| Author |
Message |
    
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12442
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 3:28 pm: | 
|
February 9, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Illegal and Inept
By BOB HERBERT
While testifying about the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was asked to explain how the program had been damaged by the disclosure of its existence in the press.
Senator Joseph Biden suggested that Al Qaeda operatives have most likely been aware for some time that the government is trying to intercept their phone calls.
Mr. Gonzales agreed. "You would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance," he said. "But if they're not reminded about it all the time in newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget."
Senator Biden managed to laugh. Probably to keep from crying. This was the attorney general of the United States speaking, yet another straight man for an administration that has raised governing to new heights of witlessness. Watching the Bush administration in action would be hilarious, if its ineptitude and brutally misguided policies didn't end so often in needless suffering and sorrow.
The public should be aware of two important points about the president's domestic spying program: it's illegal, and it's not catching terrorists.
If the program were legal, there is no chance so many Republicans would be upset about it. While questioning Mr. Gonzales at Monday's Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Lindsey Graham, a conservative Republican from South Carolina, assailed both of the rationales used by the administration to justify the program.
Referring to the administration's repeated insistence that the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Al Qaeda gave the president the power to bypass restrictions on domestic surveillance imposed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Senator Graham said:
"I'll be the first to say, when I voted for it, I never envisioned that I was giving to this president or any other president the ability to go around FISA carte blanche."
Senator Graham then addressed the argument that the president has the inherent power under the Constitution to authorize the warrantless wiretapping. Such a view, said Senator Graham, would undermine the principle of checks and balances. "Taken to its logical conclusion," he said, "it concerns me that it could basically neuter the Congress and weaken the courts."
Moments later, he added, "And when the nation's at war, I would argue, Mr. Attorney General, you need checks and balances more than ever."
Other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who expressed skepticism or voiced serious doubts about the program included Mike DeWine and Sam Brownback, and the chairman, Arlen Specter. "You think you're right," Senator Specter told Mr. Gonzales. "But there are a lot of people who think you're wrong."
Apart from the legal issues, it's increasingly clear that the president's program is contributing little if anything to the effort to protect Americans from Qaeda-type terrorism.
Senator Biden asked Mr. Gonzales whether the program had achieved any results. Mr. Gonzales said it had helped identify "would-be terrorists here in the United States."
"Have we arrested those people?" asked Mr. Biden. "Have we arrested the people we've identified as terrorists in the United States?"
The attorney general's reply left people shaking their heads and rubbing their eyes. "When we can use our law enforcement tools to go after the bad guys," he said, "we do that."
Senator Biden tried to push the issue, but Mr. Gonzales would not elaborate. Mr. Biden finally said: "Well, I hope we arrested them — if you identified them. I mean, it kind of worries me because you all talk about how you identify these people, and I've not heard anything about anybody being arrested."
A clue to Mr. Gonzales's reluctance to discuss the achievements of the president's domestic spying program could be found on the front page of The Washington Post on Sunday. A long article about the program began as follows:
"Intelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat, according to accounts from current and former government officials and private-sector sources with knowledge of the technologies in use."
To laugh or to cry — that is the question as we contemplate three more years of this theater of the absurd known as the Bush administration.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
|
Grrrrrrrrrrr
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 262
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 4:16 pm: |
|
Why is everyone acting like this is the first time the Gov't has illegally wiretapped someone? How is this different than wiretapping that was done under FDR against the "isolationists" during World War II, the same wiretapping that JFK did against Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders, the same wiretapping approved by Jimmy Carter in 1979 (source:Washington Post), and the same wiretapping/eavesdropping by Bill Clinton under the NSA's "Project Echelon" (profiled on CBS's "60 Minutes in 1999) |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12445
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Isn't eternal vigilance the price of liberty?
No one claims this is the first time. It's an outrage every time. It is our duty to speak out against it and oppose an overreaching government.
(But if you can cite someone saying this is the first time, please do.)
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4337
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 4:25 pm: |
|
If we were to use precedent as a justification, then why not internment camps too? Or calling in the military to shoot strikers? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12447
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 4:38 pm: |
|
In that case, nothing would be illegal, since every law has probably been broken in the past.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4338
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 4:54 pm: |
|
exactly. |
LibraryLady(ncjanow)
Supporter
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 2997
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 5:04 pm: |
|
It's only okay if "Republicans" do it. You'll notice the list GRRRR used (FDR,JFK, Carter,Clinton).
Anybody remember Nixon??? |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 663
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 5:17 pm: |
|
OK, have a heart and please spare me the Bob Herbert NYT columns. He is so substandard as a writer and I can't help thinking he is the "token angry black man" for the paper whenever I read his, ahem, articles....more later got to catch a train.... |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12450
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Rather than dismissing the column because of who wrote it, try addressing the points he raises to prove its merit or lack thereof.
