home

Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NSA Surveillance Illegal

The Supreme Court has never upheld such a sweeping power to invade the privacy of Americans at home without individualized suspicion or judicial oversight.

Law Prof Geoffrey Stone at Huffington Post writes that 14 constitutional scholars and former government officials have written a letter to Congress detailing the reasons that Bush's warrantless electronic surveillance program violates the law.

Although the program's secrecy prevents us from being privy to all of its details, the Justice Department's defense of what it concedes was secret and warrantless electronic surveillance of persons within the United States fails to identify any plausible legal authority for such surveillance. Accordingly the program appears on its face to violate existing law.

The letter includes some legalese:

With minor exceptions, FISA authorizes electronic surveillance only upon certain specified showings, and only if approved by a court. The statute specifically allows for warrantless wartime domestic electronic surveillance--but only for the first fifteen days of a war. 50 U.S.C. § 1811. It makes criminal any electronic surveillance not authorized by statute, id. § 1809; and it expressly establishes FISA and specified provisions of the federal criminal code (which govern wiretaps for criminal investigation) as the "exclusive means by which electronic surveillance ... may be conducted," 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) (emphasis added).

Next, the letter explains the flaws in the Justice Department's attempt to legitimize the program.

[DOJ] maintains, however, that the program did not violate existing law because Congress implicitly authorized the NSA program when it enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against al Qaeda, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). But the AUMF cannot reasonably be construed to implicitly authorize warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during wartime, where Congress has expressly and specifically addressed that precise question in FISA and limited any such warrantless surveillance to the first fifteen days of war.

On the issue of presidential authority, the scholars write:

...even conceding that the President in his role as Commander in Chief may generally collect signals intelligence on the enemy abroad, Congress indisputably has authority to regulate electronic surveillance within the United States, as it has done in FISA. Where Congress has so regulated, the President can act in contravention of statute only if his authority is exclusive, and not subject to the check of statutory regulation. The DOJ letter pointedly does not make that extraordinary claim.

The last argument is that the program is violative of the 4th Amendment, noting that the Supreme Court has yet to uphold warrantless wiretapping in the United States.

[Graphic created exclusively for TalkLeft by C.L.]

< Blogger Off to Africa and War Crimes Trial | Lobbying Firm Closes, Abramoff Reaches Pariah Status >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#2)
    by Johnny on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 05:24:24 AM EST
    Why do constitutional scholars want Al Qaeda to invade our shopping malls?

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 05:27:01 AM EST
    Hmmm.. Why do I believe that the real story is..... 14 Democratic/Leftwing constitutional scholars believe... and the NSA employee said:
    The Defense Department psychologist concluded that Tice suffered from psychotic paranoia, according to Tice. "


    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 05:35:50 AM EST
    Here comes the blind commissioner They've got him in a trance One hand is tied to the tight-rope walker The other is in his pants ... The Titanic sails at dawn And everybody's shouting "Which Side Are You On?" --Desolation Row

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#5)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 06:07:43 AM EST
    Hmmm.. Why do I believe that the real story is.....
    Because you are a delusional Bush apologist.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 06:11:42 AM EST
    SD and edgeer - I notice you don't challenge my points. You just atttack... SD - When you attack my sanity I gotta grin. You're the one that believes you're loosing your civil rights.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 06:13:46 AM EST
    I think it's fairly obvious to all but the kool-aid-aholics that laws were broken. Now, some Bush supporters may argue that it's a good thing Bush broke the law. But to continue to deny laws were broken is just nuts.

    SD and edgeer - I notice you don't challenge my points. You just atttack...
    Jim, perhaps they would challenge your points if the points you made were not blanket assumptions. Go read the letter that these constitutional scholars have sent to Congress, pick out specific points that you disagree with, and provide your view of why they are wrong. If you want to just attack the assumed political views of a former FBI director, numerous law professors, and a few former Justice Department officials, fine, but don’t expect anyone to give you an intelligent response.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#9)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 06:24:47 AM EST
    PPj you had no points only an assertion you didn't back up. Until you back up your assertion about everyone being liberal etc then as usual you have nothing.

    Richard Epstein James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor, University of Chicago Law School Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution Yep, because we all know what a hotbed of Leftists/Democrats the Hoover Institution is. Harold Hongju Koh Dean and Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law, Yale Law School Former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor 1998-2001 Former Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ, 1983-85 And we all know what a hotbed of Leftism the first Reagan Administration was William S. Sessions Former Director, FBI Former Chief United States District Judge, Western District of Texas Yes, even a 'law-n-order' type like Sessions turns out to be a terrorist sympathizer from the left. Who'd thunk it.? William W. Van Alstyne Lee Professor, William and Mary Law School Former Attorney, Department of Justice, 1958 He must be one of those pinkos that the John Birch society used to warn us about, eh? Now, let's look at the claim: Why do I believe that the real story is..... 14 Democratic/Leftwing constitutional scholars believe. Yes, all 14 of them, PPJ. I do believe that you didn't read the letter or check out the signatories to it thereof, but the fact that you perceive them as anti-Bush is all you needed to proceed. Oh, and PPJ, if you look at the opinion, the sanity or lack thereof of Mr Tice has nothing to do with it, he is not mentioned by name anywhere in the letter. Good smear attempt, I'm sure that if Joe McCarthy were alive he'd have been proud of you and how you don't let reality get in the way of your opinion, such as it is. Will there ever be a thread criticizing the Shrub malAdministration where you won't try to get it off topic? From one of the comments:
    Yeah, but do these folks really trump what Rush Limbaugh thinks? LOL I wouldn't be surprised to see a wingnut post dimissing these folks as liberal elite with an agenda. That is if they made it far enough through to read the names...
    Change Flush Bimbaugh to Faux Snews(that's what 'some people say') and he's talking about our boy Baldrick the Whizzy. You get an E for effort and not much more, Ms. Scarlett. Fiddle-dee-dee, Melanie!

    The bottom line is really simple, these wire taps save lives and victimize nobody. And don't start quoting laws, documents, etc, etc, because while these things are important, they don't even begin to trump the importance of saving one American life. I will begin to take you lefties seriously when you start this conversation this way.........."While these wire taps are absolutely necessary in the age of the dirty bomb, there legality is in question........"

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#12)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 08:10:07 AM EST
    And don't start quoting laws, documents, etc, etc, because while these things are important, they don't even begin to trump the importance of saving one American life. Especially if it's yours, eh Variable? The very core of the reptile philosophy. Dude you should be working at Gitmo.

    The bottom line is really simple, these wire taps save lives and victimize nobody And you know that because? And don't start quoting laws, documents, etc, etc, because while these things are important, they don't even begin to trump the importance of saving one American life. Yes, 'we had to trample on the Constitution or the terrorists will kill us in our beds' is a good defense. By the way, if you substitute "Soviet" for American, then it becomes a study in nostalgia. Just saying.........

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#14)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 08:12:34 AM EST
    don't start quoting laws, documents, etc, etc, because while these things are important, they don't even begin to trump the importance of saving one American life. Well then, by all means let's do away with the Second Amendment as well as the Fourth. After all, in societies such as Japan, where citizens do not have the same rights to gun ownership that we do, there are virtually no deaths from gunshots. Guns kill many more people in America each year than the total of all terrorist attacks in American history, so in the interest of saving a few thousand precious American lives every year, let's get rid of the guns now legally in citizens' hands. After all, as you said, saving lives is more important than that silly Bill of Rights. Right?

    The bottom line is really simple, these wire taps save lives and victimize nobody.
    Wrong, it is a slow erosion of our civil liberties and jeopardizes the entire checks and balance system.
    And don't start quoting laws
    Why? We are a nation of laws. Remember, these wiretaps are legal as long as the government agency engaged in wiretapping gets a warrant.

    http://www.anncoulter.com I know you all hate her...but you should read this....

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#17)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 08:47:41 AM EST
    Variable, Nothing in the Constitution or the BOR gives us the right to drive cars, which kill tens of thousands every year. Have you yet grasped the consequences of your rediculous comment?

    From Coulter's article:
    It seems the Bush administration — being a group of sane, informed adults — has been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants.
    Only Arab terrorists? Nobody knows exactly who the Bush administration has been secretly wiretapping, because it is classified.

    I know this is off topic, but I just can't resist. Repack, do have any idea how idiotic it makes you sound when you assign responsibility for something to an inanimate object. Saying that guns kill people, is the equivalent of saying forks make people fat. But then again, in Japan they don't use forks and you hardly ever see fat orientals. Maybe your on to something there......

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 08:59:16 AM EST
    Variable, I know this is off topic, but I just can't resist. Repack, do have any idea how idiotic it makes you sound You know that Repack was painting a picture by analogy. I don't think you are stupid, so I don't imagine you missed his point. Rather it looks like you intentionally disregarded it, perhaps because you have no substantive response to it? Do you have any idea how idiotic that makes you sound?

    Charlie... Am I goin' too fast for ya? No...but you rarely make any sense so it doesn't really matter. Ann makes some good points whether you consider her a Nazi or not! dismissed & expelled!

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 09:28:36 AM EST
    Ann makes some good points? She does indeed. Let me see... uhhh... hmmm... well... give me some time on this... there must be one, at least isn't there? Ahhh! I've got it! She let's us know what cheney in drag looks like, and sounds like. She is art itself.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 09:55:20 AM EST
    BB, My humblest apologies. With some research I found a couple of "good" points Coulter has made:
    "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." "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."


    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#24)
    by roger on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 10:05:45 AM EST
    As to the comment that nobody is harmed. I have a friend who called his brother overseas. His brother had a roomate. My friend spent a month in the Federal pen before he was released as no threat. 30 agents showed up for the arrest. I am sure that constitutes "no harm" Jim- I've told you before that W's argument does not pass the "laugh test". I dont question you on engineering issues, you should refrain from legal analysis

    Shouldn't we be safe now? Shrub has repeatedly warned us that the terrorists hate us because of our liberties and he has siglehandedly saved us by eliminating those dangerous liberties that some of us dearly cherished. And where were the vociferous self-styled conservative patriots when Shrub eliminated our liberties? They were cowering in terror.

    you should refrain from legal analysis It's not legal analysis, it's "Fire, Aim, Ready!".

    edgar.. My humblest apologies. With some research I found a couple of "good" points Coulter has made See...I knew we could agree on something! Et al... And... oh by the way. I know ALL of you got your panties in a bunch when JFK wiretapped Martin Luther King back in the 60's didn't ya?

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 12:59:53 PM EST
    BB: I knew we could agree on something! I was only about 9 years old when JFK wiretapped Martin Luther King back in the 60's so I didn't even know it happened, but I'll take your word for it. Also I was too young too have a clue then. Ali was around though, and we could probably also agree on one of his thoughts: "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." --Muhammad Ali

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    btw, it's "edger", not "edgar" :)

    Edger... Sorry about the mispell... "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." I agree 100% and will give you the old line I heard many years ago in that same vien and that still holds true... "If you're not a liberal while in your 20's, you have no heart...and if you're not conservative by the time you're in your 40's, you have no brain"

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 01:12:23 PM EST
    Careful there BB, or I'll spell your name wrong! ;-)

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 01:36:27 PM EST
    "If you're not a liberal while in your 20's, you have no heart...and if you're not conservative by the time you're in your 40's, you have no brain"
    "If you're not a bit of both by the time you're 50, you have no hope." --Edger, January 10,2006


    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 01:37:22 PM EST
    SD - I never said the "14" were liberal. I said they were Democratic/Leftwing. Please try to be accurate. Darkly - My, my you do rattle on. Ta Ta charlienolink writes:
    And of course shmenie boy would have have no problem if say a President Hillary Clinton were to have these powers.
    That is called an assertion with no facts beyond your opinion. Which is about your only demonstrated talent. That and insults.
    Ann Coulter is neo-nazi trash and anyone who takes her seriously is a fookin' moron wasting what precious little oxygen the dick cheney's of the world have left us. Am I goin' too fast for ya?
    Too fast? Actually charlienolinks, after a careful review of your many unsupported comments I would say you haven't the ability to start, much less move. Roger - Good engineering is so strightforward that the results can be easily understood by any intelligent person. Law should be the same, and I think this is. The President has the power. BTW - Can anyone name me an US Person who has been spied upon in this manner? Or "harmed?" Edger - I didn't know you were a fan of AC. Your smarter than I thought. ;-)

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 01:44:44 PM EST
    jeezus - not the infomercial again...

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#35)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 01:46:03 PM EST
    PPj worried about my accuracy now thats funny from the man who continues to make unsubstantiated claims in the face of mouting evidence to the contrary. He definitely believes his own propaganda.

    Roger - Good engineering is so strightforward that the results can be easily understood by any intelligent person. Law should be the same, and I think this is.
    Jim, This is an apples to oranges comparison at best.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#37)
    by roger on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 02:44:19 PM EST
    Jim, I gave you an example of someone harmed, I will not give his name as I dont want to cause him any more trouble. Law straightforward? Anyone can get it? We'd (lawyers) all be out of work if that were true. Trust me- there is no reasonable argument that W has the power to wiretap americans without a warrant. We have been through all this before with Nixon

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#38)
    by Johnny on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 02:48:19 PM EST
    The fact that Ann Coulter is used as a reference point by some, disturbs me. BB, not even the most liberal of liberals supports the idea of sending those with opposing idealogies to gitmo. You use a woman who has been known to advocate mass murder of all who disagree with her. Jim, this goes for you as well... That is what makes her a nazi. Also Jim, you were burned on your rant about the "constitutional scholars", and the wrong-wingers on this board use a rant from a fascist to back up their opinions that eroding civil liberties is fine. BTW BB, the misquote you used is attributed to Winston Churchill, a reknowned drunk.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 02:56:43 PM EST
    By all means, the president/executive branch has the right and the obligation to authorize surveillance on people he has reason to believe are planning to commit terrorist acts. He must simply obtain a warrant, as the law dictates. If he fails to obtain a warrant, he has broken the law and should be held accountable. End of story.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#40)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 03:05:58 PM EST
    There are four simple reasons why we haven't been attacked since 9/11. 1) Wiretaps 2) Patriot Act 3) Secret Prisons / Guantanamo 4) Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan All complaints and reactions to these mesures when it comes to our "rights" predictions and assumptions. Maybe Bush is breking the law, maybe innocents are being improsoned, maybe somebody fed terrorists to lions, etc... All these issues are debatable. The main fact that I and the majority of Americans care about is not debatetable.. No attacks in the USA since 9/11. Are liberals willing to admit that these policies work? No. They want it both ways. They want to complain during the process and then deny that the process works. Variable is right. This president is doing his job. Protecting americans. The left in this country is all but admittng that the rights of criminals and terrorists are more important then the lives and well being of our citizens. The President doesn't agree with you. Thank God. America has had two chances to make a choice between these two competing theories in 2002 and 2004. They made the right choice then and if the democrats keep it up they'll make it again in 2006. Keep it up.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#41)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 03:14:08 PM EST
    put Slado in the Prez is above the law column. Your brownshirt is in the mail. The reason we haven't been attacked here is that they are too busy killing our soldiers in iraq. However, given that Bush is doing all he can to make 1 billion Muslims hate us, another attack is inevitable.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#42)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 03:20:38 PM EST
    Thanks for making my point for me. Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Are you reading from W's talking points? Would you like your brown shirt in XL or XXL? But don't take my word for it, take the word of the American people. From CNN... On the topic of civil liberties, 38 percent of those polled said the Bush administration has gone too far in restricting civil liberties, while 40 percent said the government's approach has been "about right," and 19 percent said the government had not gone far enough. That's 59% that say keep it up. Even if I didn't support the Pres I'd still be making the same point. The NSA, terrorist issue is a loser on the scale of Terri Shivo for the dems. Drop it. But as Rush says "They don't know when to take my advice"

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 03:23:56 PM EST
    There are four simple reasons why we haven't been attacked since 9/11 That may or may not be true, and whether it is or is not true is highly debateable, elsewhere. It is not the topic of this thread. No attacks in the USA since 9/11. And none previously either, other than the attempted bombing of the same place, the WTC. Curious that, huh? Ever stop to think that the target of both attacks was an economic symbol, not the country? Also debateable. And also not the topic of this thread. Back on topic... anything else?

    I never said the "14" were liberal. I said they were Democratic/Leftwing. Which included a couple of Reagan appointees, including a guy fired by Clinton. Uh-huh. You didn't tell us that you started using medical mj, PPJ. You might want to cut back on the dosage a bit, that would explain the giggling as well........
    Darkly - My, my you do rattle on. Ta Ta
    Gotta link to back up your claim that any or all of the people I listed are Democratic/Leftists? See, this is what happens when you make a falsifiable claim out your a**, it gets reality tested, and you've been shown to be an ignorant blowhard at best or a not-very-bright liar at worse in your current claim. This reminds me of you:
    A person not persuaded by the force of logic operates on the principle of the logic of force.
    Can anyone name me an US Person who has been spied upon in this manner? Or "harmed?" Since the operation was conducted in secrecy, how can anyone make that determination without access to the records of these operations? Howbout this from ST:TOS "Patterns of Force"?
    Spock: Captain, I never will understand humans. How could a man as brilliant, a mind as logical as John Gill's, have made ... such a fatal error? Kirk: He drew the wrong conclusion from history. The problem with the Nazis ... wasn't simply that their leaders were evil, psychotic men. They were, but the main problem, I think, was the Leader Principle. McCoy: What he's saying is that a man holds that much power, even with the best intentions, Just can't resist the urge to play God. Spock: Thank you, Doctor. I was able to gather the meaning. It also proves another Earth saying -- "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". McCoy: Darn clever, these Earthmen, wouldn't you say? Spock: Yes. Earthmen like Ramses, Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Lee Kuan. Your whole Earth history is made up of men seeking absolute power. McCoy: Spock, you obviously -- Spock: Obviously, Doctor, you fail to-- Kirk:Gentlemen. We've been through one civil war. Let's not start another. Mr. Chekov, take us out of orbit. Warp factor two, and hurry.
    Yes, it's not like unchecked executive power has ever been a problem in human history, any concerns in this area are just a form of hysteria and Leftist/Democratic anti-Americanism. Gotcha.

    Slado, Your quote from CNN:
    On the topic of civil liberties, 38 percent of those polled said the Bush administration has gone too far in restricting civil liberties, while 40 percent said the government's approach has been "about right," and 19 percent said the government had not gone far enough.
    Now for the on topic poll:
    A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,003 adults found that 50 percent of those polled believe it's OK to forego warrants when ordering electronic surveillance of people suspected of having ties to terrorists abroad. Another 46 percent said the policy is wrong, and 4 percent said they had no opinion.
    How convenient that you left this on topic poll out of your post.
    Trust me- there is no reasonable argument that W has the power to wiretap americans without a warrant. We have been through all this before with Nixon
    Absolutely correct

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#46)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:11:52 PM EST
    Thanks for making my point for me. Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Are you reading from W's talking points?
    hey cant you read the topic, its about illegal surveillance. There is no height of stupidity of dishonesty you wont go to twist things. But thats what i expect from you.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#47)
    by Patrick on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:25:24 PM EST
    The reason we haven't been attacked here is that they are too busy killing our soldiers in iraq.
    Soccerdad, if you belive this, then you believe we are safer because of the war in Iraq. can't have it both ways on that point. Not saying I disagree with you, I think it is exactly what is happening, and the soldiers putting themselves in harms way are heroes.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 04:57:25 PM EST
    What are we protecting from attack? Merely our lives? Life is cheap, some poor slob got hit by a truck this morning. I thought it something more. I thought we are trying to protect our "way of life"...freedom, liberty, and justice FOR ALL! The Bill of Rights! Cowardice or surrender to fear and the sacrifice of our ideals is a fate worse than death, is it not Slado? Or can we at least wait until the Arabian hordes storm our shores before we declare martial law? The Bush admin. must be held accountable for senseless lawbreaking lest we set a terrible precedent in the likely decades long "war on terror".

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#49)
    by roger on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 05:14:52 PM EST
    If Osama hated us for our freedom, he must love us now!

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 06:53:21 PM EST
    Edger writes:
    And none previously either, other than the attempted bombing of the same place, the WTC.
    You keep making this same comment. It is not true. There are at least two. The USS Cole. The (planned) attack on LAX in which the attackers were captured at the border. Darkly - Well, you are the ones making the claim. If you are to be taken seriously, you should be able to prove the claim. "Look,Ma! A flying saucer!" BTW - When anyone starts quoting a scifi TV series... I mean really. My, my. How you do rattle on. Johnny - Not at all. DA popped up four names who may very well be Democratic or Leftist. Since no one has done the research, I'll just go with my heart on this one. As for AC, she has a sharp tongue and uses sarcasm. Catch her if you can... mac - Not at all. Good clear, easy to understand results from the application of laws, be they judical or engineering, leads to clear and easy understanding. Roger writes:
    I gave you an example of someone harmed, I will not give his name as I dont want to cause him any more trouble.
    And he was done so because his telephone/internet communications were tapped? Roger, do your friend a favor and get him touch with Ga. Soros. He should be able to get a million or so. BTW - You are one of the few around here I would even reply to on the above. Just wanted you to know.
    I wrote: Edger - I didn't know you were a fan of AC. Your smarter than I thought. ;-)...
    Edger replied:
    jeezus - not the infomercial again...
    Ok, I take the compliment back. Your not. ;-)

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#51)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 06:59:01 PM EST
    Soccerdad, if you belive this, then you believe we are safer because of the war in Iraq. can't have it both ways on that point.
    Of course you forgot to note the rest of what I said. The war in Iraq is temporarily making us safer, but the long term effect will be to make us less safe, since as everyday goes by more and more Muslims hate us because of our policies. So in effect the increased safety is a temporary mirage. I have no doubt we will be attacked again. Our policies should make things better not worse.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 07:06:19 PM EST
    Slado, You could be right, and perhaps we just need to wipe out a few million people in the ME to be even more "safe and secure", but I don't think so. Terrorists have no NEED to attack here again after 9/11. They acheived their goal in that attack, and they drew us into a game they wanted us to play, which they knew we couldn't "win" by our definition of that word. And I think they're quite happy we got rid of Saddam Hussein so Iraq can become a more "Islamic" state. Well done.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#53)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 08:09:27 PM EST
    The following is a PPJ post after you have removed the snark and obvioys propaganda:

    Well, you are the ones making the claim. If you are to be taken seriously, you should be able to prove the claim.
    "Look,Ma! A flying saucer!"
    BTW - When anyone starts quoting a scifi TV series... I mean really.
    Gotta link to refute my quote? No? Didn't think so! As Huxley said of Bishop Wilberforce
    The Lord hath delivered him into mine hands.
    Wikipedia entry on William Sessions
    William Steele Sessions (b. May 27, 1930 in Fort Smith, Arkansas) is a civil servant who served as a judge and director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Sessions served as FBI director from 1987 to 1993, when he was fired by President Clinton.
    ................. In 1987 Sessions was nominated to succeed William H. Webster as FBI Director by President Ronald Reagan and was sworn in November 2, 1987 Now, to prevent you moaning and howling about using the Wikipedia:
    He continued his reporting on that case, and Clinton-Gore scandals as a correspondent with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.In 1997, Mr. Ruddy authored The Strange Death of Vincent Foster: An Investigation published published by Simon & Schuster's Free Press. His book received the endorsement of former FBI Director William Sessions, who said Mr. Ruddy's reporting "argued a persuasive case that the American public has not been told the complete facts" of the Foster death.
    Check it out! As for the Hoover Institute:
    The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace is a conservative/libertarian public policy think tank and library founded by Herbert Hoover at Stanford University, his alma mater. It recently has been called Bush's 'brain trust', as some of its fellows have connections to the Bush administration. The Institution was founded in 1919 and over time has amassed a huge archive of documentation related to Hoover, World War I, and World War II, specifically focusing on the root causes of these wars.
    Yep, that's the kind of place that would have a leftist as part of their organization. As for Richard Epstein
    He prefers to be identified as a classical liberal rather than as a libertarian. Perhaps his most well-known work is Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, published by Harvard University Press in 1985. In that book, Epstein argues the government should be regarded with the same respect any other private entity in a property dispute. Though Senator Joseph Biden denounced the book in Justice Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings, the book served as a focal point in the argument about the government's ability to control private property.
    Yeah he's just this side of being a Stalinist. Harold Hongji Koh
    Dean Koh is the author of a number of books, including The National Security Constitution: Sharing Power after the Iran-Contra Affair (Yale University Press,1990); Transnational Legal Problems (with Harry Steiner and Detlev Vagts, Foundation Press, 1994); and Deliberative Democracy and Human Rights (with Ronald C. Slye, Yale University Press, 1999). He has also written many book chapters, law review articles, and other published works.
    Yeah, he's just a terrorist appeaser at heart. Off to Gitmo with him. William W. Van Alstyne
    Professor Van Alstyne’s professional writings have appeared during four decades in the principal law journals in the United States, with frequent republication in foreign journals. They address virtually every major subject in the field of constitutional law. His work has been cited in a large number of judicial opinions including those of the Supreme Court. The Journal of Legal Studies for January, 2000, named Professor Van Alstyne in the top forty most frequently cited legal scholars in the United States of the preceding half-century.
    Hell, he's a Troskyite version of Alan Dershowitz, that much is obvious.
    DA popped up four names who may very well be Democratic or Leftist.
    Hey, PPJ, this was like shooting fish in a barrel. Got any other misconceptions that you'd like to share with us today? I'll just go with my heart on this one. Yes, you listened to your heart about Sessions, now you get your a** handed to you on a silver platter. So sad, senor! Oh, and dissing the Wikipedia won't work, as it's not the only source I've used tonight. You'll have to find links to prove me wrong, and show me what Leftists/Democrats the above 4 are. Can you prove your heart right? TTFN, Whizzy.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#55)
    by roger on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 03:56:27 AM EST
    Jim, Several weeks in jail for owning a phone, I wish that he would/could sue! You're wrong on this one, and well out of the mainstream, hey, we all get tagged occasionally! Better to admit it and move on. Illegal wiretaps are just plain, well.....um....illegal

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 06:22:34 AM EST
    Roger - My question was simple. Name me someone who has been spyed on by the NSA and harmed. You have danced on the issue. Was the NSA involved? Darkly - My, my. You do rattle on.
    You want a link to refute your qupte from a science fiction TV series? Okay, from the movie, Forest Gump. "Stupid is as stupid does."
    As to why you bring up "Sessions," I haven't the least. Kinda wandering around, were you? BTW - There was an interesting word in one of the quotes:
    libertarian
    One might pause and consider what the libertarian view point is regarding anything government. I find it amusing that the Left must make common ground with libertarians on this issue. Have you also contacted Pat Buchanan? I'm sure he'll be anti-anti-anti. As* handed? Silver platter? I think not Darkly. Especially from the world's greatest picker. My heart tells me these people have an agenda. When I see "libertarian" mentioned my mind agrees. So do 64% of the Anerican People In the meantime, please feel free to waste time... pick, pick, pick... dadler writes:
    Terrorists have no NEED to attack here again after 9/11.
    Guy, that is just plain funny. You are smarter than that.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#57)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 06:52:17 AM EST
    Dadler, wipe out a few million people in the ME This is a ridiculous exageration. Nobody "wants" to wipe out millions of Muslims. If you disagree with the use of force or war just say so. No need to exagerate to make your point. They acheived their goal in that attack, and they drew us into a game they wanted us to play Do you think OBL had in his "master plan" the removal of the Taliban, our presence in iraq and his hiding in a cave unable to do what he was doing before 9/11? I don't. Call me crazy. He anticipated a Clinton type response from Bush and he didn't get it. He made the miscalculation. Not us. Before Bush's policies Al Queda pulled of two attacks in NYC, the Cole bombing, Kobar Towers etc... No attack like that has happened since Bush took office. That was not part of the "plan". And I think they're quite happy we got rid of Saddam Hussein so Iraq can become a more "Islamic" state. Well done. This is debatable. But if you read Stephen Hadleys article in the weekly standard you will see evidence that Saddam was not the securalist critics of the war make him out to be.

    Roger.. We have been through all this before with Nixon And ... (don't forget) Kennedy Johnny... BB, not even the most liberal of liberals supports the idea of sending those with opposing idealogies to gitmo. LOL... well if you take everyone literally.... I see where you'd have a problem. BTW BB, the misquote you used is attributed to Winston Churchill, a reknowned drunk I'm aware of who it is supposedly attributed to. I didn't mention him.... so how is it a 'misquote'? It really doesn't matter... it's still a very pertinent statement. Soccerdad... given that Bush is doing all he can to make 1 billion Muslims hate us, another attack is inevitable. I hate to burst your bubble...(you can come out of your cave now)....millions of mulsims hated us long before GW showed up! DA... I think you watch waaaay too much TV

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#59)
    by Patrick on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 08:12:56 AM EST
    Of course you forgot to note the rest of what I said. The war in Iraq is temporarily making us safer, but the long term effect will be to make us less safe, since as everyday goes by more and more Muslims hate us because of our policies.
    Soccerdad, Well that's debatable since I believe we would have been attacked again at some point anyway. So if I understand you correctly, when we are attacked, in America again, this will be proof to you of a failed policy? See, I think it's just a matter of time, and is a result of fanatical religious beliefs, and it doesn't matter if we practice appeasment or conflict.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#60)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 08:45:42 AM EST
    Patrick, we will be attacked again, becausethe undelying policies of the US and Britain towards the ME has not changed for the better and have in fact gotten worse. Britain and/or the US have been occupying and/or interfering with the ME for the entire 20th century and now into the 21th. They are tired of us trying to control the area in order to take their oil. If we had not invaded, we would still have been attacked since our policies have not changes. Having invaded we may have postponed an attack but have given OBL credibility by proving him correct in all his pronouncements about the US and, in his mind, imperialist intentions. When you act in an imperialist manner the locals will get pissed. As an example of early US policy in the ME: In 1953 the US helped Britain overthrow the government in Iran and install the Shah because the governement was going to nationalize the oil industry. BTW the policy has been independent of the party in power.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 09:13:56 AM EST
    SD - In 1953... I think it was in 1956 that the US refused to join with England and France to take back control of the Suez Canal from Egypt.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 09:22:41 AM EST
    Darkly - My, my you do rattle on... Of course no one is paying attention... Pick, pick... Using a Libertarian as an example of people not wanting the government to do something is laughable.... pick, pick, pick.... but keep on explaining... Ta Ta BTW - Using "Media Matters" as an example/source? Hey, that is at least funny. The difference between them and NewsMax is I know NewsMax is biased. You haven't caught on about Mwdia.... Have you checked in with moveon and kos this AM? Toutle To!!

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#63)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 09:49:14 AM EST
    PPJ i wasn't talking about the canal was I. Thanks for another irrelevant comment.

    Britain and/or the US have been occupying and/or interfering with the ME for the entire 20th century and now into the 21th.
    Well, actually, due to trade, the west and the ME have been "interfering" with, and periodically occupying each other for, oh, about mellenia now. And for at least a millenia before that, the ME had been trading with and had been "interfering" with, and been "interfered" with by, many others. And, during those past couple millenias, when they had the power, the ME periodically occupied, and when they didn't have the power, they were periodically occupied by, many others, including inter-ME conflicts. In general, those in the ME who have something to trade (oil, today) want the power to trade with those who want their oil solely on their own terms. Naturally this conflicts with the wants of those, who, in general, want the power to trade with those in the ME who have oil on their own terms. This struggle over trade and power has resulted in repeated conflict involving the ME for well over 2000 years now. Is there anyone here on TL who really thinks they have a permanant solution to this type of conflict that the past several millenia of thinkers haven't been able to come up with?

