PatsFanInMaine

It is testimony such as this that will make the Senate look like buffoons if they are intent on challenging the President on NSA wiretaps.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007848



IMO, the President does have the Consitutional authority to conduct these wiretaps under Executive Power as has been previosly defined by the Courts. However, in the public debate that will take place in the Senate, public opinion will be won over more by testimony of people such as Ms. Toensing than by the technical questions concerning the scope of the Presidents powers. In many ways, the art of successful debate hinges on the ability to simplify arguments to a point where the public can understand. This is precisely why the President will prevail.

Patters

There is a minority of legal opinion that the President does have the Constitutional power to do pretty much whatever he pleases, but really the history of our nation has been to oppose unlimited powers. The column seems a bit disingenuous, since the author says that FISA is not adapted to the technological age, but why bother to change FISA since Congress will just turn any changes into a political football. That's pretty much unproven, especially in light of the bipartisan support for most of the post 9/11 measures. The article also leaves out what I read elsewhere--the administration can ask the FISA court for some latitude and flexibility.

The real issue here is that we don't trust this administration to use its authority only to monitor terrorists. There's evidence that they've also monitored peace groups and political groups. That's what dictatorships do. Torture, kidnappings, wiretaps, lack of due process -- that's the America for the paranoid cowards of the right, but that's not an America worth dying for. We have to stand up and fight for our principles and our Constitution. I'd rather another terrorist act on American soil, then the end to our freedom.

Harry Boy

It is all a bunch of Crap, the sore losing liberal looney democrats have grabbed onto this for one reaasn and one reason only, "POLITICS" they are using it as a "weapon" to beat up Bush.

If Kerry were the President and he "wiretapped" these phony jealous rats would be giving him a standing ovation.

The Liberal Democrats are playing politics with your families lives.
B astards.

Pujo

When you say "under Executive Power as has been previosly defined by the Courts." where, exactly, do you mean it's been defined by the courts? I'm not challenging you so much as wondering if there's precedent from a case that I'm not aware of. The closest precedent "for" the President's actions seem to be the recent case dealing with the President's rights to hold combatants, which is materially very different from this case, and the WWII-era case dealing with the interrment of Japanese-Americans, which is also different from this case.

Patters

Harry, the wiretap issue is hardly a clearcut issue in favor of the Democrats or liberals. There are many people who, like you, are so paranoid that they would rather have a dictator who can ignore the Constitution, then have a system with checks and balances. On the other hand, there are many people across the political spectrum who are deeply concerned at the wiretapping because it is eroding the power of Congress and according the President powers more customary to kings. You are the one who is playing politics, pathetically using the same fear tactics that Bush uses. Unfortunately for you, though, there are principled people who think that fighting for America means fighting to protect freedom at home.

Pujo

Yadda yadda yadda, more words that sound like the rantings of a crazy old man. I'm getting tired of picking out credible arguments (which you make) out of all the paranoid-sounding forum theater you usually post. Can't you make a point without sounding nuts? More Ronald Reagan, less Bill O'Reilly.

Harry Boy

You all can bleat, whimper, slobber, wail, sob and moan all you want when it all dies down the fact is the President no matter who he may be has the right to do what Bush did in a time of war also congress gave Bush powers to do this after 9/11.

If George Washington had "wires" he would have wiretapped, all Presidents do it and have done it AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO IT LONG AFTER WE ARE GONE.
People will be killing each other forever, and they will listen to each other forever to try and find out if they can kill them before them kills they. When you are at war you like to know what your enemy plans on doing to you, "don't you"?

[GET BUSH-GET BUSH-GET BUSH]

Pujo

Everything you're saying makes sense, except that the War On Terror is a perpetual war. It won't be won in any of our lifetimes. So does that mean that we have to give up privacy forever?

If that's the case, how do we prevent abuses? Surely somebody down the road is going to use this power to spy on Americans for less-than-honorable purposes (like blackmailing political opponents). It probably won't be Bush, but somebody will abuse their discretion.

I thought the point of FISA was to allow the President flexibility while providing for some checks and balances. If the President has unilateral authority to bypass FISA, who will check on the President's power? Congress can't do it because, usually, wiretap orders will be classified and not turned over to congress. So, really, what do you suggest is the solution?

All_Around_Brown

It is hard to argue that FISA, being such an easy course of acquiring a warrant against international terrorism, is too strict to serve the executive. If you wanted to make that argument, the first question would obviously be "well why hasn't the republican majority in Congress changed the law to allow the executive greater power?"


This opinion piece is another example of blaming the minority party for ther GOPs failures, or at the very least, attempting to revise the history of FISA to make it seem like its some huge hurdle for the NSA. Its not.

The pro-unregulated wiretapping camp has no true conservatives in it. Merely reactionaries and neo-cons. And they will look like buffons when the testimony of the FISA court judge, who resigned as a result of this scandal, speaks before the Senate.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Pujo

I have some comments on this, but I want to wait until Harry Boy answers my last question (I don't want to side-track the conversation).