Democrats Respond On FISA
The Democrats have proposed a different approach to FISA reform for its February renewal. The initiative they have floated would remove the requirement for individual warrants for foreign communication passing through American switches by granting a year-long "umbrella warrant". It still leaves telecom providers vulnerable to lawsuits for cooperating with the NSA, a sticking point that will create another heated debate:
House Democrats plan to introduce a bill this week that would let a secret court issue one-year "umbrella" warrants to allow the government to intercept e-mails and phone calls of foreign targets and would not require that surveillance of each person be approved individually.The bill is likely to resurrect controversy that erupted this summer when Congress, under White House pressure, rushed through a temporary emergency law that expanded the government's authority to conduct foreign surveillance on U.S. soil without a warrant. The Protect America Act, which expires in February, has been criticized as being too broad and lacking effective court oversight. ...
The bill would require the Justice Department inspector general to audit the use of the umbrella warrant and issue quarterly reports to a special FISA court and to Congress, according to congressional aides involved in drafting the legislation. It would clarify that no court order is required for intercepting communications between people overseas that are routed through the United States. It would specify that the collections of e-mails and phone calls could come only from communications service providers -- as opposed to hospitals, libraries or advocacy groups. And it would require a court order when the government is seeking communications of a person inside the United States, but only if that person is the target.
This improves the position of the Democrats over the summer. Prior to the temporary changes made to FISA in August -- in which Congress essentially endorsed the Terrorist Surveillance Program conducted by the NSA since 9/11 -- Democrats had refused to exempt foreign-to-foreign communications passing through American switches. This proposal recognizes the changed technological conditions since FISA's first passage in 1978, when American switches carried only American traffic and made a convenient if inaccurate point for Congressional focus.
However, it still seems like the Democrats want to play games. The administration wants to treat foreign-to-domestic calls as foreign calls, while Democrats want to treat them as domestic calls. This gets at the heart of the original FISA intent, which was to keep the government off of any American resident's lines without a court-issued warrant. The changing technology in cell phones makes warrants somewhat problematic, as terrorists shift cell phones to keep ahead of warrant requests.
The Democrats propose to bridge the gap with the "umbrella warrant," which basically acts as a no-warrant law that has to be renewed by a FISA judge on an annual basis, with quarterly audits by the Justice Department's Inspector General. That doesn't sound much different than what the administration has proposed, although the White House version would have given responsibility to the Attorney General rather than the IG. An "umbrella warrant" is a novel mechanism that in practical terms means no warrant at all. It's a bit of game-playing apparently intended into paying lip service to civil libertarians while giving them nothing that they actually want.
The same could be said of the telecom immunity issue. The White House wants total and retroactive immunity for the telecoms that cooperated with the NSA, and the Democrats want total access to the NSA's records on those transactions before they even consider it. Quietly, Democrats and Republicans have worked on a separate immunity package that could use one of four different approaches, but in the end leave the telecoms completely off the hook for liability. Two of the four have the government paying off any damages, which puts us in the extremely silly position of paying potentially billions of dollars for no proven damage to anyone, just to let civil-liberties lawyers collect huge fees. Why not just grant immunity if the telecoms aren't going to pay the damages at all? It's functionally the same thing, and it won't tie up federal courts for years.
This is a vast improvement for the Democrats. They just need to tighten up a few aspects of the silliness, and it may serve as a good compromise that allows our national-security efforts to proceed without further interruption.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on October 7, 2007 8:47 AM | Comments (32) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (32)
Posted by Andrew X | October 7, 2007 9:35 AM
The broad elements of this story go to what I have been saying to my blue-er colleagues, who don't want to hear it, but probably know it's true.
Namely, that, say Hillary wins, =:-O, and we are about a year or so in. News flash people! Your lives, and your governments activities, will be 90% plus EXACTLY THE SAME!! If they close Gitmo, they will wind up doing exactly what they do there somewhere else. FISA laws will work essentially as they are now. Troops will be in Iraq and Afghanistan. Etc etc etc. Terrorists who despise Bush will certainly, however, immediately call off the dogs since his enemy is now in the White House (cough-cough-cough).
