Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Two Groups Planning to Sue Over Federal Eavesdropping [Hitchens is plaintiff against GW]
The NYT ^ | January 17, 2006 | ERIC LICHTBLAU

Posted on 01/17/2006 2:59:09 AM PST by summer

Two leading civil rights groups plan to file lawsuits Tuesday against the Bush administration over its domestic spying program....

The Center for Constitutional Rights plans to sue on behalf of four lawyers at the center and a legal assistant there who work on terrorism-related cases at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba,... Similarly, the plaintiffs in the A.C.L.U. lawsuit include five Americans who work in international policy and terrorism, along with the A.C.L.U. and three other groups....

One of the A.C.L.U. plaintiffs, Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, ...

Also named as plaintiffs in the A.C.L.U. lawsuit are the journalist Christopher Hitchens, who has written in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; Barnett R. Rubin, a scholar at New York University who works in international relations; Tara McKelvey, a senior editor at The American Prospect; the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Greenpeace, the environmental advocacy group; and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the country's largest Islamic advocacy group....

Bill Goodman, legal director for the Center for Constitutional Rights, said that in suing in federal court to block the surveillance program, his group believed "without question" that Mr. Bush violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs wiretaps, by authorizing the security agency operation.

But Mr. Goodman acknowledged that in persuading a federal judge to intervene, "politically, it's a difficult case to make."


He added: "We recognize that it's extremely difficult for a court to stand up to a president, particularly a president who is determined to extend his power beyond anything envisioned by the founding fathers. That takes courage."

The debate over the legality of Mr. Bush's eavesdropping program will be at the center of Congressional hearings expected to begin next month....

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 200601; aclu; barnettrubin; cair; ccr; christopherhitchens; diamond; eavesdropping; fisa; gitmo; greenpeace; hitchens; hooverinstitute; larrydiamond; lawsuit; mcelvey; nacdl; nsa; rubin; taramckelvey; theamericanprospect; us
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last
I don't really know what to make of all this. I thought GW had the authority to do this, but if the courts rule against him -- that's not good news.
1 posted on 01/17/2006 2:59:13 AM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

Sometimes it's hard to tell -- is this politics as usual, or something more?


2 posted on 01/17/2006 2:59:46 AM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

BTW, I was surprised to see Hitchens' name as a plaintiff; yet, there's nothing on his website about this.


3 posted on 01/17/2006 3:02:47 AM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: summer
I don't really know what to make of all this. I thought GW had the authority to do this, but if the courts rule against him -- that's not good new.

Actually this is a GOOD thing that will eventually go to the S.C. to be decided. The President says "I have these powers" to deal with this new style threat. Congress objects. So someone brings a lawsuit and it goes to Court system. That is HOW the system of checks and balances is suppose to work. This is a GOOD thing.

4 posted on 01/17/2006 3:06:44 AM PST by MNJohnnie (Is there a satire god who created Al Gore for the sole purpose of making us laugh?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Yes, I agree with the point you're making; that it's good this question will go to the courts.

But, the point I was making is this: if the courts rule against GW, then, it's bad news for GW.
5 posted on 01/17/2006 3:09:46 AM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie; summer
Actually this is a GOOD thing that will eventually go to the S.C. to be decided.

And by then Alito should be on the bench!

6 posted on 01/17/2006 3:12:55 AM PST by airborne (If being a Christian was a crime, would there be enough evidence to convict you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: summer
I don't really know what to make of all this. I thought GW had the authority to do this, but if the courts rule against him -- that's not good news.

I don't see a court taking the case, absent a showing that the party to the case can surmount the burden of proof that he was surveilled in a way that is arguably contrary to the 4th amendment. The party must "be injured," not "think I might have been injured."

As a bit of a sideline, the argument of 4th amendment violation can also be made by a plaintiff (or defendant, in the case of an indictment involving evidence gathered by FISA-related authority), in the form of "the statute itself is unconstitutional because it goes beyond what the 4th amendment permits." I point this out mostly to illustrate that lawsuits are a dime a dozen.

Back to the "must be injured," that doesn't mean there has to be a showing of damages, only a showing of unconstitutional surveillance. Without that, I would expect the Court to rule that there is no standing.

