in Illinois either. But that isn't due to anything being done or not done by the Bush administration. We are still reeling from the corruption of the liberal Republican Ryan administration, and that we have a corrupt Chicago Democrat as Governor. And while Pat Fitzgerald has been doing whatever it is he's doing in the Plame fiasco, he's actually got indictments and convictions of a host of Democrats in Chicago, yet he has ignored the heart of that corruption, Mayor Daley. Gov. Blagojevich has only compounded our state's problems with more waste than I have time to write here, and his administration is being investigated for illegal uses of cronyism and patronage, taking the corruption that is inherent in Chicago's city government down to the state capital. It doesn't help that we have a Chicago Democrat (Obama) as a Senator and suckup (to Daley) crybaby Democrat (Durbin) as the other Senator.
By
Steve, at 10:02 AM, May 13, 2006
Got a few minutes.
OD1, you saw that I went through an intensive search and reasoned, with facts and other experts' use of case history, that the NSA program is legal. I've only heard a minimal amount of the same type of statements from experts that say it is illegal, and mostly just rhetoric on how the 4th Amendment is being violated, and usually nothing that indicated this program was covert (Feingold doesn't mention it at all, and neither does Specter) or that we are at war. Feingold does mention that the AUMF exists, but does not go into any real detail on how broad it really is. On Conyers' site, he relayed a piece from Harper's editor Lewis Lapham that said [the bold emphasis is mine]:
"No, the country isn't at war, and it's not America's secrets that the President seeks to protect. The country is threatened by free-booting terrorists unaligned with a foreign government or an enemy army; the secrets are those of the Bush Admnistration, chief among them its determination to replace a democratic republic with something more safely totalitarian. The fiction of permanent war allows it to seize, in the name of the national security, the instruments of tyranny."
That is a complete refutation of the AUMF, along with a disregard to those that died on 9/11. Now, Conyers never voted on the AUMF (he may have not been in Washington, as he didn't vote on other bills that day, 9/14/01; the Library of Congress site can be searched to find bills and votes), but Feingold did in the Senate. So, my question is, does Feingold believe we are at war with Al Qaeda, known to be supported financially (and, in some cases, operationally) by other governments, or not?
Conyers' recent post correctly points out that there are two cases pending in the courts to find out the constitutionality of the NSA program, ACLU v. NSA and CCR v. Bush. Up to this point, the 4th Circuit decision within United States v. Truong (decided in 1980) has been the precedent used to determine presidential powers regarding foreign intelligence surveillance. If either or both of the other two cases rules out, then Feingold's resolution as to the constitutionality and legality of the program then has some teeth. But, if both cases are ruled to favor the administration, the constitutionality of FISA will be more in doubt than it was already. I have read ACLU v. NSA and am of the opinion that the precedent set by United States v. Truong trumps it, but it hasn't gone to court yet and so my opinion is based on (educated) speculation. I haven't read CCR v. Bush.
One other thing. The country itself has been behind the NSA program by an overwhelming majority. The Constitution states that we vote for our representatives to make the laws of the land, and the administration has said the NSA program, in conjunction with FISA, is lawful, backed up by precedent from the courts and the reasonable search clause within the 4th Amendment. If some unelected judge or Justice doesn't take all of these things into consideration and rules against the administration out-of-hand, then the whole of the Constitution might as well be invalidated and tyranny allowed to rule this country.
By
Steve, at 11:38 AM, May 13, 2006
Steve,
I agree Corruption is a Bi-partisan Problem. This is why I have been outspoken in my support of outsiders and whistleblowers. It sounds like we both agree about corruption and accountability.
You sound like an intelligent citizen. Yet, I am amazed that you continue to support one of the most corrupt and inept administrations in the history of the United States of America. Can you explain this?
By
REB 84, at 8:43 PM, May 13, 2006
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton
By
DTW 06, at 10:25 PM, May 13, 2006
REB,
Thank you for the compliment. As to your question, I will attempt to answer it, despite it being so obviously leading.
But first, I have to say that I do not share your enthusiasm with whistleblowers because most of them, in the end, aren't "blowing the whistle" for the right reasons. Take "Deep Throat", Mark Felt. Yes, it is true that the Nixon administration was corrupt and that Felt's information paved the way to get Nixon out of office. Yet, it seems that Felt's actions weren't derived from any sense of justice. He as much as admitted this as he stated he was upset at being passed over for the FBI Director's job after J. Edgar Hoover died, and it was soon after that that he became the famous (or infamous) "Deep Throat". I've been passed over for promotions as well and if I threw the same kind of hissy fit, I would be fired and rightly so. There are reasons for rules and laws and responsible methods of addressing grievances, and it appears that Felt didn't pursue these that much. But, this is speculation.