And the 9/11 troofers will be interesting to watch. Every single one of them, and there are far too many, will have a binary choice: Either DEMAND, even MORE forcefully, that a now Democratic administration use the full power of the US government to expose the "truth" (and see them all wind up looking like even bigger fools), OR, do what I have no doubt the majority of them will do, and suddenly decide they just ain't so passionate about that "truth" as they thought they were (when Bush was in office). Thus exposing themselves as genuine monsters, who are willing to accuse the US government and hundreds of it's employees, many who pre-date and post-date Bush, of the most horrendous possible crime against their own country, foster that accusation all over the globe in a time of war, and then simply walk away from it as soon as the President is more to their liking.
I'll never vote for her, but a part of me would look forward to what we all know the Internet is saving, and pulling it out and hammering these people with their words and actions of the past eight years. I've got a good personal archive, and I look forward to it's deployment.
Posted by patrick neid | October 7, 2007 10:11 AM
As already stated if Hillary wins there will be virtually no difference in the application of these type of laws. In fact because they think she will win they really don't want to change any of these laws that may end up hampering her presidency.
What will be different and it will be major is the enforcement of said laws will be viewed by the MSM as very necessary. Their rationale for the switch in positions will be that dems in general and Hillary in particular can be trusted.
Presto! All these laws will be made good because it is Hillary enforcing them.
Posted by Andrew X | October 7, 2007 10:20 AM
Patrick is quite correct of course. I think what will prove somewhat interesting, though, will be the ability of new media to expose the political hypocrisy along with the media hypocrisy. That power has really only been around, and archiving, for one administration.
Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 7, 2007 10:28 AM
How is a year-long "warrrantless" intercept program any different than the so-called warrantless wire tap program condemend by the Dems? Seems they have capitulated and in a big way. Will this cost them the Left? Most likely, IF this capitulation is made known far and wide. Don't depend on the MSM to do such.
Our argument all along was that because of the bureaucratic roadblocks established by FISA which was designed to do something entirely different against an enemy entirely different using technologies that were entirely different, those at NSA and to a lesser extent, the FBI, to intercept [NOT wiretap] electronic communications that both entities had a reasonable belief were connected to an enemy or enemy supporter that posed a threat to our national well-being in time of War, we needed the ability to respond quickly on actionable intelligence from a fleeting source under conditions never envisioned when FISA was first enacted.
Those leading Congressional Dems who actually took advantage of being briefed on the NSA program, and who actually drove up the Baltimore-Washington Parkway to visit NSA, seem to have come to understand the importance of allowing flexibility in the program. Good for them. I'd like to know how many opponents of this liberalization of FISA have actually seen, or touched actual NSA product, or met with those who conduct the intercepts.
FISA was a roadblock back in the 80's and 90's and we lost tactical advantage in many many cases when the bureaucracy and Perry Mason-like burdens of "proof" were imposed on us. And the threat back then was far far less specific and dangerous.
Hillary may actually understand this. One can always hope. Imagine IF on her Watch something terrible happens here in the States, or in the cities of an ally and it became known that we did not pursue the information and forewarning beforehand because she had reservations as to the propriety of electronic intercepts of foreign electronic communications among and between known or probable enemies. "Pillary Hillary" would become the popular bumper sticker de jour.
Posted by Noumenon | October 7, 2007 11:15 AM
I'm with coldwarrior. I don't see the "compromise." I see capitulation. And this law symbolizes so much about Bush and civil liberties that I am basically going into opposition to the whole government of America if the Democrats aren't stopping it. I'll be a dissident. (A lazy, ineffective one, but still.)
Posted by Chaos | October 7, 2007 11:22 AM
A legal, vital weapon in the war on terrorism is so unconscionable to Noumenon that if it is not taken away he will go into "opposition to the whole government of America."
It sounds more like his opposition is to defending America.
