Impeachable offense?

[TexasTiger 13,016]

"AS THE YEAR WAS DRAWING TO A CLOSE, we picked up our New York Times and learned that the Bush administration has been fighting terrorism by intercepting communications in America without warrants. It was worrisome on its face, but in justifying their actions, officials have made a bad situation much worse: Administration lawyers and the president himself have tortured the Constitution and extracted a suspension of the separation of powers . . .

Certainly, there was an emergency need after the Sept. 11 attacks to sweep up as much information as possible about the chances of another terrorist attack. But a 72-hour emergency or a 15-day emergency doesn't last four years . . .

Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.

It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.

Some ancillary responsibility, however, must be attached to those members of the House and Senate who were informed, inadequately, about the wiretapping and did nothing to regulate it. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, told Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 that he was "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities." But the senator was so respectful of the administration's injunction of secrecy that he wrote it out in longhand rather than give it to someone to type. Only last week, after the cat was out of the bag, did he do what he should have done in 2003 -- make his misgivings public and demand more information.

Published reports quote sources saying that 14 members of Congress were notified of the wiretapping. If some had misgivings, apparently they were scared of being called names, as the president did last week when he said: "It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."

Wrong. If we don't discuss the program and the lack of authority for it, we are meeting the enemy -- in the mirror.

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB113538491760731012.html

From those whacky libruls at Barron's (published by Dow Jones, parent company of The Wall Street Journal)

[AURaptor 1,126]

Tortured the Constitution? Oh dear Buddha, that's just rich. Hyperbole has never known such extremes since Baghdad Bob.

Keep dreaming, Libs.

But a 72-hour emergency or a 15-day emergency doesn't last four years . . .

It was 8+ years after the first WTC bombing that we were attacked on 9/11. Maybe if Clinton had taken the 1st attack seriously, we'd not have had a 2nd. Hmm...

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

Ann Coulter weighs in: Link

LIVE AND LET SPY

December 21, 2005

Apart from the day The New York Times goes out of business — and the stellar work Paul Krugman's column does twice a week helping people house-train their puppies — the newspaper has done the greatest thing it will ever do in its entire existence. (Calm down: No, the Times didn't hold an intervention for Frank Rich.)

Monday's Times carried a major expose on child molesters who use the Internet to lure their adolescent prey into performing sex acts for Webcams. In the course of investigating the story, reporter Kurt Eichenwald broke open a massive network of pedophiles, rescued a young man who had been abused for years, and led the Department of Justice to hundreds of child molesters.

I kept waiting for the catch, but apparently the Times does not yet believe pedophilia is covered by the "privacy right." They should stop covering politics and start covering more stories like this.

In order to report the story, the Times said it obtained:

— copies of online conversations and e-mail messages between minors and the creepy adults;

— records of payments to the minors;

— membership lists for Webcam sites;

— defunct sites stored in online archives;

— files retained on a victim's computer over several years;

— financial records, credit card processing data and other information;

— The Neverland Ranch's mailing list. (OK, I made that last one up.)

Would that the Times allowed the Bush administration similar investigative powers for Islamofacists in America!

Which brings me to this week's scandal about No Such Agency spying on "Americans." I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.

But if we must engage in a national debate on half-measures: After 9/11, any president who was not spying on people calling phone numbers associated with terrorists should be impeached for being an inept commander in chief.

With a huge gaping hole in lower Manhattan, I'm not sure why we have to keep reminding people, but we are at war. (Perhaps it's because of the media blackout on images of the 9/11 attack. We're not allowed to see those because seeing planes plowing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon might make us feel angry and jingoistic.)

Among the things that war entails are: killing people (sometimes innocent), destroying buildings (sometimes innocent) and spying on people (sometimes innocent).

That is why war is a bad thing. But once a war starts, it is going to be finished one way or another, and I have a preference for it coming out one way rather than the other.

In previous wars, the country has done far worse than monitor telephone calls placed to jihad headquarters. FDR rounded up Japanese — many of them loyal American citizens — and threw them in internment camps. Most appallingly, at the same time, he let New York Times editors wander free.

