Posted on 12/20/2005 7:29:54 AM PST by kellynla
Media's function is to sell hot dogs and beer.
Here's a link to a transcript of the news conference ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html
Sure we can replace them. It takes VOTES to form a record that can be reviewed when election time comes. Notice how fillibusters prevent that record from being formed?
See why people are juked into voting in the same folks over and over?
There is a political game being played in this. Congress delegates their authority to the President and then when they do not like what he does they place all the blame on him. This jig is up and I think the last election showed that. I also think that the 06 cycle will reflect it even more. Can you say 60 in 06?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoo20dec20,0,4832707.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
president can pull the trigger
By John Yoo, JOHN YOO, a UC Berkeley law professor, is the author of "The Powers of War and Peace" (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2005).
IRAQ SEEMS to have the imperial presidency in retreat. Last week the White House accepted Sen. John McCain's proposal to prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of enemy combatants. President Bush is under fire for authorizing the NSA's warrantless interception of international phone calls and e-mails that were linked to possible terrorists and that ended or originated in the U.S.
My name has come up for criticism over these issues because of my service in the Justice Department during Bush's first term. I've defended the administration's legal approach to the treatment of Al Qaeda suspects and detainees. I cannot address the National Security Agency's program, which remains classified. But both instances bring up the issue of presidential power in times of war, and I can speak directly to that: The Constitution creates a presidency that is uniquely structured to act forcefully and independently to repel serious threats to the nation.
SNIP
The issue is not domestic or international, but rather, whether NSA was using its assets against American citizens. The way the laws are written today, NSA, CIA, DIA, etc. don't have that authority. The FBI has jurisdiction. It all goes back to the Church Committee and the belief that the intelligence agencies reprsent a potential threat to our civil liberties. The problem is that technology and the advent of non-state actors, i.e., the terrorists, have outpaced the laws.
The majority opinion contains a somewhat rhetorical passage for which it is justly famous: The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.
Civil Liberty and the Civil War: The Indianapolis Treason Trials
Well, I guess there must not be a serious threat to our nation! Michael Moore told me there is no terrorist threat! Now I understand the left's point of view clearly.
(/sarcasm)
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Art. 1, Section 9, second paragraph.
Can the President do so? Art. I deals with the powers of the Federal Government, and specifically of Congress. If Congress has delegated him the power, he does.
You are on target. Wartime or peacetime - the President's "powers" are bound by the Constitution. I'm sure all the Bushbots will feel the differently if a future Demoncrat President interprets his wartime "powers" to order the ATF to confiscate all handguns from a particular area in "response" to a "terrorist threat." The Constitution is sacrosanct. Those who support the trampling of constitutional rights in support of their favorite politician cannot credibly complain if other politicians use that as a precedent.
I am all for cleaning house on both sides of the aisle.
I believe the first step in this desire is to get the focus backon the Congress where it rightfully belongs. It is my position that many times blame falls in the wrong laps.
As example I would like to cite the recent SCOTUS (asinine) ruling on E.D. Much blame has rested on SOCUTS for that ruling but I have a slightly different view on that deal. I would offer that SCOTUS found themselves in a conundrum and was forced to make a bogus ruling based on how the laws are written. I think SCOTUS sent a strong message to congress that they need to solve this issue thru legislation. But hey that is just my take on it.
I think the very first step in the process is to remove the ability to point the finger at everyone else. I pose that stagnation and avoiding of up or down votes is our largest problem. Either a change in the fillibuster rule requiring 60 votes in the Senate to end debate or 60 votes from one side of the aisle will accomplish this step.
I will offer that too many times meaningful legislation that is good for our country is poisoned with pork to get one person or another to vote for it. A second step is to get off the pork amendments and lets have up or down votes on individual issues. I offer that this will make our ligislators more accountable for the votes they make(and do not make). Thus steering the public when they go to the polls to vote for their elected representatives.
W does what he can to break the gridlock created in a Congress(especially the Senate) with decisions he makes combined with actions he takes responsibility for. I find this proper in a leadership role.
I offer that it is past time for folks elected to office in the House and the Senate do the same thing. I would offer that what Hunter did in response to the democrats talking points (murtha) was right and proper and I think they need to do more of it.
This action was a great example of ONE issue ONE bill and a VOTE. Look at the success of doing such a thing.
I am really starting to wish that George Will would just go away.
He adds nothing.
Herein lies the crux of the matter. In the days immediately following 9/11/01 Would the RATS have been as strident in calling for Impeachment and calling the President a crook for intercepting communications between known terrorists overseas and persons located in the United States?
I seriously doubt that very many of todays howling faces would have said anything and that brings up a question that negates their argument whatever answer they give. The question is "Do you feel that the US has prevailed in the War on Terror and that Americans are safer now than in the days following 9/11 making such Presidential actions no longer necessary?". If the detractors answer "yes" to any of the above then we can point to the success of the President's actions, if they answer "no" to any parts then all actions of the President must be continued. Any parsing on the part of the respondent would show that the furor is political.
The legal opinions of his staff as prescribed in the law, the tacit notification to the Congress, and the approval of the FISA Court after the fact.
Only a complete Damn fool asks the friends of his enemies for permission to defend himself and his country against those enemies. Bush is not such a fool.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004110.htm
http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/12/catch_them_but_.html#more
snip
The AP added: "He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have 'a clear link' to al-Qaeda or related terrorist organizations." This would overlook homegrown jihadists, or those who infiltrated the country years ago and aren’t making international phone calls. Moreover, well-trained terrorists would not reveal their plans on international calls; hence, the administration will likely be criticized for not spending enough resources investigating internal networks of terror, those who will probably produce the next terrorist strikes. Obviously, the government – in a full fledged state of war with al-Qaeda and its allies – should be spending all possible resources to monitor, listen to, analyze, and act against potential threats. Despite that, the intelligence establishment has asked the president to only authorize 30 monitoring of possible cases since September 11. Most analysts believe al-Qaeda has 200 cadres operating within the U.S. Former Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) of the Senate Intelligence Committee cited this figure in 2002. According to the requests, some may argue that the Administration's ground troops have only tracked 30 of them, 15 percent.
That's why I was surprised as I continued reading the AP report that it did not criticize the administration for not doing enough surveillance of terror-related activities but for doing too much, or as it was framed in the media later: Spying on U.S. citizens! The argument was coined in pure theoretical – albeit erroneous- sculpture: The president was ordering spying on Americans, inside the country. Hence, he had – according to some – broken the law. Reading and listening to the surreal new debate, I thought of how al-Qaeda must be laughing. In one of his caves in middle earth, Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri must be in disbelief, yelling, "By Allah, had we known we were barely monitored; we could have pulled out the big one
snip
"The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.
The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. 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 [our emphasis], 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."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.