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#65)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 10:07:50 AM EST
    Sarcastic, Well thanks for conflating thousands of years of history in an attempt to cover up the verys specific role the US has had in the last 100+ years. Now there is oil. Thats relativiely new at least on your time scale. There is no hope of resolving this, because there isn't one Rep or Dem who is going to let go of ME oil. If you want the oil, and your going to take it by force or by setting up/propping up unpopular regimes you are going to have to learn to live with terrorism.

    Soc, we are in agreement. I'll only add that we ain't seen nothin' yet - any guesses what'll happen when the only oil left is in the ME?

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 10:39:01 AM EST
    Soccerdad: If you want the oil, and your going to take it by force or by setting up/propping up unpopular regimes you are going to have to learn to live with terrorism. Right on the money, Soc. It doesn't get any more succinct than that, I think... For those who are thinking of reciting a few "talking points" in response to what Soccerdad just said: You now know the cause of the problem. But then again, you always have known, just pretended that you didn't. Got any more brilliant ideas? Or is your best one just that more bullets and bombs should solve a self created problem for you?

    Soc, as an add on, when I say trade and power I assume we all understand that they are and have been inextricably intertwined with Islam in the ME for the past millenia or so.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 12:22:59 PM EST
    Darkly, pick, pick, pick... My, my how you do rattle on. Got anymore libertarians you want to join forces with? sigh... So boring.. SD writes:
    PPJ i wasn't talking about the canal was I. Thanks for another irrelevant comment.
    No, what you were talkking about was:
    As an example of early US policy in the ME: In 1953 the US helped Britain overthrow
    Now, since you were talking about examples of early US policy.... I naturallly thought you would like to have several. But no, you just wanted to tell us a little fib by leaving out something.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 01:29:18 PM EST
    SD, edger, et. al. (but has al et yet. that's a little joke, son) I think this thread is evidence enough that engaging with PPJ isn't possible on a good faith effort. DA, It reminds me of the guy who went bear hunting one day with his .3030, up and down the mountain all day, no bears in sight anywhere. Finally at dusk on the way home he spots a bear on the other side of the ravine, draws a bead on him, pulls the trigger, and boom!, flash!, big puff of smoke!. Smoke clears... no bear! Oooops! Then he feels a tap on his shoulder, looks back and the bear is towering over him saying "These is my woods, bud! You don't come in my woods and shoot at me! Drop your pants and bend over! We all know what happened next... ;-) Guy goes home. Next day goes back out and tries again with an elephant gun... Predictably with the same result. We all know what happened next... ;-) Guy goes home. Next day heads back out, this time with a bazooka! Out there stumbling around all day... Finally at dusk on the way home he spots the bear on the other side of the ravine, draws a bead on him, pulls the trigger, and KABOOM!, flash!, BIG! puff of smoke. Smoke clears... no bear! "Oh, sh*t!" Then he feels a tap on his shoulder, looks back and the bear is towering over him saying: "You don't come here for the huntin', do ya son?" ;-)

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#72)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 01:31:00 PM EST
    Soc, we are in agreement. I'll only add that we ain't seen nothin' yet - any guesses what'll happen when the only oil left is in the ME?
    Here's what I am worried about. I would bet money on an attack on Iran by either the US or Israel. They will attack nuclear facilities but I would guess that our precise bombs will hit some oil infrastructure by "accident". I would also be willing to bet if they attack they will use tactical nukes, the ones that are supposed to go into the ground 20 ft before exploding. The obvious consequence will be even more hatred of the US by Muslims. A second consideration is that China has signed major oil and natural gas contracts with Iran. I'm guessing they'll be angry. Since they have been supporting our economy by buying US treasury instruments, I would expect them to stop. Not good. Here's hoping I'm wrong.

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 01:38:21 PM EST
    Soccerdad: A second consideration is that China has signed major oil and natural gas contracts with Iran Have you seen this?
    Why can it accurately be said that such a monumental struggle of global proportions is now heating up? What evidence exists to support the insinuation that the world order is polarizing again into two rival blocs, "East" and "West"? more...


    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#75)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 01:54:58 PM EST
    DA: lives of quiet desperation Good quote. Thoreau is one my favorite writers... So is Roger Waters: Shorter of breath and one day closer to death Every year is getting shorter, never seem to find the time Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines Hanging on in quiet desperation is the english way The time is gone, the song is over, Thought I’d something more to say

    Re: Constitutional Scholars: Bush's Warrantless NS (none / 0) (#76)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 02:56:16 PM EST
    I think this thread is evidence enough that engaging with PPJ isn't possible on a good faith effort.
    Yeah this one and a hundred threads before it.