That's an old trick, and we'd have to be stupid to be impressed by it.
|
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 77
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Don't forget what Dick Cheney has been telling friendly conservative audiences: the surveillance program has "saved thousands of American lives." What an absolute lie. The head of the program testified the other day the program has basically provided little information. It is amazing that Cheney could say that. He has absolutely no shame. He is the absolute worst this country has to offer in terms of a public servant. He is a disaster occupying the vice presidency and is either wrong about everything or just lies. |
Grrrrrrrrrrr
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 263
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 6:25 pm: |
|
We already know Nixon was a criminal...I could have also included RFK/McCarthy.
You're both right Tom, and Tom...Large doses of Maplewood Righteous Indignation do this to me...
Personally, I'm OK with intercepting a few phone calls. God only knows what sorts of evil deeds the Evil Doers could be planning right under our noses. First, the Gov't was not doing enough to fight terrorism, now they're doing too much. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2588
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 6:26 pm: |
|
Anybody remember Nixon???
Who? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12454
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 6:35 pm: |
|
The argument against illegal searches and seizures has nothing to do with too much or too little.
|
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 951
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 7:36 pm: |
|
GRRRRRRRRR--
What if it turns out BUSH was spying on his political opposition?
Is that too much?
Or is it just criminal?
|
Grrrrrrrrrrr
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 264
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 10:04 pm: |
|
There was a 2nd shooter in the Grassy Knoll too... |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1508
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 10:55 pm: |
|
We can coin a new word for Bush and his key staff:
they are am"fib"ian: they tend to tell untruths both on land and on sea. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 670
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 9:41 am: |
|
Tom-
Bob Herbert, Maureen Dowd And Frank Rich (before he went on book leave), rehash the same Anti-Bush rants every week, ad nauseam. It gets old so fast. OK, so they don't like Bush, I get it. I just wish they would challenge themselves and their readers by raising the discussion bar a bit instead of being nothing more than political hacks.
Everyone needs to realize something about this "warrantless wiretap" business. Democracy and our great Checks and Balances system are working their magic right before our eyes and we should be grateful. This topic is being discussed in the halls of Congress and a resolution will be found.
Do I think those who have issues with these wiretaps are wrong? No. Do I think Bush was doing something totally evil by conducting such taps? No. I think he was doing what he thought was best to protect the country.
But after reading so much from both sides of the debate, the issue is not all that simple with many constitutional issues coming into play that not many realize. And it is because of this that the political hacks on both sides need to pipe down and stop spurting half-truths on the matter. Herbert is indeed guilty of this.
But the beautiful thing is that it is all being worked out the way it should be and I think we should be happy and relieved of this fact. I would be concerned if it wasn't reaching Congress...
And I won't be surprised if NO ONE is found guilty of anything. However best we try, we will not know all the facts of the issue. We also have to remember who is feeding us this information to begin with.
-SLK |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 671
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 9:43 am: |
|
And I forgot to add, maybe we need to Gonzalez a benefit of the doubt considering he is discussing something in public that is CONFIDENTIAL in nature. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1516
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 11:01 am: |
|
Scrotey,
If the content of the hearings and what Gonzales had to say were really that confidential, the investigative proceedings would be sworn to secrecy and discussion of top secret segments would be held behind closed doors.
Gonzales is doing nothing but stonewalling. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12458
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 12:25 pm: |
|
SLK, it's being worked out before our very eyes because the discussion is in the forefront, thanks to many people, including Bob Herbert.
OK, you're tired of the anti-Bush-ism, but you still haven't found fault in any of his points in this piece. Why is that? Could it be because there's merit therein?
|
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5705
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 12:46 pm: |
|
SLK you are ok with this quote
Quote:You would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance," he said. "But if they're not reminded about it all the time in newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget."
From the AG of the USA? That's like saying if you don't tell your 5 year old where the cookies are he may forget they exist. Good Lord. It is Pathetic. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 673
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 1:07 pm: |
|
Tom-
I stopped reading Herbert's article in Thursday's (?) NYTs after reading this:
"The public should be aware of two important points about the president's domestic spying program: it's illegal, and it's not catching terrorists."
A pretty bombast staement to say the least, if not incorrect. Congress is working out the legalities of thesse tappings as I type this and rightfully so. But does he have any proof that it is not catching terrorists?
A classic example of pure political hackism...
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1517
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 3:38 pm: |
|
Scrotey:
"Congress is working out the legalities of thesse (sic) tappings as I type this and rightfully so."
That's a disingenuous statement. It suggests that Congress is working on showing that this stuff is legal.
To my knowledge, what Specter's committee inquiry is doing, is to try to get to the bottom of these administration actions, to determine if the president has the right to authorize domestic eavesdropping without a warrant from the FISA court.