This garbage about "whistleblowing" in the CIA is more pronounced today as unelected bureaucrats, hired to do a job at the behest of their managers (ultimately leading to the President), have no business leaking classified information to anyone just because they are upset about policy. They are not the ones "we the people" put in office to make policy decisions; that's what elected officials are for. There are proper channels for addressing grievances (yes, I deliberately repeated the phrase) including quitting their job, and there are reasons for these rules. In the case of the CIA, it is a matter of the security of the nation that is at stake, not their unwanted opinion on how they think the country should be viewed by the rest of the world. The CIA was absolutely correct in firing Mary McCarthy as she had no business leaking anything to the press, even if it wasn't about the CIA "black prisons". She was fired for leaking something (the CIA won't say what), and her defense that she didn't doesn't wash.
And before you say Bush leaks classified information, he can't. He has the ultimate authority at what gets declassified and released, because that is what he is elected to do. Such is not the case with unelected bureaucrats.
Corruption in this administration? As opposed to which one? Nixon's? Reagan's? Clinton's? Harding's? Grant's? And don't start throwing Halliburton at me. The problems with them are endemic to how the government deals with the corporate world in general with allowing the mergers that have occurred over the last several decades, leaving them as just about the only American company that can do what it does. And your argument doesn't address the corruption or ethics problems inherent in Congress. "Duke" Cunningham resigned his seat and went to jail (rightly so), yet Jim McDermott is allowed to still infest the hallowed halls of the Capitol after being convicted of leaking an illegally recorded telephone call between Newt Gingrich (who isn't even in the House anymore) and John Boehner in 1997, along with other ethics problems. William Jefferson of Louisiana has had several associates plead guilty to bribing Jefferson, although Jefferson hasn't been indicted yet. Tom DeLay's problems have been well documented, but a seemingly more serious problem exists with Alan Mollohan (at least he resigned from the ethics committee).
Lastly, only one member of the Bush administration has been indicted, and that for lying to a grand jury about an investigation that is still questionable to many of us. Whether or not anybody else is remains to be seen, but even if that happens, nobody's been convicted. And remember, before the law all are innocent until proven guilty, despite what Howard Dean says.
Inept? As opposed to which administration? Carter's? Clinton's? Because they were very inept and did much to ruin the strength of the United States. And strength, in foreign policy, is still the hallmark of our nation. As I stated earlier, foreign policy is still ruled by the law of the jungle. The true enemies of civilization (Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe, the Sudanese government, Hamas, and others) are still playing the game that way, despite the high ideals of the UN, where governments run by scum get an undeserved equal voice. Despite the fact that Carter and Clinton did get peace agreements between Israel and Egypt and Jordan respectively, they very nearly ruined America's ability to defend freedom and itself. Look at Iran in 1979, the unchallenged Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that same year, and the rise of Al Qaeda throughout the 1990s.
Where there has been ineptness in the Bush administration has been the contradiction of being strong against terrorists abroad and extremely weak on the open border with Mexico, and his continued insistence on working with an unworkable Mexican government that refuses to help on its side.
The other problem has been his inability to stem the huge increases in domestic spending on programs that should rightly be moved to the private sector (for another discussion).
He also has a bad public relations problem, but much of that is due to extremely hostile press (which is how we conservatives see it). Granted that from a PR point-of-view, there wasn't much good that occurred in the aftermath of Katrina. With the exception of the rescues, which were much more successful than what was reported by the press, and were handled well by all levels of government. Geraldo Rivera, Shephard Smith, and Anderson Cooper (and I'm sure others) were in unnecessary hysterics in their blaming Bush for not getting people out of New Orleans and in their reporting of what was going on at the Superdome and Convention Center. It was all BS. Nagin gets the lion's share of the blame for putting New Orleans' citizens in that predicament (remember the bus bath?), yet he's running for mayor again. If he gets re-elected, the people of New Orleans get what they deserve. In the aftermath, all levels get the blame. But nobody has tried to rebuild a whole major city with a government bureaucracy that includes the eternally corrupt Louisiana state and New Orleans city governments.
And remember, 50 million more people are now free in 2006 than there were in 2001. Carter's and Clinton's efforts didn't do that. Add that to the hundreds of millions freed by the policies of Reagan and Bush 41 and I don't think this Bush has done all that badly.
By
Steve, at 4:48 PM, May 14, 2006
Steve - Haven't had much time to blog lately. Fun with racoons this weekend. Had one in my basement. Finally got it out, but no fun until it was over. They are exceptionally vicious, and not afraid to display that quality. Not to mention that they have a reputation for carrying rabies. No problems along those lines.
Second, I am restructing a business I own, and working with a friend on a business plan.
The compliment is intentional. I have in other locations said you are from the right side of the dial's A team.
Your ability to do legal research is a skill I lack. In several areas we see the same question in a different light. In many cases, I see a fly where you see a beetle. In these domestic spying cases (Terrorist Surviellance Program to those spinning the other way), I generally am an originalist as I march the behavior through the Constitution. I am aware that Constitutional scholarship is a vast field, and in most cases both sides can make a pursuasive argument to support one side or the other.
As far as the Supreme Court goes, they receive about 2500 cases per year, and they only accept about 80 cases on average. The criteria, in almost all cases is that there is a constitutional question which must be answered. From that standpoint, all Supreme Court cases wind up being an opportunity for Judicial Activism.