Posted by JimSteele | October 7, 2007 12:23 PM
Why can't we just say "Screw the Dem traitors!" and go execute everyone we want? Everyone knows we're all just waiting to put on the black shirts. I know Cap'n Ed has his ready. So what are we waiting for. Why don't we just do like Rushbo says and go kill the feminazis and phony soldiers and race traitors and democrats? Screw this FISA shit! IT'S TIME TO TAKE BACK AMERICA!!!
Posted by daytrader | October 7, 2007 12:24 PM
Any sensible compromise that protects the security of this country is going to make heads explode in the nutroots, we saw that the first go round with the temporary legislation.
The extreme left will feel betrayed and deserted and howl like banshees.
Posted by Cardinals Nation | October 7, 2007 1:29 PM
It astounds me that the Dems actually seem to be more afraid of the Bush Administration, the NSA and the CIA than they are of the no-kidding, real-life sworn enemies of this nation. Perhaps if al Qaeda's death squads roamed the streets of Manhatten, Martha's Vinyard and Berkely carving up little Hanna and Ethan at their playdates instead of beheading little Ahmand and Fatima in Ramadi, Sadr City and Fallujah they might have a different perspective - and response - on keeping up with the enemy. I mean, we've already seen how worked up they can get when their real interests are at stake; just ask the Kennedy's et al about the Cape Cod wind farm project.
Posted by bayam | October 7, 2007 1:38 PM
The Democrats propose to bridge the gap with the "umbrella warrant," which basically acts as a no-warrant law that has to be renewed by a FISA judge on an annual basis, with quarterly audits by the Justice Department's Inspector General. That doesn't sound much different than what the administration has proposed, although the White House version would have given responsibility to the Attorney General rather than the IG.
Like other moderates, what I want to see from Democrats is some form of accountability introduced to the current legislation related to the Patriot Act. I don't trust this White House, or any White House, to effectively monitor the application of broad powers to spy on the private behavior of American citizens.
Many conservatives and libertarians have expressed dismay at the breadth of the powers granted the central governemtn (think Hentry Hyde and Bob Barr). So I don't see this as a simple Republican vs. Democrat issue, and I sympathize with their positions.
Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 7, 2007 1:52 PM
If the NSA was indeed wholesale monitoring US citizens at home and abroad I'd be concerned.
Having worked in the field, knowing how NSA is manned and staffed, and the rules implaced thus far, with or without FISA, I am at rest in my concern about NSA monitoring my phone calls, and not at all concerned about the NSA wiretapping me or my family or neighbors.
Congress, as is their perview, has chosen to allow for one-year FISA free warrantless communiction intercepts of foreign-origin or foreign anchored communications passing through US based communications systems.
Simply stated, if one makes a phone call, especially a cell phone call, from Toledo, Ohio, to Detroit, a distance of 40 miles, at any particular day at any particular time, that phone call may well be channelled to communications nodes in the UK, Europe, Asia, or elsewhere. Thus the problem with dealing with foreign origin or foreign anchored communications from Frankfurt to Oman.
By necessity, depending on volume of traffic in a particular node, that Frankfurt to Oman call may pass through a facility in East Orange, New Jersey or Kansas City.
Its intercept threatens no American citizens.
However, willful failure to intercept, assess, and process that same communication may indeed be a very real and present danger to many many American citizens.
I am more than willing to give NSA a pass on this one, and allow them to do proper intercept, full traffic analysis and develop matrices that will enable them to focus their efforts and manpower toward the real threats and not be forced to have to respond to the imagined threats and be further incumbered by the vocal Left who actually believe NSA is monitoring all Americans all of the time.
Posted by j | October 7, 2007 3:02 PM
IF Clinton #2 wins, I am willing to bet that s/he will implement listening to any American phone call possible and that the MSM will simply ignore his/her intrusion on our rights.
Neither the woman nor her husband can be trusted. Lying is so easy for them, they'd probably choke on truth.
While I am not concerned about the NSA and want them to do all they can for our security, I shudder to think what the s/he combo will do if it manages to get to the WH.
Our enemy will do anything to destroy us - anything. The Clinton duo will use any law on the books to advance their desire for control. They have help - many of our enemy are within our borders already.
Posted by gregdn | October 7, 2007 3:11 PM
" And it would require a court order when the government is seeking communications of a person inside the United States, but only if that person is the target."
Show me where the Fourth Amendment says anything about being secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches...etc. "unless you're not the target of the government's investigation".
Using this logic couldn't the police, while searching for a fugitive kick in my door without a warrant? After all, they could certainly argue that I'm not the object of the search.
To me this is just wrong and something conservatives and liberals should oppose.
Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 7, 2007 3:45 PM
Gregn, if one is talking domestic law enforcement and the proper gathering of evidence under law, that is one thing and quite distinct from the solely national defense charter of NSA. NSA is involved in war fighting and has been since its inception. NSA does not do law enforcement. That is the perview of the FBI, the Courts, and yes, the local cop on the beat.
Conflate the two and it causes severe problems in addressing each distinct requirement.
Posted by whippoorwill | October 7, 2007 7:40 PM
IF Clinton #2 wins, I am willing to bet that s/he will implement listening to any American phone call possible and that the MSM will simply ignore his/her intrusion on our rights.
If any Democrat wins the White House, the right will be shrieking to the high heavens about too much presidential authority and that their calls are being monitored by big brother dems who are shredding the constitution blah, blah, blah.
They will completely forget that they were the ones who pushed for the government to have a free hand in spying on American citizens without warrants.
And Captain Ed, I believe it was the FISA court that ruled against warrantless foreign to foreign calls going through American switches, not Dems.
Posted by Andrew X | October 7, 2007 8:57 PM
Whip -
"If any Democrat wins the White House, the right will be shrieking to the high heavens about too much presidential authority and that their calls are being monitored by big brother dems who are shredding the constitution blah, blah, blah.
They will completely forget that they were the ones who pushed for the government to have a free hand in spying on American citizens without warrants."
You are probably correct, and that is in line with post #1 up there. But remember, it will be the Dems wanting or using that authority, and they will be every bit as forgetful of their own previous.... um .... "shrieking"... about it that we are hearing today on a daily basis. But it will be tough for both sides to "forget", as the Internet does not.
Maybe.... MAYBE... that dynamic will help bring some sanity to the process. We possibly won't know until we have a flip in administration (and party) in the Internet age, which has not happened yet. (Late 90's were pre-blog and don't really count.)
So, in the end, I really wonder if it just
Posted by whippoorwill | October 7, 2007 10:00 PM
"You are probably correct, and that is in line with post #1 up there. But remember, it will be the Dems wanting or using that authority, and they will be every bit as forgetful of their own previous.... um .... "shrieking"... about it that we are hearing today on a daily basis. But it will be tough for both sides to "forget", as the Internet does not."
I don't agree that a dem president will use the carte-blanch authority that republicans want to give President Bush. They may want to but the dem base would make their life miserable.
It's one of the many differences between liberals and current republicans. We will not march in lock step with any president, dem or not, that breaches the constitution the way Bush has with the full support of the republican party.
We will also not tolerate any thing near the level of secrecy we've experienced the last 7 years.
And we will not forget.
Posted by Hugh Beaumont | October 8, 2007 2:38 AM
"We will not march in lock step with any president, dem or not, that breaches the constitution the way Bush has with the full support of the republican party."
I still don't understand what this talking point is supposed to mean.
No one has shown me an example of a Constitutional assault that Bush has conducted.
What has not gone unchallenged in a court of law?
What has not undergone Congressional oversite?
I guarantee you that all the criticism that Bush has dealt with will suddenly dry up under a Democratic admin....like magic.
Bottom line: Bush has done his duty; he looked upon the wreckage of lower Manhattan and swore it would never happen again and those responsible would be pursued; he pulled every string; used all the means at his disposal; pushed his power to the limit and did his duty....just like most people stunned during that period expected him to do....as I would have done...in spades.
Bottom line: The next President and party will be responsible for real lives and real threats- all the politically inspired complaining will become the talking points of the party out of power; the party with nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Posted by Jim Rockford | October 8, 2007 2:47 AM
What was that lock-step on Amnesty/Open Borders?
Oh yeah, the Republican Base giving the President a good work-over.
No, very likely the Insane Wing of the Dem Party (the one that hates the Flag and the Country) will refuse to listen in. Hillary will simply say we "deserved it" and promote a "listening tour" aka "Global Apology Tour."
Because let's face it, the woman is weak. Against internal enemies, sure she can do the Lady McBeth thing. But against a dangerous foreign enemy that kills people? Hillary will fold faster than a wet towel.
Posted by Hugh Beaumont | October 8, 2007 2:56 AM
Hillary will bomb a few tents and put on the "woman can be tough too" burlesque immediately after taking the oath.
It'll be appeasement central soon after the light show.
Posted by Ray | October 8, 2007 2:57 AM
Democrats are not above secrecy and "thrashing the Constitution" like most liberals believe. President Clinton tried to keep many secrets, most of them about his private life, (he even went as far as committing perjury and obstruction of justice in an attempt to protect himself in a civil lawsuit) and he actually admitted that he wanted to assassinate bin Laden, which is against federal law.
Mrs Clinton will not be afraid of her "base" when it comes to protecting her presidency by any means she feels is necessary. Remember, this is a woman who knowingly slandered "that woman, Miss Lewinsky" when she was trying to protect Bill. Make no mistake, Clinton will undoubtedly use "illegal" wiretaps to gather information, along with other illegal activities, and will keep many secrets, including refusing to provide information about her staff and her discussions with advisers (which is her right, but it's still secrets), as President.
Even FDR, the liberals greatest President, ignored the Constitution when he ordered the interment of Japanese Americans during WWII. To this day, I don't hear ANY liberal outrage over that.
Posted by davod | October 8, 2007 6:25 AM
Immunity is the way to go. The reason the ems might want ayoffs is because their lawyer friends get the money.
Posted by davod | October 8, 2007 6:33 AM
coldwarrior415:
I recall that McConnell (sp) recently spoke before Congress about when the three US soldiers were captured in Iraq. He said that the lawyers at NSA argued for four hours about whether they could intercept communucations regarding the capture because the communications node touched the US. This was at the time and in the immediate hours after capture.
If it wasn't for the fact that lawyers were involved you would think this is exactly why they invented "Better to do something and get criticised later than do nothing at all"
Posted by whippoorwill | October 8, 2007 7:00 AM
"No one has shown me an example of a Constitutional assault that Bush has conducted.
What has not gone unchallenged in a court of law?
What has not undergone Congressional oversite?"
--torture as policy
--imprisonment without trial
--secret prisons/torture chambers
--spying on Americans without court order
--twisting[lying] intelligence to start a war-Iraq
--excessive use of law signing statements to circumvent law
Just a few examples.
"What was that lock-step on Amnesty/Open Borders?
Oh yeah, the Republican Base giving the President a good work-over."
That's only because GOP bigotry overcame Bush loyalty in this one case.
Bush took us to war in Iraq, which was not responsible for 9-11. He spun the intelligence to justify said war. Then proceeded to completely mismanage it to where we have a failed state allowing Al Quaida to flourish and recruit.
Meanwhile, also bungling the Afghanistan war and allowing AQ and Taliban to come back strong.
For the rest of you, efforts to bring down the Clinton's for petty offenses were rejected by the American people long ago. "Slandering Monica Lewinsky" give me a break. Bill Clinton's approval rating is currently at 66%. Most Americans yearn for the day Bill Clinton returns to the White House, even as a First Gentlemen. Elmer Fudd could be the Dem nominee in 2008 and would win hands down. That's how sick the country is of republican governance.
Posted by Andrew X | October 8, 2007 8:17 AM
Whip -
You make it sound as though Bush is the closest thing to a dictator we have ever had. As a matter of fact, if you ask "is he?" to many, huge numbers of Americans would answer in the positive.
That is because huge numbers of Americans are stone, Britney-worshiping, American-Idol watching idiots with no sense of history whatsoever.
Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson ALL "assaulted the Constitution" in a FAR greater manner than Mr. Bush, the latter two good Democrats.
Roosevelt took us to war in North Africa and Italy, which, last I checked, was NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PEARL HARBOR! (FDR lied, people died). He threw 110,000 good Americans into concentration camps. He threatened press organizations for publishing (or preparing to publish) information about how bad and desparate the war, the he personally caused by embargoing Japan, was going in 1942. etc etc etc. See, I can play too.
The simple question is, for huge numbers of the disgraceful post-modern left, is it possible, in any way shape or form, for an enemy to exist on this planet that is more worthy of opposing, or (gasp) even fighting, that is worse than white, Euro-blooded, home grown Americans who happen to disagree with them.
And the answer is bascially no, and every analysis they present of the Bush administration starts with that belief, which is to them what Christ's divinity is to a Christian. Simply inarguable.
My point is, wait and see (If you win). This very forum will be saved. And I think you may be shocked, and you WILL witness, the Dems acting far more in tune with the past eight years, than you are prepared to believe.
Posted by whippoorwill | October 8, 2007 9:29 AM
" You make it sound as though Bush is the closest thing to a dictator we have ever had. As a matter of fact, if you ask "is he?" to many, huge numbers of Americans would answer in the positive.
That is because huge numbers of Americans are stone, Britney-worshiping, American-Idol watching idiots with no sense of history whatsoever."
Oh, I get it Andrew x, It's the people of America who are to blame for not appreciating the great vision of your King Bush. And no doubt, it's their lack of support for Bush that have caused nearly all of his policies to fail.
And your comparison with world war 2 is just plain tired and pathetic. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus to prevent Maryland from joining an insurrection by succeeding from the union.
And I won't even defend FDR about interning the Japanese. That was completely wrong. The problem is we really don't know how deep the criminality of the Bush administration goes because they believe they are above oversight and won't cooperate with a dem congress.
Woodrow Wilson probably is the closest match to Bush, simply because they both display a tendency toward messianic delusion.
The Axis we fought in world war 2 had all signed treaties with one another, so they were legal allies.
I have no doubt if a dem gets to be president you and the people on this site will be busy as beavers sniffing out any sign of lawbreaking. And if no real evidence is found you will manufacture it, like always.
No president in history has been so reviled by the public. No president has maintained an approval number of circa 30% for the last two years. But of course the American public are just Britney-philes and two apathetic and stupid to no any better.
Posted by Hugh Beaumont | October 8, 2007 1:07 PM
No president in history has been so reviled by the public. No president has maintained an approval number of circa 30% for the last two years.
Who cares? This matters in an era of ginned up outrage? The amount of smoke thrown up by the political opposition in the last 3 years has made it impossible for anyone to know the truth about much of anything.
History will sort out Bush's legacy. No amount of spinning at this point matters; it's all about the next election, $$ and power.
You still haven't answered my question: What has Bush done that's unconstitutional; what has he done that hasn't been scrutinized by Congressional oversite or the courts?
Posted by whippoorwill | October 8, 2007 4:30 PM
H Beaumont. You should check all the comments before you post. I made my accusations on this topic a couple of posts ago. And like I said, we won't know the depth of the Bush Administration criminality for some time. You should direct your question toward current dem chairs of committees trying to do oversight ,and I bet they would give you an earful on Bush admin. wrongdoing and how non-cooperation by the Bushies is almost total. Of course, they are treasonous democrats so I doubt you'd believe anything that doesn't come out of the right wing echo chamber.
"Who cares? This matters in an era of ginned up outrage? The amount of smoke thrown up by the political opposition in the last 3 years has made it impossible for anyone to know the truth about much of anything."
This one gave me a belly laugh. First off, Republicans had controlled the entire federal government for the last five years, before the 2006 election. Any smoke that you saw was likely from republican crooks making deals out of smoke filled rooms, or Senator Craig and Congressman Foley making bacon in the mens room.
Posted by hugh Beaumont | October 9, 2007 12:11 AM
Any smoke that you saw was likely from republican crooks making deals out of smoke filled rooms,
You still haven't answered my question: What has Bush done that's unconstitutional; what has he done that hasn't been scrutinized by Congressional oversite or the courts?
Posted by whippoorwil | October 9, 2007 5:51 AM
Beaumont
"You still haven't answered my question: What has Bush done that's unconstitutional; what has he done that hasn't been scrutinized by Congressional oversite or the courts?"
Yes I did. You just don't agree with my assertions. See my 7 am post on the 8th.
If your asking if Bush has been charged with treason by the courts or congress, then no , he hasn't. He surely would have been impeached and convicted by the Senate, if it were not for at least 34 mostly southern Senators who would protect him no matter what.
We're stating our opinions here based on what we've seen and heard. I will give you 3 examples
1. Violating the Geneva Convention on torture, which is a signed treaty by the US and has full force of law under the Constitution.
2.Ignoring the will of congress with extreme use of signing statements.
3.Violation of the 14 th amendment on wiretapping without probable cause and a court order. In other words ignoring FISA. Dems have recently caved on this, but he did for 5 years without any oversite, where it was seriously abused by FBI.
And I will say it for the umpteenth time, Bush refused in any meaningful way to cooperate with Congress on their oversite duties, so it's nearly impossible for anyone outside the Executive branch to know what's going on. This is my last post here on this topic. You can agree or disagree with my opinions, but I'm not going to keep saying the same thing over and over.
Posted by Christopher Taylor | October 9, 2007 10:56 AM
Technically he answered, but his answers were absurd and off base. He chose talking points he's been spoon fed by the radical left without understanding them or what they meant, or even finding out how accurate they were. Just take one: the New York Times alleges - with zero proof or examples - that President Bush ignored the FISA courts to wiretap Americans.
Did he? The Bush administration says no. There's not even a hint of evidence that he has. The FISA courts don't think so and have made no complaints. Yet because it is sinister sounding, makes the Bush administration look bad, and came from an appropriately leftist outfit, he's willing to believe it word for word without even questioning it.
Take another: "extreme" use of signing statements and "ignoring the will of congress." This presumes that signing statements are somehow wrong (funny how they weren't when a Democrat was in power) and that congress' will is supposed to be superior to the president's. Unconstitutional? In what way? the presumption is here, but it doesn't have the weight of argument or even evidence.
Here's how it works. The leftist presumes President Bush is bad and awful, sinister and evil ... and dumb, because he's a Republican and they must be all dumb. Then they start looking for ways to show this - rather than a rational approach, which is to presume nothing without evidence and reason.
Because of this presupposition of malice, any accusation, any complaint, any statement of ill intent or evil action is taken whole cloth, it's believed simply because, well Bush is just that bad and so we know he must have done it. It's like being in grade school and hearing rumors about that weird kid everyone hates. Wow, it must be true, he's so weird.
Posted by whippoorwill | October 9, 2007 2:41 PM
Taylor,
Bush admitted himself to circumventing FISA based on his theory of Unitary Executive during wartime.
We don't have individual cases cause Bush won't let congress see the records {another breach of constitution BTW}
"Technically he answered, but his answers were absurd and off base. He chose talking points he's been spoon fed by the radical left without understanding them or what they meant, or even finding out how accurate they were. Just take one: the New York Times alleges - with zero proof or examples - that President Bush ignored the FISA courts to wiretap Americans"
wanna see a wingnut talking point, look above.
"Take another: "extreme" use of signing statements and "ignoring the will of congress."
Bush has used more signing statements than all of our other presidents combined.
"Here's how it works. The leftist presumes President Bush is bad and awful, sinister and evil ... and dumb, because he's a Republican and they must be all dumb. Then they start looking for ways to show this - rather than a rational approach, which is to presume nothing without evidence and reason."
No, it's because Bush is an incompetent fool who has done this country immeasurable harm.