Stating it the way you put it, makes it seem as though the actions are of course legal and as though Congress is merely affirming that stance.
Not quite exact, by a long shot, your opinion or my opinion notwithstanding. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5167
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 4:03 pm: |
|
The nice thing to know is that Democrats aren't against eavesdropping per se, but against eavesdropping that is 'illegal.' I've just learned over the last week Democrats are very interested in eavesdropping and protecting the country. The helpful Patrick Leahy said that if there was a problem with the law, Bush only had to come to Congress and they'd fix it so he could 'legally' do what he had to do to protect the country. Congress is very good at fixing things like that, and I got the impression that Democrats want Congress to really be an equal partner in all the decisions involved in running a war.
Was Leahy nice and helpful or what, huh?!? Didn't at all sound like the calls and hopes for Bush's impeachment. He really wants to defeat those bad guys!
It's kind of like tax cuts. Democrats believe in tax cuts too, unlike what some would like us to believe. I know this from Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. They must be good tax cuts, though, which is why Democrats discuss them as a matter of policy regularly and even propose them all by themselves. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 677
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Innisowen-
No, no no....I am pointing out and celebrating the fact that are Checks and Balances are in motion over this matter, which ever direction the decision goes.
CJC-
Great points. I was just too busy (or lazy) to make these observation myself.
You ever noticed that the Dems never talk about the economy anymore or even the jobless rate?
But I must admit this 4.7 unemployment rate is making me slightly nervous. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1520
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 4:42 pm: |
|
CJC:
Congratulations: you really are a pistol and adept at twisting and misrepresenting statements and facts (did you get your communications training at the Rush Limbaugh School of Bombast, Lies, Rumors, and Innuendo?)
The point of the hearings is to determine the legality of the President's authorization of warrantless wiretappings of Americans.
Your point is tendentious drivel and consistent with your customary non-sequiturs and misinformation.
Here is the Senator's statement, from his official website.
Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy,
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
Hearing On
"Wartime Executive Power And The NSA's Surveillance Authority"
Monday, February 6, 2006
"The question for this hearing is the illegality of the Government’s domestic spying on ordinary Americans without a warrant.
The question facing us is not whether the Government should have all the tools it needs to protect the American people. Of course it should. The terrorist threat to America’s security remains very real, and it is vital that we be armed with the tools needed to protect Americans’ security. That is why I co-authored the PATRIOT Act five years ago and why it passed with such broad, bipartisan support. That is why we have amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act five times since 9/11 to provide more flexibility.
We all agree that we should be wiretapping al Qaeda terrorists – of course we should. Congress has given the President authority to monitor these messages legally, with checks to guard against abuses when Americans’ conversations and email are being monitored. But instead, the President has chosen to do it illegally, without those safeguards.
A judge from the special court Congress created to monitor domestic spying would grant any request to wiretap an al Qaeda terrorist. Of the approximately 20,000 foreign intelligence warrant applications over the past 28 years, only a handful have been turned down.
I thank the Chairman for convening today’s hearing. The Chairman and I have a long history of conducting vigorous bipartisan oversight investigations. If the Senate is to serve its constitutional role as a real check on the Executive, thoroughgoing oversight is essential.
The domestic spying programs into emails and telephone calls apparently conducted by the National Security Agency were first reported by the New York Times on December 16, 2005. The next day, President Bush admitted that secret, domestic wiretapping has been conducted without warrants since late 2001, and that he has issued secret orders in this regard more than 30 times since then. We have asked for the presidential orders, but they have not been provided. We have asked for the official legal opinions of the Government that the Administration says justify and limit this program. They, too, have been withheld from us.
This hearing is expressly about the legality of these programs, not about their operational details. In order for us to conduct effective oversight, we clearly need the official documents that answer these basic questions. We are an oversight Committee of the United States Senate – the oversight committee with jurisdiction over the Department of Justice and over its enforcement of the laws of the United States. We are the duly elected representatives of the people of the United States, and it is our duty to determine whether the laws of the United States have been violated. The President and the Justice Department have a constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. They do not write them. They do not pass them. They do not have unchecked power to decide what laws to follow and what laws to ignore. They cannot violate the law or the rights of ordinary Americans. In America no one, not even the President, is above the law.
The President’s Domestic Spying Programs
There is much that we do not know about the President’s secret spying programs. I hope that we will begin to get some real answers from the Administration today — not simply more self-serving characterizations. Let’s start with what we do know.
Point One -- The President’s secret wiretapping program is not authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [“FISA”].
