NSA electronic intercepts
Posted by Peter W. Schramm
Is the NSA electronic intercept program illegal? Powerline doesnt think so. Long and elaborate briefing (these guys are lawyers). File it for later review (and combat). Ted Kennedy thinks it is illegal, and defends the Constitution against "King" George.
3:13 PM / December 22, 2005
: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in
: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in
Hinderakers analysis is pretty weak. Dont be afraid to read it now. Its a quick read, slightly difficulty only difficult because of the leaps of logic.
He cites a few lower court cases, most of them pre-FISA, and he cites dicta of questionable relevance and weight. The Supreme Court cases he cites are no help for establishing the proposition that the President has inherent authority to conduct domestic surveillance in contravention of federal criminal law. The use of Hamdi in particular is disingenuous since the Court explicitly decided not to rule on any issue involving inherent powers, and its not clear how a case that rules that the administration cant detain a citizen indefinitely without a hearing can be read as authority for the proposition that a president can engage in otherwise illegal surveilance.
Put more plainly, none of the cases actually hold or establish or argue for the claim that a domestic surveillance program that would otherwise be illegal is legal because the President ordered it. Its one thing to say that the cases leave the question open and still difficult, and another to say, as Hinderaker does, with his characteristic hyperbole, that there is "no question" that the Presidents order was constitutional.
So, I must know, why do they call him Ted? Article was drivel in my opinion.
Oh surprise, surprise! Powerline doesnt think so. If Bush walked down Pennsylvania Ave. and bludgeoned to death with a crowbar the first small child he saw, the good boys at Powerline would ask us to reconsider whether the Prez had really overextended his executive privilege. And being lawyers and all (WOW!!) theyd even give us some citations.
The bloggers here link to Powerline so often, Im waiting for the day when I click to come here (as my semi-regular masochistic ritual) and Im just automatically redirected to Powerline. I suppose it might save Ashbrook some money.
constitutional powers dont depend on the Supreme Court or Congress saying he has them. Thats why theyre called "inherent." Thats why Lincoln felt free--indeed perhaps even obligated--to ignore Taneys ruling in Ex parte Merryman. As it happens, the post-9/11 use of force resolution gives Bush authority to conduct this surveillance so theres no need to rest purely on inherent powers--yet. But the inherent presidential powers are there.
that Im not disturbed and disappointed by the Presidents behavior here. He should have, of course, simply got the necessary court orders before doing this.
If you put me to it, is the president right on this? Its very complicated. I think he has...he probably has the better argument. . . .
[T]he president believes here that these are very sensitive Constitutional prerogatives. And this isnt a Republican or Democratic thing. This is something that cuts across political affiliations of the president. And so the notion that in a case as sensitive as this one, he is under a legal responsibility to go through something that may be more time consuming than appears, may be more leaky than appears. Even if he doesnt think its likely to be leaky, thats something that a president is not likely to think is necessary. . . .
[T]here are a couple of possibilities. One is that we should interpret FISA conformably with the presidents Constitutional authority. So if FISA is ambiguous, or its applicability is in question, the prudent thing to do, as the first President Bush liked to say, is to interpret it so that FISA doesnt compromise the presidents Constitutional power. And thats very reasonable, given the fact that theres an authorization to wage war, and you cannot wage war without engaging in surveillance. If FISA is interpreted as preventing the president from doing what he did here, then the president does have an argument that the FISA so interpreted is unconstitutional. So I dont think any president would relinquish the argument that the Congress lacks the authority to prevent him from acting in a way that protects national security, by engaging in foreign surveillance under the specific circumstances of post-9/11.
https://www.radioblogger.com/#001248
"It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he cant get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time.."
John Hinderaker, 7/28/05. John Hinderaker has no credibility.
So, tom-pain-in-the-ass, because he makes comments that you dont agree with, "he has no credibility"?
As far as I am concerned the executive still has too little power. Of course I also support torture. But hey if you guys want to emasculate the armed forces and the executive and fight a soft war and then bitch and moan by all means do so.
As far as I am concerned "Rights" dont apply to criminals. McCain is certainly an honorable guy beyond the reach of my meager criticism, but it is precisely in his grandeur that he fails. He wants to make it a a question of what our actions say about us. Are we cruel or humane? I say you have to be cruel in war and humane in peace. Kindness in war is no more admirable than moderation in the defense of liberty, which as we know is no virtue.
This war has been plagued by being soft from the get go, and liberals only want to make it softer. What utility? What freedom is gainned by suppressing the means available to the executive in carrying out this mission?
Seriously, lets do this right or get out now! By get out now I mean withdraw as prudently as possible, while maintaining permanent duty stations in BIOP Iraq as well as the current one in Arifjan, Kuwait. I think the IP can run things for the most part and most Iraqis want us to leave. The sooner we can get out the sooner we reverse the declining of the Hearts+Minds campaign. I dont think it will be disasterous, and to the degree it is there would be no way of proving the contending view that the opposite scenario would have been less so. This isnt to say that we wont be here for 10 more years, we will.
If Democrats got their way poor old George would be reduced to only prayer, he would have to depend upon God to give him the answers because he couldnt listen in to suspected terrorists or torture them to gain information. Of course as Joe would be quick to point out the democrats would also come after prayer.
Drug testing is far more invasive and destructive to civil liberties than listening in on terrorists, and congress at least mannaged to strong arm baseball into adopting very broadly construed drug testing. Where was the outrage? That the gov can tell you what health supplements you can and cannot take, that an industry that has spawned new products that actually increase the freedom of individuals (the possibility even for the average pencil-neck to get a superman V shape) that this industry is under fire and we arrest U.S. citizens who go to mexico to buy steroids, that the freedom to shape ones very body is being destroyed, as effective and safe supplements are being taken off shelves while the freedom of a terrorist to use modern telecommunication equipment for force against americans citizens is being upheld and defended in a time of war is unconsionable. Argh! Seriously I wonder! Merry X-mas metro-sexual america!