7 posted on 01/17/2006 3:16:57 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: summer

8 posted on 01/17/2006 3:18:18 AM PST by mfulstone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

I don't want this being decided at the supreme court with kennedy as the swing vote.

Kennedy is already going to vote with the liberal quartet on the texas redistricting case.



9 posted on 01/17/2006 3:21:21 AM PST by johnmecainrino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

The congressional authority after 9/11 gave the executive branch the authority to go after al queda.

So it can't be illegal for something congress knew about also.

Wouldn't the defendant have to be someone that was affected by this?


10 posted on 01/17/2006 3:23:37 AM PST by johnmecainrino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: summer
He added: "We recognize that it's extremely difficult for a court to stand up to a president, particularly a president who is determined to extend his power beyond anything envisioned by the founding fathers. That takes courage."

How did this historical quote about FDR get in here?

11 posted on 01/17/2006 3:26:06 AM PST by Hardastarboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: summer
domestic spying program

Instead of, "surveillance program designed to identify terrorists both within and outside the U.S.". The bias at the NYT continues.

12 posted on 01/17/2006 3:26:56 AM PST by libertylover (Bush spied. Terrorists died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: summer

"if the courts rule against him -- that's not good news"


Perhaps the scenario you mentioned explains the Meiers nomination?


13 posted on 01/17/2006 3:28:19 AM PST by WhiteGuy (Vote for gridlock)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: summer

What bugs me about this whole
"eavesdropping" thing is the number of people who believe it automatically means the government is listening in on us all just willy-nilly. I had this argument with my sister over the weekend. There has to be something to make them want to listen...like a phone call to or from the US by a name on a list, for example...something that causes a raised eyebrow. I tried to explain to her that the government has not the time or resources to listen to her discuss soap operas with her friend.


14 posted on 01/17/2006 3:32:13 AM PST by GOP_Proud ("Just like butt-ahh"... Toolbelt Diva)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Has the statute of limitatiions run out for us suing Clinton over Echelon and Carnivore?


15 posted on 01/17/2006 3:37:10 AM PST by patj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: summer
As anyone who was paying attention to the Alito hearings know this is a STUNT! Since Bush enjoys what called 'broad executive immunity'. This is just grandstanding, showboating, 'let's keep this in the headlines', repeat the lie often enough so it becomes true, nonsense.
16 posted on 01/17/2006 3:37:52 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: summer

see: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110007823

'Better Than Well Said'
Ben Franklin understood the need for secrecy in matters of national security. written by Pete du Pont


17 posted on 01/17/2006 3:38:47 AM PST by spkpls4 (Jeremiah 29:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnmecainrino
The congressional authority after 9/11 gave the executive branch the authority to go after al queda.

And that turns on the meanings (Congressional intent) of "go after" and "member of al Qaeda." IOW, is it "congressional authority" if the president steps outside of majority intent?

So it can't be illegal for something congress knew about also.

Sure "it" can. But at this point, we only have hints as to what "it" is, so the scope of speculation is quite large. Keep in mind the principle that courts can render opinions on government actions that are outside the law (not always finding the action to be unconstitutional), and inside the law (sometings finding the "legally/Congressionally authorized" action to be unconstitutional).

The term "illegal" is taken different ways by different listeners - some posters here take that to mean "violation of 4th amendment," for example.

Wouldn't the defendant have to be someone that was affected by this?

Plaintiff is the term for the person bringing the case, but yes - without being a target of surveillance, the party has no case. I don't think there needs to be a showing of "damages" in order to reach the conclusion that the party was affected. The government is forbidden to act outside of the Constitution - see removal of 1o Commandments from Judge Roy Moore's Courthouse, for example. Who had "damages?" Nobody, really. Yet the Courts found the display to be a violation of the 1st amendment and ordered it removed.

18 posted on 01/17/2006 3:40:54 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Proud

I don't think that they "don't" get it. I think to them it just "sounds" good.
I would ask next time to anyone that brings up the eavesdropping issue "how much money do you make?" How much did you donate last year to charity?" These are truly none of your business questions. So unless these same folks want to get all riled up about citizens having to give this information every year to the government, then I don't want to hear about collecting info on something to keep us all safe.