That law expressly states that it provides the “exclusive” source of authority for wiretapping for intelligence purposes. Wiretapping that is not authorized under that statute is a federal crime. That is what the law says, and that is what the law means. This law was enacted to define how domestic surveillance for intelligence purposes may be conducted while protecting the fundamental liberties of Americans. Two or more generations of Americans are too young to know this from their experience, but there’s a reason we have the FISA law. It was enacted after decades of abuses by the Executive, including the wiretapping of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and other political opponents of earlier government officials, and the White House “horrors” of the Nixon years, during which another President asserted that whatever he did was legal because he was the President.
The law has been updated five times since September 11, 2001, in order to keep pace with intelligence needs and technological developments. It provides broad and flexible authority. On July 31, 2002, the Justice Department testified that this law “is a highly flexible statute that has proven effective” and noted: “When you are trying to prevent terrorist acts, that is really what FISA was intended to do and it was written with that in mind.”
The Bush Administration now concedes that this President knowingly created a program involving thousands of wiretaps of Americans in the United States over the period of the last four to five years without complying with FISA. Legal scholars and former Government officials have been almost unanimous in stating the obvious: This is against the law.
Point Two -- The Authorization for the Use of Military Force that Democratic and Republican lawmakers joined together to pass in the days immediately after the September 11 attacks did not give the President the authority to go around the FISA law to wiretap Americans illegally.
That resolution authorized the military action of sending military troops into Afghanistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and those acting with him -- in the words of the statute, “to use the United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”
It did not authorize domestic surveillance of United States citizens without a warrant from a judge. Nothing in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force was intended secretly to undermine the liberties and rights of Americans. Rather, it was to defend our liberties and rights that Congress authorized the President to use our Armed Forces against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Let me be clear: It is only Republican Senators who are talking about “special rights for terrorists.” I have no interest in that. I wish the Bush Administration had done a better job with the vast powers Congress has given it to destroy al Qaeda and kill or capture Osama bin Laden. But it has not.
My concern is for peaceful Quakers who are being spied upon and other law-abiding Americans and babies and nuns who are placed on terrorist watch lists.
Point Three -- The President never came to Congress and never sought additional legal authority to engage in the type of domestic surveillance in which the NSA has been secretly engaged for the last several years.
After September 11, 2001, I helped lead a bipartisan effort to provide tools and legal authorities to improve our capabilities to prevent terrorist attacks. We enacted amendments to FISA in the USA PATRIOT ACT in October 2001 and four additional times subsequently. Ironically, when a Republican Senator proposed a legal change to the standard needed for a FISA warrant, the Bush Administration did not support that effort but raised questions about its constitutionality and testified that it was not needed. This Administration told the Senate that FISA was working just fine and that it did not seek additional adjustments. Attorney General Gonzales has said that the Administration did not ask for legislation authorizing warrantless wiretapping of Americans and did not think such legislation would pass.
Not only did the Bush Administration not seek broader legal authority, it kept the very existence of its domestic wiretapping program without warrants completely secret from 527 of the 535 Members of Congress, including Members on this Committee and on the Intelligence Committee, and placed limits and restrictions on what the eight Members who were told anything could know or say.
The Administration had not suggested to Congress and the American people that FISA was inadequate, outmoded or irrelevant until it was caught violating the statute with a secret program of wiretapping Americans without warrants. Indeed, in 2004, two years after he authorized the secret warrantless wiretapping program, the President told the American people: “Anytime you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, a wiretap requires a court order.” He continued: “Nothing has changed … When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.” In light of what we now know, that statement was, at best, misleading.
The Rule Of Law
I have many questions for the Attorney General. But first, I have a message to give him and the President. It is a message that should be unanimous, from every Member of Congress regardless of party and ideology. Under our Constitution, Congress is the co-equal branch of Government that makes the laws. If you believe we need new laws, you can come to us and tell us. If Congress agrees, we will amend the law. If you do not even attempt to persuade Congress to amend the law, you must abide by the law as written. That is as true for this President as it is for any other American. That is the rule of law, on which our Nation was founded, and on which it endures and prospers."
# # # # #
|
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2591
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 6:27 pm: |
|
The President and the Justice Department have a constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. They do not write them. They do not pass them. They do not have unchecked power to decide what laws to follow and what laws to ignore. They cannot violate the law or the rights of ordinary Americans. In America no one, not even the President, is above the law.
But first, I have a message to give him and the President. It is a message that should be unanimous, from every Member of Congress regardless of party and ideology. Under our Constitution, Congress is the co-equal branch of Government that makes the laws. If you believe we need new laws, you can come to us and tell us. If Congress agrees, we will amend the law. If you do not even attempt to persuade Congress to amend the law, you must abide by the law as written. That is as true for this President as it is for any other American. That is the rule of law, on which our Nation was founded, and on which it endures and prospers."
Do the President's supporters here on MOL disagree with either of those two excerpts from Lahey's statement? If so, would you kindly explain? |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page