Note the following about the Japanese internment:

1) The Supreme Court upheld the president's authority to intern the Japanese during wartime;

2) That case, Korematsu v. United States, is still good law;

3) There are no Japanese internment camps today. (Although the no-limit blackjack section at Caesar's Palace on a Saturday night comes pretty close.)

It's one or the other: Either we take the politically correct, scattershot approach and violate everyone's civil liberties, or we focus on the group threatening us and — in the worst-case scenario — run the risk of briefly violating the civil liberties of 1,000 people in a country of 300 million.

Of course, this is assuming I'm talking to people from the world of the normal. In the Democrats' world, there are two more options. Violate no one's civil liberties and get used to a lot more 9/11s, or the modified third option, preferred by Sen. John D. Rockefeller: Let the president do all the work and take all the heat for preventing another terrorist attack while you place a letter expressing your objections in a file cabinet as a small parchment tribute to your exquisite conscience.

She's absolutely right, of course. The sheer lunacy of violating the civil rights of pedophiles to provide evidence against them but not spying on those that might be connected to a group that has the objective of using a WMD on the US is something that appeals only to pointy-headed liberal academics. What's missing from the debate is a sense of perspective and an acknowlegment that technology has advanced far beyond our 18th century forefathers when they penned the 4th Amendment against illegal search & seizure. The FBI's monioring of radiation of Muslim sites in the US seems reasonable & appropriate to me ... given the threat it poses. Linky

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Ann Coulter weighs in:  Link

LIVE AND LET SPY

December 21, 2005

Apart from the day The New York Times goes out of business — and the stellar work Paul Krugman's column does twice a week helping people house-train their puppies — the newspaper has done the greatest thing it will ever do in its entire existence. (Calm down: No, the Times didn't hold an intervention for Frank Rich.)

Monday's Times carried a major expose on child molesters who use the Internet to lure their adolescent prey into performing sex acts for Webcams. In the course of investigating the story, reporter Kurt Eichenwald broke open a massive network of pedophiles, rescued a young man who had been abused for years, and led the Department of Justice to hundreds of child molesters.

I kept waiting for the catch, but apparently the Times does not yet believe pedophilia is covered by the "privacy right." They should stop covering politics and start covering more stories like this.

In order to report the story, the Times said it obtained:

— copies of online conversations and e-mail messages between minors and the creepy adults;

— records of payments to the minors;

— membership lists for Webcam sites;

— defunct sites stored in online archives;

— files retained on a victim's computer over several years;

— financial records, credit card processing data and other information;

— The Neverland Ranch's mailing list. (OK, I made that last one up.)

Would that the Times allowed the Bush administration similar investigative powers for Islamofacists in America!

Which brings me to this week's scandal about No Such Agency spying on "Americans." I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.

But if we must engage in a national debate on half-measures: After 9/11, any president who was not spying on people calling phone numbers associated with terrorists should be impeached for being an inept commander in chief.

With a huge gaping hole in lower Manhattan, I'm not sure why we have to keep reminding people, but we are at war. (Perhaps it's because of the media blackout on images of the 9/11 attack. We're not allowed to see those because seeing planes plowing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon might make us feel angry and jingoistic.)

Among the things that war entails are: killing people (sometimes innocent), destroying buildings (sometimes innocent) and spying on people (sometimes innocent).

That is why war is a bad thing. But once a war starts, it is going to be finished one way or another, and I have a preference for it coming out one way rather than the other.

In previous wars, the country has done far worse than monitor telephone calls placed to jihad headquarters. FDR rounded up Japanese — many of them loyal American citizens — and threw them in internment camps. Most appallingly, at the same time, he let New York Times editors wander free.

Note the following about the Japanese internment:

1) The Supreme Court upheld the president's authority to intern the Japanese during wartime;

2) That case, Korematsu v. United States, is still good law;

3) There are no Japanese internment camps today. (Although the no-limit blackjack section at Caesar's Palace on a Saturday night comes pretty close.)

It's one or the other: Either we take the politically correct, scattershot approach and violate everyone's civil liberties, or we focus on the group threatening us and — in the worst-case scenario — run the risk of briefly violating the civil liberties of 1,000 people in a country of 300 million.

Of course, this is assuming I'm talking to people from the world of the normal. In the Democrats' world, there are two more options. Violate no one's civil liberties and get used to a lot more 9/11s, or the modified third option, preferred by Sen. John D. Rockefeller: Let the president do all the work and take all the heat for preventing another terrorist attack while you place a letter expressing your objections in a file cabinet as a small parchment tribute to your exquisite conscience.

She's absolutely right, of course.  The sheer lunacy of violating the civil rights of  pedophiles to provide evidence against them but not spying on those that might be connected to a group that has the objective of using a WMD on the US is something that appeals only to pointy-headed liberal academics.  What's missing from the debate is a sense of perspective and an acknowlegment that technology has advanced far beyond our 18th century forefathers when they penned the 4th Amendment against illegal search & seizure.  The FBI's monioring of radiation of Muslim sites in the US seems reasonable & appropriate to me ... given the threat it poses.  Linky

206876[/snapback]

A red herring. After 9/11 the Patriot Act passed with one dissenting vote in the Senate. Bush could have gotten almost any change in the law passed that he wanted. From the Barron's article:

It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.

Different impetus, same point:

Let the Rule of Law Prevail

By Terry M. Neal

washingtonpost.com Staff Writer

Tuesday, October 25, 2005; 6:00 AM

In the 1990s, "rule of law" was hot.

In the 2000s, not so much.

Republicans, who impeached and tried to remove a president who lied about his private sex life, have now decided that the whole "rule of law" thing really isn't all it's cut out to be.

Some Republicans -- anticipating the possible indictment of top White House aides -- are launching a preemptive public relations strike that is stunning in its audacity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2400656_pf.html

Keep spinning, boys (and that includes Mr. Coulter).

[AURaptor 1,126]

By Terry M. Neal

washingtonpost.com Staff Writer

Tuesday, October 25, 2005; 6:00 AM

In the 1990s, "rule of law" was hot.

In the 2000s, not so much.

Republicans, who impeached and tried to remove a president who lied about his private sex life, have now decided that the whole "rule of law" thing really isn't all it's cut out to be.

Talk about spinning. The Left better sit on it's ass before it topples over and kisses the cement itself. No where in the Impeachment charges will you find ANY ONE DAMN THING about 'sex' or 'private sex life' . Not no where, nodda. Bush has freely admitted to what he's done, ( that's defend the country against Islamo-terrorist ) and will glady continue his work.

'Bout time somebody did their job in D.C. , instead of passing the buck and blaming some 'vast conspiracy' on every single one of their own faults.

for President Bush!

[TexasTiger 13,016]

By Terry M. Neal

washingtonpost.com Staff Writer

Tuesday, October 25, 2005; 6:00 AM

In the 1990s, "rule of law" was hot.

In the 2000s, not so much.

Republicans, who impeached and tried to remove a president who lied about his private sex life, have now decided that the whole "rule of law" thing really isn't all it's cut out to be.

Talk about spinning. The Left better sit on it's ass before it topples over and kisses the cement itself. No where in the Impeachment charges will you find ANY ONE DAMN THING about 'sex' or 'private sex life' . Not no where, nodda.

206880[/snapback]

lied about his private sex life

Hope Santa brings you that Hooked on Phonics thing you've been needing so long.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Hope Santa brings you that Hooked on Phonics thing you've been needing so long.

Huh? :huh: You can't deal w/ the issue, so you once again duck it and then go off on some incoherent tangent about hooked on phonics? Dude, why are you having such a hard time w/ simple , straight forward issues?

Yes, Clinton lied about his sex life, but so what ? Show us where that appears in the Impeachemnt trial,...if you can.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Hope Santa brings you that Hooked on Phonics thing you've been needing so long.

Huh? :huh: You can't deal w/ the issue, so you once again duck it and then go off on some incoherent tangent about hooked on phonics? Dude, why are you having such a hard time w/ simple , straight forward issues?

Yes, Clinton lied about his sex life, but so what ? Show us where that appears in the Impeachemnt trial,...if you can.

206945[/snapback]

You're funny. The issue is whether one cares about the "rule of law" or not. That is the point the author was making. Sorry, I thought it was obvious. You, of course, got focused on the sex part.

But if you are truly stupid enough to think the impeachment process had nothing to do with Clinton lying about his sex life, what do you think the supposed perjury charge was about?

Peruse the documents a bit more, maybe it will refresh even your memory. Here's a question from the House Judiciary Committee to get you started:

79. Do you admit or deny that you made a false or misleading public statement in response to a question asked on or about January 26, 1998, when you stated "But I want to say one thing to the American people – I want you to listen to me. I am going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky?"

A: I made this statement on January 26, 1998 although not in response to any question. In referring to "sexual relations," I was referring to sexual intercourse. See also App. at 475. As I stated in response to request Nos. 62 to 68, in the days following the January 21, 1998, disclosures, answers like this misled people about this relationship, for which I have apologized.

I could post Starr's Report to Congress on which the charges were based, particularly the rather lengthy session that he calls: "C. Sexual Contacts", but I figure kids read this forum, so I won't. I'm sure you can find it, though.

Now that we've been over ancient history, if you are capable of getting back to and staying on topic, let's do that.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Now that we've been over ancient history, if you are capable of getting back to and staying on topic, let's do that

Due to the fact that you can't offer up one shred of evidence that Clinton was impeached because of his private sex life, and that no where in the official charges levied against him do the words 'sex' or 'Monica' or even 'Cigar' appear, you ran away from this discussion and try , once again, to change the subject.

There's no indication that what Bush was illegal. Clearly nothing near the level of what FDR did to the Japanese Americans here during WW2. No American citiznes have had any of their civil liberties trampled either. And warrentless searches ? Sorry, but there's nothing new there that Presidents haven't been doing for decades. But in this case, the threat was very real.

Curious, those who'd ignored the terrorist in the first place would have us regulate the threat as nothing more than a mere *nuissance. And those folks are also the same who were first out of gate screaming about impeachment. There's every indication that the Dems are acting on nothing more than blind, partisan political rage against Bush, and against our national security.

*John Kerry's actually called it that.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Now that we've been over ancient history, if you are capable of getting back to and staying on topic, let's do that

Due to the fact that you can't offer up one shred of evidence that Clinton was impeached because of his private sex life, and that no where in the official charges levied against him do the words 'sex' or 'Monica' or even 'Cigar' appear, you ran away from this discussion and try , once again, to change the subject.

There's no indication that what Bush was illegal. Clearly nothing near the level of what FDR did to the Japanese Americans here during WW2. No American citiznes have had any of their civil liberties trampled either. And warrentless searches ? Sorry, but there's nothing new there that Presidents haven't been doing for decades. But in this case, the threat was very real.

Curious, those who'd ignored the terrorist in the first place would have us regulate the threat as nothing more than a mere *nuissance. And those folks are also the same who were first out of gate screaming about impeachment. There's every indication that the Dems are acting on nothing more than blind, partisan political rage against Bush, and against our national security.

*John Kerry's actually called it that.

206964[/snapback]

Your responses are increasingly detached from reality.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Your responses are increasingly detached from reality.

No surprise that you'd crawfish away from this issue, as you can't offer up any evidence to support your claims. You've never been able to anyway. But lets forget Clinton in regards to this issue, and deal w/ the matters in the present.

In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did 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." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.

The mere Constitution aside, the evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties. Far from being "secret," key Members of Congress were informed about them at least 12 times, President Bush said yesterday. The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about them.

Inside the executive branch, the process allowing the wiretaps was routinely reviewed by Justice Department lawyers, by the Attorney General personally, and with the President himself reauthorizing the process every 45 days. In short, the implication that this is some LBJ-J. Edgar Hoover operation designed to skirt the law to spy on domestic political enemies is nothing less than a political smear. - Story Link

[Tigermike 3,053]

The issue is whether one cares about the "rule of law" or not. 

206955[/snapback]

No the issue is whether or not the politicians will do what is necessary to protect this country and it's citizens and the world. It is increasingly obvious that the democrats jumped on the bandwagon after 9/11 only for political reasons. They are now being driven by the extreme left. America is watching. And I might add, so are the terrorists.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

The issue is whether one cares about the "rule of law" or not. 

206955[/snapback]

No the issue is whether or not the politicians will do what is necessary to protect this country and it's citizens and the world. It is increasingly obvious that the democrats jumped on the bandwagon after 9/11 only for political reasons. They are now being driven by the extreme left. America is watching. And I might add, so are the terrorists.

206985[/snapback]

So is it your position that the President is not restrained by any law as long as he thinks he is protecting us?

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Your responses are increasingly detached from reality.

No surprise that you'd crawfish away from this issue, as you can't offer up any evidence to support your claims. You've never been able to anyway. But lets forget Clinton in regards to this issue, and deal w/ the matters in the present.

In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did 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." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.

The mere Constitution aside, the evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties. Far from being "secret," key Members of Congress were informed about them at least 12 times, President Bush said yesterday. The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about them.

Inside the executive branch, the process allowing the wiretaps was routinely reviewed by Justice Department lawyers, by the Attorney General personally, and with the President himself reauthorizing the process every 45 days. In short, the implication that this is some LBJ-J. Edgar Hoover operation designed to skirt the law to spy on domestic political enemies is nothing less than a political smear. - Story Link

206978[/snapback]

Got links to those cases you reference? I would be happy to review them in their full context.

Nonetheless, the article offers up a red herring that is making the rounds from the apologists of this administration. The basic point the article makes is not really in dispute. No one questions whether the executive has some inherent authority to gather FOREIGN intelligence. The real issue is when American citizens are under surveillance. The Supreme Court has addressed that issue:

407 U.S. 297

United States v. United States District Court

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 70-153 Argued: February 24, 1972 --- Decided: June 19, 1972

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The United States charged three defendants with conspiring to destroy, and one of them with destroying, Government property. In response to the defendants' pretrial motion for disclosure of electronic surveillance information, the Government filed an affidavit of the Attorney General stating that he had approved the wiretaps for the purpose of

gather[ing] intelligence information deemed necessary to protect the nation from attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the existing structure of the Government.

On the basis of the affidavit and surveillance logs (filed in a sealed exhibit), the Government claimed that the surveillances, though warrantless, were lawful as a reasonable exercise of presidential power to protect the national security. The District Court, holding the surveillances violative of the Fourth Amendment, issued an order for disclosure of the overheard conversations, which the Court of Appeals upheld. Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, which authorizes court-approved electronic surveillance for specified crimes, contains a provision in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(3) that nothing in that law limits the President's constitutional power to protect against the overthrow of the Government or against "any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government." The Government relies on § 2511(3) in support of its contention that "in excepting national security surveillances from the Act's warrant requirement, Congress recognized the President's authority to conduct such surveillances without prior judicial approval."

Held:

1. Section 2511(3) is merely a disclaimer of congressional intent to define presidential powers in matters affecting national security, and is not a grant of authority to conduct warrantless national security surveillances. Pp. 301-308. [p298]

2. The Fourth Amendment (which shields private speech from unreasonable surveillance) requires prior judicial approval for the type of domestic security surveillance involved in this case. Pp. 314-321; 323-324.

(a) The Government's duty to safeguard domestic security must be weighed against the potential danger that unreasonable surveillances pose to individual privacy and free expression. Pp. 314-315.

( The freedoms of the Fourth Amendment cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security suveillances are conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch, without the detached judgment of a neutral magistrate. Pp. 316-318.

(c ) Resort to appropriate warrant procedure would not frustrate the legitimate purposes of domestic security searches. Pp. 318-321.

444 F.2d 651, affirmed.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hi...07_0297_ZS.html

To the extent that there might me key legal distinctions that tend to justify Bush's actions will only come after a meaningful examination of the facts, which we don't really know, in the context of the Constitution. This was the point of the article I posted:

The members of the House Judiciary Committee ...ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.

That's simple enough. That's how a country of laws, not men, is supposed to work.

[Tigermike 3,053]

No and you know it is not.

So is it your position that the President and the United States should be restrained by any and all laws and or tactics from the left as long as they think it will get us out of the war?

Before The Patriot Act, the DOD, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and all other agencies were working independently of and in many cases working against each other. There was very little sharing of information and intel. After 9/11 the libs began screaming that GW didn't do enough to prevent the attack. Now they are screaming that GW might listen to who orders pizza in Hoboken. You would do better to blame fundamentalist Islam and Islamofascist who preach and encourage terrorism worldwide and who btw are being killed daily in Iraq.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

The issue is whether one cares about the "rule of law" or not. 

206955[/snapback]

No the issue is whether or not the politicians will do what is necessary to protect this country and it's citizens and the world. It is increasingly obvious that the democrats jumped on the bandwagon after 9/11 only for political reasons. They are now being driven by the extreme left. America is watching. And I might add, so are the terrorists.

206985[/snapback]

Why must it be one or the other?

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

Another viewpoint: Link

December 26, 2005

And You Think America Is Repressive?

By Thomas Bray

Spying on e-mail and cell phone traffic without a warrant. Searching offices and residences without a court order. Locking citizens away for weeks or months without filing charges.

Sound like your worst nightmare about the supposedly lawless Bush administration? Perhaps. But I refer to restrictions on civil liberties that are taking place not in the United States but, in the order in which I cited them, Canada, France and Great Britain.

All three countries are cited as moral superiors to the rogue regime in Washington, where the fascist leaders George Bush and Dick Cheney are said to be intent on fastening a reign of terror on the United States. But a brief scan of newspaper websites in those countries – something that the American mainstream media could easily have done before unleashing its own reign of terror on unsuspecting readers -- reveals that their governments have in many cases gone far beyond where the Bush-Cheney could ever dream of going.

The Canadian government has broad authority under anti-terrorism laws to intercept communications without court oversight. And, complained a Toronto Star columnist recently, “the [Canadian] government now has significant new authority to stage secret trials. In some instances, the very fact that the courts are even hearing a case may be kept secret.”

Meanwhile, the government of Jacques Chirac – who seldom loses an opportunity to lecture the United States about its supposedly dreadful policies – has reacted to the recent “intifada” in France by declaring a “state of emergency.” It allows the government to impose a curfew on communities where rioting has taken place, search for and seize evidence with no showing of probable cause, place suspects under house arrest for up to two months and otherwise ride roughshod over normal protections.

In England critics are complaining that the crown jewel of civil rights, the ancient right of habeas corpus, is at risk because of a measure allowing detention without charges for up to 28 days. The government of Tony Blair, no right wing extremist, had initially asked for 90 days. Under the Terrorism Act of 2005, moreover, demonstrations within two miles of Britain’s Parliament are forbidden, severely crimping the equally ancient right of assembly.

Just because other democracies engage in such activity isn’t necessarily a reason the United States should do so. Indeed, if France is doing it, it’s probably a good argument that we shouldn’t. Nor is it a bad thing for The New York Times to call the NSA monitoring to our attention – though one wonders why the Times sat on this supposedly important story for a year, ran it on the eve of a vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act and glossed lightly over substantial court precedent agreeing with President Bush.

As John Schmidt, a former official in the Clinton Justice Department, pointed out in a subsequent Chicago Tribune column, his boss, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, testified in the 1990s that “the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.” Jimmy Carter had asserted the same power when he was President.

The hysteria over Bush’s use of the National Security Agency to monitor international communications is thus likely to fade as an issue, much as the he-lied-us-into-war hysteria of prior months faded in significance as it became apparent that most of his congressional critics had interpreted the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in exactly the same fashion as the administration.

How to balance civil liberties and national security is a subject of legitimate dispute. But Americans deserve more perspective on the matter than they are getting from Bush’s critics and their megaphones in the liberal press.

Newsflash: left-leaning media outlet sits on story for a year and then publishes it on the eve of an important congressional vote. Surprised? Alert the media.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Another viewpoint:  Link

December 26, 2005

And You Think America Is Repressive?

By Thomas Bray

Spying on e-mail and cell phone traffic without a warrant. Searching offices and residences without a court order. Locking citizens away for weeks or months without filing charges.

Sound like your worst nightmare about the supposedly lawless Bush administration? Perhaps. But I refer to restrictions on civil liberties that are taking place not in the United States but, in the order in which I cited them, Canada, France and Great Britain.

All three countries are cited as moral superiors to the rogue regime in Washington, where the fascist leaders George Bush and Dick Cheney are said to be intent on fastening a reign of terror on the United States. But a brief scan of newspaper websites in those countries – something that the American mainstream media could easily have done before unleashing its own reign of terror on unsuspecting readers -- reveals that their governments have in many cases gone far beyond where the Bush-Cheney could ever dream of going.

The Canadian government has broad authority under anti-terrorism laws to intercept communications without court oversight. And, complained a Toronto Star columnist recently, “the [Canadian] government now has significant new authority to stage secret trials. In some instances, the very fact that the courts are even hearing a case may be kept secret.”

Meanwhile, the government of Jacques Chirac – who seldom loses an opportunity to lecture the United States about its supposedly dreadful policies – has reacted to the recent “intifada” in France by declaring a “state of emergency.” It allows the government to impose a curfew on communities where rioting has taken place, search for and seize evidence with no showing of probable cause, place suspects under house arrest for up to two months and otherwise ride roughshod over normal protections.

In England critics are complaining that the crown jewel of civil rights, the ancient right of habeas corpus, is at risk because of a measure allowing detention without charges for up to 28 days. The government of Tony Blair, no right wing extremist, had initially asked for 90 days. Under the Terrorism Act of 2005, moreover, demonstrations within two miles of Britain’s Parliament are forbidden, severely crimping the equally ancient right of assembly.

Just because other democracies engage in such activity isn’t necessarily a reason the United States should do so. Indeed, if France is doing it, it’s probably a good argument that we shouldn’t. Nor is it a bad thing for The New York Times to call the NSA monitoring to our attention – though one wonders why the Times sat on this supposedly important story for a year, ran it on the eve of a vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act and glossed lightly over substantial court precedent agreeing with President Bush.

As John Schmidt, a former official in the Clinton Justice Department, pointed out in a subsequent Chicago Tribune column, his boss, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, testified in the 1990s that “the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.” Jimmy Carter had asserted the same power when he was President.

The hysteria over Bush’s use of the National Security Agency to monitor international communications is thus likely to fade as an issue, much as the he-lied-us-into-war hysteria of prior months faded in significance as it became apparent that most of his congressional critics had interpreted the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in exactly the same fashion as the administration.

How to balance civil liberties and national security is a subject of legitimate dispute. But Americans deserve more perspective on the matter than they are getting from Bush’s critics and their megaphones in the liberal press.

Newsflash:  left-leaning media outlet sits on story for a year and then publishes it on the eve of an important congressional vote.  Surprised?  Alert the media.

207039[/snapback]

Conservatives are upset because the story ran before the Patriot Act vote (which wasn't going to pass anyway in that form. ) Libruls are upset because the NYT refused to run the story before the 2004 election at Bush's urging.

No country has such a strong free speech view as the US. Same is true for searches and seizures. That is our history, traditon and constitutional framework. Is it outdated? Well, if politicians want to change it, they should make that argument out in the open and convince the people to change it. Our Constitution allows for that, too.