19 posted on 01/17/2006 3:46:14 AM PST by magglepuss (Don't tread on me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: summer

The question of the President's constitutional authority must inevitably wend its way to the Supreme Court, much the same as Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus did.


20 posted on 01/17/2006 3:49:20 AM PST by sono (You can't convert people in pink dresses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patj
Has the statute of limitatiions run out for us suing Clinton over Echelon and Carnivore?

Statute of limitations is a notion that describes the interval betwen injury (in some jurisdictions, this is the time the injury was incurred, in others it is when the injured party became aware of the injury), and bringing of the lawsuit. A statute of limitations runs on a case-by-case basis - party by party.

Echelon and Carnivore are described in mire general terms as "NSA monitoring" in a few court cases that I've read, and no court has found the un-targeted gathering of signal to violate the 4th amendment.

See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1550960/posts?page=26#26 and later posts (especially 35), as well as links back from there for one example.

The NSA intelligence gathering operation is described sufficiently for present purposes in Halkin, 598 F.2d at 4, as follows (footnote omitted):

A brief description of NSA and its functions is appropriate. NSA itself has no need for intelligence information; rather, it is a service organization which produces intelligence in response to the requirements of the Director of Central Intelligence. Intelligence Activities: Hearings Before the Select Comm. to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the U. S. Senate, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. Vol. V at 9 (1975) (Hearings). The mission of the NSA is to obtain intelligence from foreign electrical communications. Signals are acquired by many techniques. The process sweeps up enormous numbers of communications, not all of which can be reviewed by intelligence analysts. Using "watch-lists"-lists of words and phrases designed to identify communications of intelligence interest-NSA computers scan the mass of acquired communications to select those which may be of specific foreign intelligence interest. Only those likely to be of interest are printed out for further analysis, the remainder being discarded without reading or review. Intelligence analysts review each of the communications selected. The foreign intelligence derived from these signals is reported to the various agencies that have requested it (Hearings at 6). Only foreign communications are acquired, that is, communications having at least one foreign terminal (Hearings at 9).

I think there are links back to the Senate hearings from there, as well -- ahh, found it, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1550146/posts.

21 posted on 01/17/2006 3:52:11 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: summer

How can any of them have standing to sue if it's not their "rights" that have been infringed? It seems that at least one of the groups would have to include someone who does talk to suspected terrorists abroad.


22 posted on 01/17/2006 3:52:40 AM PST by saveliberty (Proud to be Head Snowflake, Bushbot and a new member of Sam's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spkpls4

thanks for the link! I love reading Pete Du Pont.


23 posted on 01/17/2006 3:53:49 AM PST by saveliberty (Proud to be Head Snowflake, Bushbot and a new member of Sam's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: summer

No, only Bill Clinton has this authority, no one else. Sheesh, can't you tell when the country is falling apart? Quick, let's surrender like our RINO representatives.


24 posted on 01/17/2006 3:54:26 AM PST by brushcop (We lift up our military serving in harm's way and pray for total victory and a safe return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: summer

From the article at the NYT - not quoted in the excerpts posted here:

"Two leading civil rights groups plan to file lawsuits Tuesday against the Bush administration over its domestic spying program to determine whether the operation was used to monitor 10 defense lawyers, journalists, scholars, political activists and other Americans with ties to the Middle East."

Note the question is IF these specific people WERE monitored. I THINK this means the suit is to determine if they (specific people - Hitchens apparently included) were monitored. Now Gore has just called for a Special Prosecutor. I think the attempt is going to be made to subpoena NSA records to see if these people were monitored.

Am I wrong?


25 posted on 01/17/2006 4:00:46 AM PST by ashukla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
I tend to agree with you -- I'm not sure how a plaintiff will demonstrate that they have "standing" to bring the suit. They'd have to show that they were "spied upon" and that the "spying" was the result of the President's specific order.

But I also wonder how the fact that other Presidents have issued similar orders would factor in to a Court's decision to hear the case as a general violation of the 4th Amendment.

26 posted on 01/17/2006 4:02:19 AM PST by USNA74
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: summer

This is all politics. Many recent presidents, including Clinton, Reagan, Bush 1 and carter have used this power to conduct the same type of wiretype without court supervision or approval.

Many prominent legal and Constitutional scholars already acknowledge that Bush is within his rights as the POTUS.