In fact, it is my opinion that many cases wind up being activist simply because of the fact that the court takes the issue. That is, by definition, the act of taking a case is activist. Marbury vs Madison established the power of the court to exercise Judicial Review and to overturn legislation on the basis of a judicial interpertation that a law is unconstitutonal. Dred Scott, White vs Texas, Brown vs Board of Education, Roe vs Wade, Bush Vs Gore, all of these cases wound up being Activist. Sometimes the nature of the question demands an Activist answer. The court ordering President Nixon to turn over the tapes was activist, breaking a logjam between the executive and legislative branches. Nixon released the materials when he had 2 of the 3 branches ruling against him.
There are many who see another constitutional crisis brewing over executive privelege, executive usurption of legislative power, war powers and several others. I expect that another confrontation between the legislative and executive will once again need a decision to break another logjam.
All this is leading up to an inability on my part to either accept or refute the case you have made in your blog re: your contention that Feingold needs to be censored. I truly believe the president has a greater need for censure than Feingold.
The release of classified and even top secret information has taken place both by the administration and others to make political gain. Who is more culpable? Why is one not as bad as the other?
I will skip over India/Pakastan right now. Some points you make are credible, I have a difference with your interpretation on others, not enought time to address now.
You and I have discussed the France/Oil for Food issues before. The US and at least one other country, in a UN oversite capacity, winked at some of the abusive practices in the Oil for Food program for geopolitical reasons. This happened under both Clinton and Bush. The total corruption cash skimming came to about $10 B in a $60 B program, with the bulk being on the Iraqi side, and the remainder French, UN personnel and some others, including I seem to recall maybe a Brit or two, and some oil brokers. There were a lot of dirty hands in that program. I do not condone corruption in any governmental or quasi-governmental organizations. That $10 B would have bought a lot of food and medicine for Iraqi citizens. Instead much of it appears to have gone to self-aggrandizing palaces and statuary for Hussein. I never said he wasn't a SOB.
What else? Are we at war? In the legal sense that only the Congress has the constitutional power to declare war, then we are not at war. There are two "wars" in the sense that Congress authorzed military force. The Global War on Terror was self-declared by the president, and does not have the status of a declared war.
When I read the papers, watch the TV news, listen to the radio talkers, particularly those on the right side of the dial, when I listen to the president and Ms. Rice, I hear a case being built to take some kind of military action against Iran. The issues being raised are familiar. WMD, Nukes, Unranium Enrichment, aggresive anti-American government.
Most observers, including some in the administration, the IAEA, the Israelis (who have much HUMINT in Iran) feel that Iran is at least 5 years and likely 10 years from a nuclear weapons capability. Assuming this is so, there really is time for diplomacy to take place. The Ayotollahs are in control there, not the President, who seems to be a rhetorica loose cannon. His trip to Indonesia which is taking place right now is the first time he has ever been outside Iran, although it seems that that may be erroneous because it seems unlikely that he has not participated in at least one Haaj. I am assuming that the Aylotollahs are not irrational. I assume Russia and Europe have a vested interst in keeping a lid on Iran. Iran has been in discussions for months, if not years with the Europeans and Russians. They have, it is reported about 150 centrifuges, operating independently. They would need 60,000 in cascade mode to refine enough uranium gas to make the first nuke bomb. All of these things argue against the need to go to war with Iran.
We haven't finsihed the first two yet. Last week 13 Americans died in Iraq. Two weeks 20 Americans died. We would incur much greater losses, both in men and treasure with military action against Iran. We should not go in there just because someone wants to go there. International sponsorship of terrorism, mouthing off about nukes, and the like are not, in my opinion sufficient cause for war. They have been doing this stuff for a very long time (since 1979) and we have not seen fit thorough 4 administraions of both parties to take Iran out. There is no reason to go now.
Your last paragraph discusses the NSA program. You slip the term ". . .backed up by precedent from the courts and the reasonable search clause within the 4th Amendment. . .". The 4th Amendment in my originalist reading makes the test "Probable Cause" and requires warrants from a judge. This is a vast difference, and the reason for disagreement between your side of the fence and mine. I think the program is unconstitutional and you don't. I believe that if the Supreme Court is truly originalist, as Justice Scalia believes it must be, then it will take my position. If they are activist, they will take your position. I do not want to bet on the outcome, do you?
By
Ohiodem1, at 5:43 PM, May 14, 2006
Glad to hear you got the raccoon out of the basement. My advice would be to get a chihuahua. My former neighbor had one and one night it was yiping worse than usual. I looked out the window and saw it barking up at a tree and a family of raccoons (mother and babies) was skedaddling (love that word) up and out of the tree to get away from that little dog. Imagine a five pound terror annoying the hell out of a thirty pound mom with babies. I was in hysterics.
Anyway, you said:
"The release of classified and even top secret information has taken place both by the administration and others to make political gain. Who is more culpable? Why is one not as bad as the other?"
Because the law says so. As the elected official, the President is authorized, through legislation passed by an elected Congress, to release any information that may have been previously classified. The law does not extend to unelected bureaucrats or even members of Congress.