These people are just laying the foundation for what is expected to be an impeachment attempt by the left later this year. We are simply witnesing the ugliest political infighting that has ever occurred in the history of the US. The danger here is that, depending on the amount of hyperbole, lies, bloviating and manipulation of the truth that is done by the left and their MSM handpuppets, we could well be witnessing the beginning of the end of our great Republic. The left would rather see America broken and divided into a gulag and a nation of free people with limited government, than give up these immature and dangerous attacks on the POTUS and the nation when we are at war.


27 posted on 01/17/2006 4:04:08 AM PST by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: summer

You can always count on the ACLU to sue to weaken national security and advance their communist agenda.

The American people understand the issue and if some in the courts do rule against Bush, even though the new Supreme Court should rule for Bush, it would be a great opportunity to finally rid our system of those judicial activists. Remember federal judges can be impeached to and if they rule against our security I can see judges loosing their jobs because of the noise the people will make over this.


28 posted on 01/17/2006 4:06:00 AM PST by BusiDad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: summer
The ACLU admits it is a "political" trial. The article says that the judge who "intervenes" has to have "courage." That is left speak for being an activist judge and having the balls to act outside the bounds of one's authority and professional standards to assist the left politically. Dan Rather's propaganda piece during the election on Bush's National Guard service was "courageous" and the Kennedys give away a "profile in courage" award to their favorite left wing zealot annually. In summary, this is an ACLU left-wing political trial that will hopefully go before a left wing judge who will step outside the bounds of the constitution and set the basis for the Left's impeachment of the President with a political decision against Bush.

All the activist judge has to do to help the Democrats make gains in the election is offer a decision against Bush which then Democrats and their press can use to claim Bush is a dangerous President. It will be a hysterical chant that Bush was found to have broken the law. The political damage will be done to Republicans way before it is heard by the Supreme Court and no matter what the Supreme Courts decides.

In other news the Scottish law professor and head of the Judicial committee, Arlen Spector, is egging the show trial on by showing "courage" and challenging the president's power to spy on terrorists. No one knows whether in Scotland it is permissible to spy on terrorists. But what Spector is doing is laying out the bait that he may be the "bi-partisan" support needed for impeachment if the Left can get a favorable decision in a political trial before an activist judge. The only reason Clinton did not get removed from office is because Democrats and their media stuck together like glue to protect Clinton during the impeachment. Bush will have no such party and press supporting him in the fall out of a unfavorable left wing political trial.

You heard it first here folks.
29 posted on 01/17/2006 4:15:31 AM PST by Galveston Grl (Getting angry and abandoning power to the Democrats is not a choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USNA74
But I also wonder how the fact that other Presidents have issued similar orders would factor in to a Court's decision to hear the case as a general violation of the 4th Amendment.

I'm not aware of any specific orders that reached outside of FISA, except for the warrantless physical entry into Aldrich Ames' home (FISA had no such provision at the time, it does have one now). The issue wasn't litigated, Ames' plead guilty. His lawyers planned to object to evidence gathered during that physical entry and search, BTW.

The fact that there is a body of cases isn't helpful to a putative plaintiff. Put yourself in there, could you bring a case? How do you know you were the target of surveillance? If there is a violation of the 4th amendment and the target isn't aware of it, is it really a violation?

30 posted on 01/17/2006 4:16:10 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

So if I'm reading your other posts correctly, they set precedent for you saying this ACLU case and Hitchens case should be thrown out.


31 posted on 01/17/2006 4:17:15 AM PST by patj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: summer
This is just a prelude to the reconstruction of the PA. Political posturing.
32 posted on 01/17/2006 4:18:55 AM PST by wolfcreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patj
So if I'm reading your other posts correctly, they set precedent for you saying this ACLU case and Hitchens case should be thrown out.

The posts I linked to outside of this thread don't discuss the notion of "standing."

I don't know the allegations made in the Hitchens and ACLU cases, and in this thread I am speculating that if the plaintiff doesn't allege (and later has to prove) that he was the target of warrantless surveillance, the case goes away - wrong plaintiff.

Otherwise, all anybody has to do is make some wacky claim in order to force the government to defend itself. Millions of surveillance suits - millions of "I was abducted" suits, etc. That doesn't mean nobody was abducted and held (see Padilla, Hamdan, Hamdi, etc.), just that abduction cases coming from people who haven't been can't be tolerated.

33 posted on 01/17/2006 4:27:53 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Methinks he's trying to get some judge to advocate a fishing expedition.


34 posted on 01/17/2006 4:32:34 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: summer

And I presume these folks can prove that their phones were wiretapped?


35 posted on 01/17/2006 4:33:36 AM PST by OldFriend (The Dems enABLEd DANGER and 3,000 Americans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Galveston Grl

Possibly, it could be to provoke a judge to say "well if you don't want the spying, ask Congress to stop it."


36 posted on 01/17/2006 4:34:15 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ashukla
Note the question is IF [whether or not] these specific people WERE monitored. I THINK this means the suit is to determine if they (specific people - Hitchens apparently included) were monitored. Now Gore has just called for a Special Prosecutor. I think the attempt is going to be made to subpoena NSA records to see if these people were monitored.

If the complaint reads as the article says, the plaintifffs will lose on a motion for summary judgement. The courts will not pierce national security secrecy based on a published allegation.

37 posted on 01/17/2006 4:35:08 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: summer

ACLU, if AQ is calling you I want to know why? Oh, that's right you're defending them.


38 posted on 01/17/2006 4:37:52 AM PST by Chgogal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Proud

True -- if they catch such a call there's no guarantee someone will be able to listen to it in a timely manner. Especially if Qaeda sympathizers greatly step up the number of "suspicious" calls in an attempt to overwhelm the system.


39 posted on 01/17/2006 4:37:59 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Thanks.


40 posted on 01/17/2006 4:40:48 AM PST by ashukla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: All

Congress seems to want to be locked in non-issue debate until the next Presidential election.

Are these high-paid whiners going to do any work for the people who elected them, or are we facing periodic charges du jour by the insane democrats and agenda-driven groups to smear the republican party?

We didn't hire a debate team to lob insults on a regular basis - there is more to being a member of the legislature than introducing this junk we keep witnessing.

Stop the partisanship and get back to work. They are all campaigning for their next election process - gives them more press/air time and it is costing us - the taxpayers.


41 posted on 01/17/2006 4:43:38 AM PST by imintrouble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: summer

Unless one of the plaintiffs can show that his fourth amendment rights were violated, the courts won't touch this.
Besides, if the President actually believes he has the authority to ignore the law, then anything the courts say won't much matter anyway. All the courts can do is tell him to stop. Can't imagine he'd listen. Ultimately, this is a political question, and the remedy will have to be political. If enough people believe that he's crossed the impeachment line, then he'll be impeached. Certainly no lawsuit will stop him.


42 posted on 01/17/2006 4:47:54 AM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saveliberty

you're welcome!


43 posted on 01/17/2006 4:54:37 AM PST by spkpls4 (Jeremiah 29:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Yes, I suppose it could be a good thing. Maybe.

When a state is a party, the case goes directly to SCOTUS as directed by the Constitution. If the President is a party, I'm quite sure the case moves up the federal court food chain like any other dispute. Now, imagine it showing up in front of a reliable Jimmy Carter or Bent Willie appointee. Said appointee drools at the thought of b!tch slapping President Bush. He orders a halt of surveillance of Al Qaeda contacts in US. The Prez knows that several attacks have been thwarted in the past. What should he do? Obey the utopian judge or protect these United States? I say protect us, and declare the courts have no jurisdiction over his constitutional power as commander in chief. My two cents.
44 posted on 01/17/2006 5:15:18 AM PST by Jacquerie (Democrats soil institutions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Proud
I tried to explain to her that the government has not the time or resources to listen to her discuss soap operas with her friend.

It's not that the government lacks the "time or resources" but that it arguably lacks the authority, absent probable cause. What the administration is claiming is that they can listen in, under the President's authority as CinC, to any message and decide, at their own discretion, whether to continue listening. This may or may not be a good thing in practice but it certainly removes the Presidency from the system of checks and balances.