To go back to a couple of court cases you mention, Dred Scott is seen by many to have been originalist (not by me) since it upheld the original writing of Article I, Section 2, in that it implicitly allowed slavery. There were no 13th or 14th Amendments then. As for Brown, judge Bork had said it was an activist ruling, but has since looked at it and determined that it was an originalist correction to Plessy v. Ferguson, which led to the "Jim Crow" laws that were complete violations of the 15th Amendment. And many Constitutional experts believe that Roe itself is not activist, but that the opinion is so badly written that it lends itself to being abused, as Plessy was abused to restrict the voting rights of blacks in the South. Roe is not, despite what many say, the definitive word on whether or not abortion is legal, but determined that abortion could not be made illegal (there is a difference), and that states had the right to enact restrictions as to when they could be performed. Personally, I would equate abortion with cigarette smoking and tax and regulate the hell out of it. But that's me, and I digress.
You said:
"What else? Are we at war? In the legal sense that only the Congress has the constitutional power to declare war, then we are not at war. There are two "wars" in the sense that Congress authorzed military force. The Global War on Terror was self-declared by the president, and does not have the status of a declared war."
The War Powers Resolution, from which the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against September 11 Terrorists (page down to it) (the AUMF) is based, has been seen by some to be the functional equivalent of a formal declaration of war by the Congress, although the courts (as it seems) have never tested its constitutionality. What it seems to have become is a way to allow Congress to abrogate its Article I, Section 8 authority, while providing the funds when any President seeks a military confrontation. In other words, Congress gave away their authority, but can stop the funding at any time (and face the effects at the ballot box). That is how I see it.
As I said before, I agree that war with Iran at this time would not be a good thing. I don't believe we should be negotiating our security (or Israel's, which is very important in this discussion) with the mullahs or Ahmadinejad, and don't believe they are as rational as you believe, although they probably are more rational than Ahmadinejad. And while they may run him now, he still runs the government, which would include the military and any of his own security forces that could be used against the security services protecting the mullahs. As I mentioned, I believe it is important to build up a pro-American (and pro-Israeli) Iranian political opposition that will bring down the current national structure. I also support multilateral diplomacy to keep Europe engaged in this, just as I do with regards to North Korea and the surrounding countries affected by its policies.
You said:
"We haven't finsihed the first two yet. Last week 13 Americans died in Iraq. Two weeks 20 Americans died. We would incur much greater losses, both in men and treasure with military action against Iran."
You're assuming Bush would invade. I believe that, militarily, other options could be used, and I'm sure people in the military already know this, including the effects of an invasion.
Then you said:
"International sponsorship of terrorism, mouthing off about nukes, and the like are not, in my opinion sufficient cause for war."
This is the part where you and I truly disagree, especially since we don't have the Soviet Union hanging over our heads anymore. Every aspect of our foreign policy before 1991, whether it was our own coddling of questionable dictators or fighting undeclared wars (Korea, Vietnam), was meant to keep Communism from spreading without pissing off or threatening the Soviets enough to believe they needed to launch their nuclear weapons, requiring our retaliation. We both know what would have happened. But since 1991, we know that most nations, including Iraq and Iran, could never defeat us militarily, and now the Soviet Union is gone. They (Iraq and Iran) could only do it by sapping the will of the American people. So they've resorted to having proxies do their dirty work and getting groups and people to believe the terrorist supporters are the aggrieved parties. Look how Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat manipulated the world while stealing from their own people and illegally amass considerable fortunes for themselves. How about the Syrian government's involvement, including Bashar al-Assad, in the murder of Rafik Hariri? If that goes unpunished and unanswered, the US might as well go back to a policy of allowing political assassinations in order to maintain national security. Again, there are too many governments given a voice in the UN who do not have a problem in behaving like barbarians. I think President Bush is wrong, as he was on Iraq, to push the WMD card and hit Iran because of its open support of terrorists in Lebanon and Palestine (and other countries). If the UN has any credibility, and I don't believe it does anymore, they would agree that state-sponsored terrorism needs to end now.
Lastly, others have said that the NSA program is very much like the searches we are required to go through at airports. Again, this goes to the Reasonableness clause of the 4th Amendment, which would be considered originalist to those like Scalia. I believe your case would be made if the information would solely be used to make an arrest and attempt conviction. But if it's used to stop terrorist attacks, which is what luggage screening and searches are supposed to do, then I believe it should be looked upon as originalist, especially since we are at war. The fact that we are at war is enough to satisfy the probable cause aspect of the 4th Amendment.
By
Steve, at 10:32 AM, May 15, 2006
Steve, you really are the "A" team. I find a compliment in the fact that we are engaged here.
I would like to propose that we limit responses to one topic only, as things get hard to follow when we cover a lot of ground in a single line item.
You are making me learn myself how to do legal research. I already know how to find the text of laws. I can access sources like FindLaw and Cornell and I am sure other univerity law school sites. As you are aware, on the great issues of the day, there are two sides to each issue, otherwise there would be no need for discussion on agreed or settled law. I should catch up with you soon on that point.
Here is the text of the Fourth Amendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You appear to me to be equating the words "unreasonalbe searches and seizures" as an equivalent to ". . .no warrants shall issue, but but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I disagree. From FindLaw's discussion of the Fourth Amendment concerning wiretapping.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/01.html#7
". . .Protection of property interests as the basis of the Fourth Amendment found easy acceptance in the Supreme Court 30 and that acceptance controlled decision in numerous cases. 31 For example, in Olmstead v. United States, 32 one of the two premises underlying the holding that wiretapping was not covered by the Amendment was that there had been no actual physical invasion of the defendant's premises; where there had been an invasion, a technical trespass, electronic surveillance was deemed subject to Fourth Amendment restrictions. 33 The Court later rejected this approach, however. ''The premise that property interests control the right of the Government to search and seize has been discredited. . . . We have recognized that the principal object of the Fourth Amendment is the protection of privacy rather than property, and have increasingly discarded fictional and procedural barriers rested on property concepts.'' 34 Thus, because the Amendment ''protects people, not places,'' the requirement of actual physical trespass is dispensed with and electronic surveillance was made subject to the Amendment's requirements. 35"
The main point of disagreement, as I see it, is that you find a greater power for the President during what you describe as a state of war. My belief is that the AUMF(s) provide specifically limited scopes of authority to use force short of war. We are both aware that presidents obtain more power during times of war, but at the same time they are subject to at least some level of Congressional oversight. This president asserts, through the use of signing statements, and covert activities that his power has virtually no limits.
Unlimited power is by definition tyranny. We have not gone all the way to that state, and I am directing my efforts to preventing that. I recognize very little power to do so, other than asserting my right to free speech, free thought and the will to do it. There is also a right to free assembly and the petion of my government for redress of grivances, which I also assert.
I defend your right to assert the same things, and I did it in an active manner with military service during Vietnam. In the abstract, the main purpose for military service is the protection of the freedom all Americans enjoy, and in the concrete, that is what the soldier is sworn to protect.
I cannot help but believe you felt the same way prior to 1994 during the administation of Bill Clinton and the Congress was under the control of Democrats. One party rule was not good then, as it expressed itself with corruption at the top of the Congressional leadership, just as it is expressing itself at the top of the current Congressional leadership.
Therefore, from the discussion above, I have reason to believe that a significant constitutional crisis is brewing, just as they seem to do every 25 or 50 years. Perhaps this is the "there should be a revolution every 50 years that Jefferson referred to. Ours, with the exception of the Civil War were bloodless, which is the genius of our Constitution. Right now one branch is taking too much power and one is letting the other get away with it without accountability. I believe this situation will change soon, one way or the other.
OD1
By
Ohiodem1, at 1:06 PM, May 15, 2006
Steve,
My busy weekend didn't have quite the drama of OhioDem's racoon adventure. However, we celebrated my daughter's first communion and had a great weekend with family and friends.
You are quite a prolific writer and obviously conduct quite a bit of research. I don't know enough about Mark Felt to argue his motivations. However, one may argue the results matter more than motives.
Overall, I believe whistleblowers perform a very valuable function in a democracy. Especially considering a main-stream corporate dominated press that has become an extension of the ruling party (more on this in another post).
Therefore, I am grateful for the Bunny Greenhouses and Richard Leverniers of the world, reporters who share their stories, and the organization that have emerged to help defend the rights of corporate and governmental whistleblowers.
"It's gotten so bad for whistleblowers in the Bush era that the federal agency designed to protect them has whistleblowers of its own." Whistling in the Wind
Government Accountability Project
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition
National Whistleblowers Center
Bunnatine (Bunny) H. Greenhouse Legal Defense Fund
Only one indictment against this administration does not signify that they are not corrupt. It only signifies how well protected this administration has been. The corruption in congress under one-party rule, coupled with the expiration of the Special Prosecutor Statute, have helped insulate the Bush administration from any serious oversight.
By
REB 84, at 11:32 PM, May 15, 2006
OD1, I've noted reading your past posts that you knew what you were talking about and were a worthy debater. On Conyers' and Reid's sites, however, there was no way to get a debate hammered out, due to the constraints made by those that run those sites (I'm not making a complaint, I'm just making a comment) and the others who would interject, usually to the detriment of the debate (although not always).
You said:
"I would like to propose that we limit responses to one topic only, as things get hard to follow when we cover a lot of ground in a single line item."
I'll try. To me, many of these things tie together. But I will see what I can do so that if I seem to be rambling, it's because there are ties to many of these things.
By the way, I did not feel that when Democrats had control of both Executive and Legislative branches, we were part of a one-party state. That is because they were elected to serve in their positions, and that they represented the opinions of the majority of individuals that voted, and in the case of the President, through the Constitutionally authorized Electoral College. All conservatives feel this way. Why Democratic supporters and officials feel this way is alien to me, and a dangerous precedent to set, as nobody in either the current administration or current Congress has sought to throw out the Constitution.
Regarding the 4th Amendment, I've read where the courts have determined there are two clauses, the Reasonableness Clause and the Warrant Clause. And while I agree with many aspects to the FindLaw's assertions you presented, there is still the matter of case law. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the complete constitutionality of FISA since the most recent case regarding foreign intelligence surveillance is still the 4th Circuit's decision in United States v. Truong, ruled in 1980. The case itself predates FISA, as the Carter administration authorized warrantless (true) wiretapping of a Vietnamese national and an American citizen (Ronald Humphrey), and used the evidence from the wiretaps to convict them of espionage. The ruling upheld the President's foreign policy expertise. At the hearing for Feingold's censure resolution, Lee Casey noted the following from United States v. Truong:
" Perhaps most crucially, the executive branch not only has superior expertise in the area of foreign intelligence, it is also constitutionally designated as the preeminent authority in foreign affairs. [Citations omitted]. The President and his deputies are charged by the Constitution with the conduct of the foreign policy of the United States in times of war and peace."
Casey (and others) also mentions Sealed Case No. 02-001:
"...where the Court of Review reversed an effort by the FISA trial court to reimpose a kind of “wall” between intelligence gathering and law enforcement, despite Congress’ amendment of FISA as part of the Patriot Act, the Court also noted that: “all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.” 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FISA Ct. of Review 2002)."
This post at a Georgetown University blog also notes these aspects, although they have a conclusion that seems to be more in tune with FindLaw's, but recognize that many of these questions have not been answered by the courts.
This shows that the administration is going to the FISA court for some reason, whether for warrants or rulings, so the idea that they never go to the FISA court is not true. Even the original New York Times stated this.
Here's the other thing. Nobody is actually listening in on the conversations. All that is being done here is the use of data mining to track patterns and gather intelligence of those who intend to commit terrorist acts in the United States, something the 9/11 Commission said was lacking before the 9/11 attacks. It also requires an understanding of the technology and what it is trying to accomplish, and in that regard, I would believe that the intelligence gathering techniques are being used to help determine probable cause to get a warrant in order to track content or make an arrest. But, it can be argued that it also would be used to find terrorists on foreign soil and to capture or kill them, fully legal and where they would not be subject to US law (unless captured, and then subject to military court). What the NSA program ends up being is a military tactic used in fighting this war, something the Constitution authorizes the President to use as part of his Commander in Chief powers.
The other aspect that is lost on all of this is that this was covert, per 50 USC § 413b. This authorizes only certain Congressional representation to know about these types of programs. Feingold himself was never one of the individuals specified in the statute.
Does this mean the President has complete power over all during wartime? Of course not, as was the case in Korematsu v. United States and in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. But I believe the biggest problem is the War Powers Resolution itself, which has not been judged by the SCOTUS, as it seems to me to absolve Congress from taking a more active role in fighting and winning this war. Think about it; it took Congress four years to come up with legislation regarding the handling of terrorist prisoners, something they are authorized to do within Article I, Section 8. Rhetoric and demagoguery was used during most of that time decrying what we were doing with captured terrorists, even invalidly using the Geneva Convention (which does not protect terrorists as prisoners of war). The War Powers Resolution allows Congress to not understand the enemy or to understand how this war needs to be fought. Since terrorists had (and may still have) infiltrated the US, the government (all branches) is required to use all of its powers to stop another attack, as it failed to do on 9/11. It is obvious that this is not a WWII type of war, and it is up to Congress to come to that conclusion. The war is being fought by terror gangs with the potential access to extremely dangerous weapons, and in some cases, backed by foreign governments who are using the gangs as proxies (mercenaries) in order to fight the US. If there are two co-equal branches of government, then it is time the Congress puts itself back into that equation.
By
Steve, at 8:17 AM, May 16, 2006
OD1, I forgot to mention that the rulings in the upcoming ACLU v. NSA and CCR v. Bush may answer many of these questions. However, it may take years (and perhaps long after the Bush Presidency) before either or both of these reach the Supreme Court.
I also did not touch on the revelations that came up last week. Ran out of time.
REB, I'm not ignoring you; again, ran out of time.
By
Steve, at 8:46 AM, May 16, 2006
Steve,
I meant only one topic per one post. I realize that one thing leads to another, and it is difficult to limit ourselves to a single topic. I will try, otherwise it all becomes a jumble that no one can make any sense of.
No time to digest your legal analysis right now. I will look at the one party thing.
I live in Ohio. We tend to go between two houses of the legislature, the govenorship, AG, Treasurer, Sec State and the elected Supreme Court being all one party or the other. In the 1970's it swung to the Democrats, and since about 1990, it swung to the Republicans. In both cases, when one party held complete control of the reins of power, honest government suffered, and sometimes severely.
Pay to play. Bid rigging. No bidding at all. All politics, no governing. Gerrymandering. The party in control of the apportionment board makes it very difficult for the other party to get more than a few officeholders elected, and if the lines could be gerrymandered to the point where none of the opposing party could get elected, they would do it. I say that about Democrats or Republcians.
I feel certain that you can agree with that conclusion. That is, the politicians, to use an expression that is making the rounds today, the politicians are choosing the voters, not vice versa.
The pendulum swings when one party makes such a mess of their own corruption, that everyone decides it is time to clean house, and the other party is voted in. They make an effort to clean things up, but after a few years, they seem to get amnesia. In Ohio, the amnesia is institutionalized by 8 year term limits. The Republicans have been in control in Ohio for 16 years, and this looks like one of those years when the pendulum will start swinging in the other direction. The corruption in Ohio has been well-documented and I will not go into it here.
Ohio is called the bellwether state because it kind of looks a lot like the country in microcosm. We have 8 urban counties, 40 suburban counties, and about 40 rural counties, including 28 in Appalachia. All in all it is a fairly close reflection of the nation. No R has won the presidency without Ohio, and D's have done it only twice, I belive. JFK was one of them.
When I say we have one-party rule here, it is, no matter that they were elected. If the D's win this year, as it appears they have a shot at (they may also shoot their own foot), they will also control the apportionment board for the 2011 redistricting. The R's are now saying the redistricting process must be reformed. Of course when they were firmly in control,it was the D's who were calling for that. Business as usual. The party in power will NEVER agree to do something that will limit their power. You and I know that.
The R's have had this power in quite a few states, and this translates to a better chance to control the House. The Senate is not subject to this battle because no districts can be gerrymandered. Generally the Senate seat goes to the party in power because they are turning out more voters. The Senate rarely goes outside a band of difference to make it veto proof or filibuster proof because of this.
Given that both houses of Congress, the presidency and over time the majority of judges and Justices in the judiciary branch are in the hands of R's, one can make a convincing case that at the national level we have one-party rule, at least right now. In my view, the abuses of public trust that accompany one-party rule, whether it comes from the right or left are expressing themselves right now in Washington.
That is the same things I identified above. Pay to play. Bid rigging, no bid contracts, bribery, all other manner of chicanery.
Indictments, convictions, guilty pleas in exchange for linking others into the various scandals and so on.
The level of voter enmity in the nation, of which Ohio is a mirror, seems to be arguing in favor of the swing toward the D's. The effect, even if as you say the will of the voters was to put one party or the other in that position of power is that bad things tend to happen when one gets the upper hand to the extent that they no longer feel constrained to follow the rules of good governance.
I think that this point has happened in Ohio and in the nation. I am sure that there are those in other states who feel the same way about where they live.
Prior to 1960, the American South was truly a one-party rule area. The party in power was the Southern Democrats, and they of course implemented Jim Crow laws, (per Plessy v Ferguson). This situation was in place for about 100 years. I would say that that Democratic party is not represented in today's D party, as they migrated out of the D party during and after the Kennedy/LBJ administration more or less completed the transformation of the D party that started with FDR. One-party rule with no effective checks against the power of the other created that shameful system.
Most of those who left the D party went over to either I's or R's. I sense the same thing is happening to the R's right now. The D's went too far left for some D's, and the R's are moving too far right for some R's.
Now your contention that no one is throwing the constitution out with the wash is most likely the main bone of contention between you and I. I see the constitution at far greater risk than you do. I do not see the risk from terrorism to be as great as you do. I will not cower in fear of terrorists.
I will not accept that the fear of terrorism or 9/11 is a blank check for anything the president wants to do.
I am not an idiot who thinks that terrorism is not a possibility, but I am not willing to give the president blanket authority to snoop into every aspect of your family's life and my family's life and to say that war powers gives him the authority to do it.
Running algorithyms on call lists is certainly not listening in to calls, whether someone or another is having an affair or the like. But under what condition does it elicit a demand within that system that someone should be monitored? NSA already data mines international calls. Where does this intrusion cross the line? What level of congressional oversight is enough, not enough? What if a Congressman is wiretapped because he/she makes international calls? Where will it end? How far down that slippery slope have we gone?
I send email and make international calls in relation to my business. All I am asking for is that if someone wants to listen in to my conversations, and read my email, they should obtain a warrant based on probable cause, and then cease to examine my correspondence once I have been cleared of any suspicion. Wideband monitoring of calls without warrant from the FISA court is dangerously close to or maybe over the line. It appears FISA was implemented to address in law the questions raised by US v Truong, just as the War Powers Act was implemented to prevent another Vietnam. Maybe they need to work on that one.
Granted, foreign policy belongs to the executive by the clause you quoted. The president can negotiate treaties. The congress exerts oversight on treaties throught he ratification process by the Senate, which is also mandated by the constitution. Treaties are the supreme law of the land, per plain language of the constitution. I believe the president has the power to withdraw from a treaty, but is constrained from violating a treaty which has not been formally withdrawn.
This president is pushing all of the limits. I think it is time he finds some.
OD1
I see I just violated my own proposed rule. Also too long. Sorry about that.
By
Ohiodem1, at 6:11 PM, May 16, 2006
Apparently, the NSA thing may have worked itself out as Bush is going to brief both Congressional Intelligence Committees on the program. Some kind of deal was made, possibly to make the confirmation of Michael Hayden as CIA chief smoother, and possibly as a result of Bush supporting a watered-down Senate immigration bill (I believe in enforcement and border security first, then worry about what to do with the illegals afterward). It will be interesting to see if Feingold removes his censure resolution from consideration (I would doubt it). I also find it interesting that two of the three companies that USA Today said provided information to the NSA are now retracting. If true, and I have no reason to doubt it, somebody's got egg on their face.
Based on what I see going on in a lot of states, problems like the ones you describe in Ohio seem to be more typical than they should be. Illinois is a little bit different in that we have Chicago and downstate. Chicago has been dominated in the mayor's office by the Daley Democrats for 36 of the last 49 years, and the others were still Democrats, just not named Daley. The city council has been ruled by many of the same individuals for at least 20 years, and all of its alderman have been Democrats for as long as I can remember. Most of the surrounding suburbs are Republicans. (One notable exception is Cicero, which has been Democrat since Al Capone put them in office. Al was a bipartisan corruptor since he supported Republicans in Chicago itself.) The rest is a mixed bag. This is fairly well represented in the General Assembly, where there is a Democratic majority now, but has been Republican or mixed in the past.
Sorry for the history lesson. Sometimes I can't stop myself.
I'm going to jump around a little bit.
You said:
"I am not an idiot who thinks that terrorism is not a possibility, but I am not willing to give the president blanket authority to snoop into every aspect of your family's life and my family's life and to say that war powers gives him the authority to do it."
You're not an idiot. I will say that the government has already intruded heavily into all our private lives, on many levels, even before 9/11. The one thing I would fear, and I believe you may agree with me, is that when the war against Islamist terrorists ends (and I see it happening, but not for awhile, and only if the world decides to stop supporting governments that sponsor terrorist groups), many of these policies will remain. Programs like the NSA monitoring should only be in place during wartime. Congress should be able to put that in place so that there isn't a perpetual need for the government to do what its doing. It also gives Congress the impetus to get involved in the war, something I don't believe it does enough, thanks to the War Powers Resolution.
You said:
"Now your contention that no one is throwing the constitution out with the wash is most likely the main bone of contention between you and I. I see the constitution at far greater risk than you do."
My point was that members of one party being in the Presidency and the majority of Congress does not equate to a constitutional crisis. I do see one, but not in the same way you do.
I'd like to respond on the rest and finish my previous thought, but don't have time. Talk to you later.
By
Steve, at 7:36 AM, May 17, 2006
Quickly.
I found an article from the Hill via Truthout which seems to confirm my comment about how rare it is to have a filibuster-proof Senate. The article does not address the time between 1929 and 1995, so there may have been some other instances of that, but I do believe that when Byrd was Majority leader, the cloture rule was changed to make it easier to stop a filibuster. That is a recollection, but I cannot be 100 per cent sure.
Hill News article
One other quick point.
You mention that two of three phone companies have recanted their story about the data mining issue. Maybe they were made aware that the program is still classified, and that they needed to shut the hell up, and/or recant.
Some spin coming out is that the program really does not exist. That one seems to be a little difficult to believe.
By
Ohiodem1, at 10:41 AM, May 17, 2006
OhioDem & Steve,
I am very impressed by both your passion and deep thoughts. Unfortunately, I have stretched myself a bit thin to keep up with your well researched and interesting debates.
I have been most impressed by the professional and respectful way your dialogue has been carried out. It reminds me of some discussion I had with Cal Trask earlier on this blog. However, our discussions were a bit more theorectical and philosophical.
I believe the USA would be a far more civil society if only our elected officials and media pundits would show the same level of respect for opposing views.
Thank You for your examples.
By
REB 84, at 10:25 PM, May 17, 2006
Thanks, Reb.
I don't have links, but I do remember reading that Byrd changed the number required for a cloture vote four times. Before then, Senate rules required a 2/3 vote in order to end debate, otherwise a filibuster would be declared, but not the kind seen in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (where someone keeps talking endlessly; there are stories of a senator either reading the dictionary or a recipe book, I don't remember which). As Republicans made gains in the Senate, Byrd would get the number changed through a Senate rule change, which only requires a simple majority.
I don't have a problem with filibustering legislation, even with a fake filibuster. But I do have a problem with it happening to executive nominations (judges, cabinet officials, ambassadors, etc.) as it is only fair to get nominations on the floor for a vote, provided they get out of committee. Senate Republicans held up a ton of Clinton's judicial nominees in committee, but this isn't a filibuster, as has been reported. Its' still not fair, in the same way a filibuster of a nominee isn't fair, but I don't seeing the Senate trying to change the rules of the various committees. With regards to the filibuster, I'm glad that Frist only wants to restrict changes to the cloture vote to just judicial nominations.
Changing the subject, it is rumored that last week's USA Today story may have been a way to sniff out the leakers in the administration, and that the rumors that Verizon and BellSouth didn't give billing information were true.
By
Steve, at 7:12 AM, May 18, 2006
The President has Failed America was cross-posted at TeamBio.org. Follow the title link to view additional comments.
By
REB 84, at 10:37 PM, August 30, 2006
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home