45 posted on 01/17/2006 5:30:52 AM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ashukla; Grut
Re post #25 and #45 -- I did not have a chance to post the entire article because of the excerpt requirement for the NYT, but here is some other text from the article:

The lawsuits seek to answer one of the major questions surrounding the eavesdropping program: has it been used solely to single out the international phone calls and e-mail messages of people with known links to Al Qaeda, as President Bush and his most senior advisers have maintained, or has it been abused in ways that civil rights advocates say could hark back to the political spying abuses of the 1960's and 70's?

"There's almost a feeling of déjà vu with this program," said James Bamford, an author and journalist who is one of five individual plaintiffs in the A.C.L.U. lawsuit who say they suspect that the program may have been used to monitor their international communications.

"It's a return to the bad old days of the N.S.A.," said Mr. Bamford, who has written two widely cited books on the intelligence agency.


I watched some of Al Gore's speech last night, and while he wsa clearly playing to the audience at times, there was also a theme running through his speech which was thought-provoking, in that he, too, mentioned Lincoln and other presidents whose use of expanded power eventually contracted over time.

The point Gore made which caused me to pause was that along with GW's expanded power (legal or not), the "timeframe" for using this expanded power appears to be in perpetuity, in light of the nature of this war, unlike past presidents. This would seem to me to bring about a fundamental change in our government, unless one believes our government is spying illegally all the time anyway. And, some voters probably do believe that, and so, no big deal to them.

But, I don't know. It's not an issue that I can see directly impacting my life at this moment. And, I do think a president has greater authority during wartime. So, who knows...
46 posted on 01/17/2006 5:38:17 AM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: summer
And, I do think a president has greater authority during wartime.

A point I've made in a number of places is that Congress has the authority "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." Unless this is simply hollow rhetoric, this means the Congress controls the military. As a result, when the President assumes the role of CinC, he puts himself under Congress as the highest-ranking member of a subordinate military.

Since this is incompatible with the separation of powers, I further contend that CinC is in fact a separate position from President, with the only requirement for the job being that the person who is CinC must also be the person who is President. Because the job of CinC has less autonomy than the Presidency, and because its a different job than President, my final contention is that the assertion that functioning as CinC broadens the President's powers is, to use a technical term, hooey.

47 posted on 01/17/2006 6:00:08 AM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: summer
Lawsuits sponsored by the NY Slimes in order to cover their a*s. So far from all this "reporting" the Slimes have failed to make this case a "whistle-blowers" case and have failed to show the illegality of the program other than another he said, she said. I'm starting to think they ain't got nothing because Tice, one source, has nothing but is all over the air-waves with speculations of legal matters. After scrutinizing Risen's book, there's nothing but he said, she said legal questions to nothing more than speculative occurrences to "Americans" as reported from anonymous sources that we know now one is Tice.
48 posted on 01/17/2006 6:12:44 AM PST by Wasanother (Terrorist come in many forms but all are RATS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grut
Because the job of CinC has less autonomy than the Presidency, and because its a different job than President, my final contention is that the assertion that functioning as CinC broadens the President's powers is, to use a technical term, hooey.

Maybe you're right, and if so, I hope this matter reaches the courts and the courts agree with you.

On the other hand, there is part of me still sympathetic, in a way, to whomever is currently our nation's CinC, because I do not want that person to be hampered in carrying out the very difficult decisions and tasks required of that person.

I would hope that person and Congress could agree on the best course of action in whatever instance, and that politics might be put aside for such an important matter as defending our nation. Unfortunately, politics always seems to get in the way...
49 posted on 01/17/2006 6:31:32 AM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: summer

I know about the posting requirements. I missed Gore's speech. I'd take pause at what you mentioned also because it's a scare tactic which is how the left always makes its appeal, doesn't matter what's the issue. So Gore thinks because the war APPEARS to be in perpetuity we must limit the president's powers. Makes no sense. The President spelled it out very well as to the nature of the war. It would be long, fought on many fronts and those fronts were not all on the field of battle. If the Democrats (or anybody) wants to say something, I'll listen. Like Kerry-plan, I would have listened If he actually had one. He didn't. None of them do. Just throwing their lies to the media who sends them out to the echo chamber so they can get their votes in order to retain their glorious taxpayer funded lifestyle and perhaps seize power again so they can conspire more against the good people of this great nation.


50 posted on 01/17/2006 7:05:04 AM PST by ashukla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson