Regarding Civil Liberties
I’ve been brewing on this issue of “Presidential liberties” as it pertains to NSA eavesdropping on American citizens since the issue became public notice in the past few days. I use the word “brewing” intentionally.
While I’ve been hesitant to pass judgement on the President, I can do so no longer — especially since the President addressed the nation today. With that said, I believe the President should be impeached and brought up on charges of intentional violation of the Fourth Amendment and usurping judicial authority.
As president and commander in chief, I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country. Article 2 of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the authority necessary to fulfill it.
Not at the expense of the Fourth Amendment, sir.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If Bush can provide evidence that this went through the auspices of a legal court, even a secret court, then the Fourth Amendment has been preserved. If not, he has drawn undue authority from Article 2.
Alberto Gonzales defends the President with this farce:
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Soledad, provides that you must get a court order to engage in electronic surveillance … except as otherwise authorized by Congress. We believe that other authorization by Congress exists in the authorization to use military force that was passed by the Congress in the days following the attacks of September 11, yes.
Congress’ authorization does not include wiretapping of American’s without court order! To put this under the auspices of war is ridiculous because, if you want to be honest, we’re not at war. There was no declaration of war and Congress’ authorization authorized military force. To derive this authorization from the military war powers act would be akin to saying that I can write a book on kinetic energy because SpiderWorks has authorized me to write a book… sure it’s a book on blogging, but a book is a book, right?
Gonzales continues:
And we understand the concern that have been raised by certain members of Congress. As the president indicated on Saturday, we have reached certain key members of Congress from the beginning of this program about what we’re doing and the justifications for what we’re doing.
The President consulting with Congress is not judicial oversight and the argument that he has consulted with Harry Reid does not matter. Harry Reid is not a federal judge and, to be honest, he too was bound by law not to reveal the contents of a highly classified program.
So what do we do? This was a willfull, intentional usurpation of power akin to a dictator. This goes beyond politics. The President should be impeached for this action.
Update: Excellent piece here from The Daily Whim which reinforces (and complements) my argument nicely.
Whether it’s NSA eavesdropping, or the debate over torture, or any sliver of due process for various detainees, or the Patriot Act, etc., etc., the generic similarity used in defense can be summed up as three words:
“We’re at war.”
And if that is true, this defense goes, it follows that the President can take extraordinary measures in a time of war. In fact, that’s part of Bush’s defense, that the office of the President has implied powers via the Constitution that allow him to do as he sees fit in a time of war.
I’ve heard this raised-eyebrow defense of “well, we’re at war” quite a lot over the past few years. And it has grown to grate on me.
Because we are not acting like a nation truly at war, we haven’t been asked to act like a nation at war, and we haven’t since September 11, 2001, in many of the ways that count. In fact, it only seems like “we’re at war” when it comes time to push the legal boundaries involving investigation and punishment. The “sacrifice” one would expect to see in a nation at war seems to be quite limited to a targeted few.
<snip>
There are some things that we knew on September 12, 2001 (or should have known), that are just as true today. We knew that one of the biggest and trickiest dangers we faced was ourselves. The danger that we might trade a measurable amount of our liberty for an unknown quantity of additional security.
We knew the next step in that progression was that if you aren’t careful, you can become the very thing you hate. Where you begin to justify your actions with rationalizations like “well, at least we’re not beheading those we take prisoner, like those animals.”Â
In my opinion, we’ve been walked right up to the edge of that cliff.
<snip>
So. I’m supposed to accept that George Bush is going to use “implied powers” (will I be able to see them if I look at the Constitution with 3D glasses or something?) to do whatever he sees fit to fight the war on terrorism. I’m supposed to just trust him, and not demand the three branch government of checks and balances that has served this country quite well through astoundingly difficult times?
If he tells me he’s placed people in the loop to make judgments so that no-warrant wiretaps or torture or whatever is only used in rare and very necessary circumstances, I’m supposed to trust he’s placed qualified people in that loop? Or is it just some guy named Brownie and his assistant Harriet? Or someone who will proclaim his bold choice a “slam dunk”?
It’s that trust issue. Too much water under the bridge, water of all types. From a lot of sources.
Interesting!
Pick up your copy of the WordPress Bible, a wildly popular resource for beginners and experts alike.
Written by Aaron Brazell on December 19, 2005
Popularity: 1% [?]
Aaron Brazell
Steven Fisher
Ray Capece
Carlos Granier-Phelps
Andrew Feinberg
Mike Dougherty
Chris Bachmann
Leslie Poston
Jerald Sheets
Scott Goldblatt
Mykel Nahorniak
Peter Corbett
Jonathan Dingman
Geoff Livingston
Jeremy Toeman
Rachel James
Chris Parandian
Warren Sukernek
Joseph Hauckes
Shana Glickfield
Vinnie Garcia
David Nick
Duncan Riley
Carol Ott
Darren McLaughlin
Mike Oliver
Rico Masterson
Lou P. Nuts
Well, if you listen to the way Democrats say it, the 2006 elections will show to the world that Republicans have failed us. LOL I for one have researched countless number of issues and articles for my own blog in which I have seen “RINO’s” fail us in prosecuting the war on terror. A prime example is their efforts to obstruct illegal immigration and supporting blanket amnesty policies.
However, who will win, and who will lose depend greatly on what your main concerns are, what the party lines are touting, and whether or not you believe them.
I can tell you, my votes this next election season will depend highly on what my politicians say about Illegal Immigration, their views on the War on Terror, and if they believe spending our tax money on lame programs are more important than fiscal responsibility and not social programs or pork spending.
:)
Well, if you listen to the way Democrats say it, the 2006 elections will show to the world that Republicans have failed us. LOL I for one have researched countless number of issues and articles for my own blog in which I have seen “RINO’s” fail us in prosecuting the war on terror. A prime example is their efforts to obstruct illegal immigration and supporting blanket amnesty policies.
However, who will win, and who will lose depend greatly on what your main concerns are, what the party lines are touting, and whether or not you believe them.
I can tell you, my votes this next election season will depend highly on what my politicians say about Illegal Immigration, their views on the War on Terror, and if they believe spending our tax money on lame programs are more important than fiscal responsibility and not social programs or pork spending.
:)
Well, if you listen to the way Democrats say it, the 2006 elections will show to the world that Republicans have failed us. LOL I for one have researched countless number of issues and articles for my own blog in which I have seen “RINO’s” fail us in prosecuting the war on terror. A prime example is their efforts to obstruct illegal immigration and supporting blanket amnesty policies.
However, who will win, and who will lose depend greatly on what your main concerns are, what the party lines are touting, and whether or not you believe them.
I can tell you, my votes this next election season will depend highly on what my politicians say about Illegal Immigration, their views on the War on Terror, and if they believe spending our tax money on lame programs are more important than fiscal responsibility and not social programs or pork spending.
:)
Well, if you listen to the way Democrats say it, the 2006 elections will show to the world that Republicans have failed us. LOL I for one have researched countless number of issues and articles for my own blog in which I have seen “RINO’s” fail us in prosecuting the war on terror. A prime example is their efforts to obstruct illegal immigration and supporting blanket amnesty policies.
However, who will win, and who will lose depend greatly on what your main concerns are, what the party lines are touting, and whether or not you believe them.
I can tell you, my votes this next election season will depend highly on what my politicians say about Illegal Immigration, their views on the War on Terror, and if they believe spending our tax money on lame programs are more important than fiscal responsibility and not social programs or pork spending.
:)
Personzally, I’m not opposed to the “war on terror”… I just think there needs to be some sense brought to it. I don’t think John Wayne tactics work here and I think, in the long run, they are detrimental to the “war” and to our society.
I think the main attack angle from the Dems in ‘06 is going to be failure in leadership – Snoopgate, Katrinagate, Plamegate. Whether you agree or disagree with anything they say on the issues, those are going to be the main attack points and I personally think there is validity there.
That said, if I’m objective, I have to say that there is alot of resonance with most Americans on thyose issues… so long as the Dems don’t try to pull a John Kerry. If they can formulate and coordinate their attacks, the GOP has much to be concerned about.
Personzally, I’m not opposed to the “war on terror”… I just think there needs to be some sense brought to it. I don’t think John Wayne tactics work here and I think, in the long run, they are detrimental to the “war” and to our society.
I think the main attack angle from the Dems in ‘06 is going to be failure in leadership – Snoopgate, Katrinagate, Plamegate. Whether you agree or disagree with anything they say on the issues, those are going to be the main attack points and I personally think there is validity there.
That said, if I’m objective, I have to say that there is alot of resonance with most Americans on thyose issues… so long as the Dems don’t try to pull a John Kerry. If they can formulate and coordinate their attacks, the GOP has much to be concerned about.
Personzally, I’m not opposed to the “war on terror”… I just think there needs to be some sense brought to it. I don’t think John Wayne tactics work here and I think, in the long run, they are detrimental to the “war” and to our society.
I think the main attack angle from the Dems in ‘06 is going to be failure in leadership – Snoopgate, Katrinagate, Plamegate. Whether you agree or disagree with anything they say on the issues, those are going to be the main attack points and I personally think there is validity there.
That said, if I’m objective, I have to say that there is alot of resonance with most Americans on thyose issues… so long as the Dems don’t try to pull a John Kerry. If they can formulate and coordinate their attacks, the GOP has much to be concerned about.
Personzally, I’m not opposed to the “war on terror”… I just think there needs to be some sense brought to it. I don’t think John Wayne tactics work here and I think, in the long run, they are detrimental to the “war” and to our society.
I think the main attack angle from the Dems in ‘06 is going to be failure in leadership – Snoopgate, Katrinagate, Plamegate. Whether you agree or disagree with anything they say on the issues, those are going to be the main attack points and I personally think there is validity there.
That said, if I’m objective, I have to say that there is alot of resonance with most Americans on thyose issues… so long as the Dems don’t try to pull a John Kerry. If they can formulate and coordinate their attacks, the GOP has much to be concerned about.
But remember, coordinating an attack is great, but if you have no plan, no agenda, no way to offer what YOU want to do, then why bother running a campaign.
The Democrats have been great on “attacking” but have never once offered ANY ideas, and they certainly haven’t provided us with any plans on improving security, preventing another 9/11, OR limiting government.
So, attack all you want, but if you can’t offer any solutions, you’re no better than anyone we already have in office.
:)
But remember, coordinating an attack is great, but if you have no plan, no agenda, no way to offer what YOU want to do, then why bother running a campaign.
The Democrats have been great on “attacking” but have never once offered ANY ideas, and they certainly haven’t provided us with any plans on improving security, preventing another 9/11, OR limiting government.
So, attack all you want, but if you can’t offer any solutions, you’re no better than anyone we already have in office.
:)
But remember, coordinating an attack is great, but if you have no plan, no agenda, no way to offer what YOU want to do, then why bother running a campaign.
The Democrats have been great on “attacking” but have never once offered ANY ideas, and they certainly haven’t provided us with any plans on improving security, preventing another 9/11, OR limiting government.
So, attack all you want, but if you can’t offer any solutions, you’re no better than anyone we already have in office.
:)
But remember, coordinating an attack is great, but if you have no plan, no agenda, no way to offer what YOU want to do, then why bother running a campaign.
The Democrats have been great on “attacking” but have never once offered ANY ideas, and they certainly haven’t provided us with any plans on improving security, preventing another 9/11, OR limiting government.
So, attack all you want, but if you can’t offer any solutions, you’re no better than anyone we already have in office.
:)
Certainly a legitimate point but will that really matter to the American people? We are gluttons for sensationalism and not fact… why do you think Hollywood rumor mills are so popular? We’ll see if what you say is true but I think the hype that I expect the Democrats to bring to bear will be effective in returning power to the left.
Certainly a legitimate point but will that really matter to the American people? We are gluttons for sensationalism and not fact… why do you think Hollywood rumor mills are so popular? We’ll see if what you say is true but I think the hype that I expect the Democrats to bring to bear will be effective in returning power to the left.
Certainly a legitimate point but will that really matter to the American people? We are gluttons for sensationalism and not fact… why do you think Hollywood rumor mills are so popular? We’ll see if what you say is true but I think the hype that I expect the Democrats to bring to bear will be effective in returning power to the left.
Certainly a legitimate point but will that really matter to the American people? We are gluttons for sensationalism and not fact… why do you think Hollywood rumor mills are so popular? We’ll see if what you say is true but I think the hype that I expect the Democrats to bring to bear will be effective in returning power to the left.
By the way… just to put this fiasco into perspective, would you want Bush to authorize surveillance of you if, say… you downloaded Google Earth as I write about over on Emerging Earth?
By the way… just to put this fiasco into perspective, would you want Bush to authorize surveillance of you if, say… you downloaded Google Earth as I write about over on Emerging Earth?
By the way… just to put this fiasco into perspective, would you want Bush to authorize surveillance of you if, say… you downloaded Google Earth as I write about over on Emerging Earth?
By the way… just to put this fiasco into perspective, would you want Bush to authorize surveillance of you if, say… you downloaded Google Earth as I write about over on Emerging Earth?
First of all Aaron,
As a computer guy, knowing what you know, you are already aware that the government created the internet. While they did give it civilians to run, don’t you think THEY would still have a backdoor into what you download or do?
Perhaps that’s the paranoid side of me, but to just toss that idea out that “Bush” would seek out your information because you downloaded Google Earth (which I’ve had for awhile LOL) it preposterous. Simply because I think George Bush could find other things more important and revealing than whether or not you like looking at satellite shots of Jamaican beaches LOL.
That doesn’t put it into perspective for me Aaron, sorry. :)
First of all Aaron,
As a computer guy, knowing what you know, you are already aware that the government created the internet. While they did give it civilians to run, don’t you think THEY would still have a backdoor into what you download or do?
Perhaps that’s the paranoid side of me, but to just toss that idea out that “Bush” would seek out your information because you downloaded Google Earth (which I’ve had for awhile LOL) it preposterous. Simply because I think George Bush could find other things more important and revealing than whether or not you like looking at satellite shots of Jamaican beaches LOL.
That doesn’t put it into perspective for me Aaron, sorry. :)
First of all Aaron,
As a computer guy, knowing what you know, you are already aware that the government created the internet. While they did give it civilians to run, don’t you think THEY would still have a backdoor into what you download or do?
Perhaps that’s the paranoid side of me, but to just toss that idea out that “Bush” would seek out your information because you downloaded Google Earth (which I’ve had for awhile LOL) it preposterous. Simply because I think George Bush could find other things more important and revealing than whether or not you like looking at satellite shots of Jamaican beaches LOL.
That doesn’t put it into perspective for me Aaron, sorry. :)
First of all Aaron,
As a computer guy, knowing what you know, you are already aware that the government created the internet. While they did give it civilians to run, don’t you think THEY would still have a backdoor into what you download or do?
Perhaps that’s the paranoid side of me, but to just toss that idea out that “Bush” would seek out your information because you downloaded Google Earth (which I’ve had for awhile LOL) it preposterous. Simply because I think George Bush could find other things more important and revealing than whether or not you like looking at satellite shots of Jamaican beaches LOL.
That doesn’t put it into perspective for me Aaron, sorry. :)
The idea might be preposterous, but then again, a week ago we thought the idea of the NSA spying on US citizens was preposterous. The point is… we… don’t… know…
We can presume that the government has the most puritanical motives in mind but then we know that the government is laced with darkness, corruption and plotting in the secret places behind closed doors.
I am not trying to play conspirarist here, however I am not naive enough to laugh off the potential. NOTHING surprises me these days.
The idea might be preposterous, but then again, a week ago we thought the idea of the NSA spying on US citizens was preposterous. The point is… we… don’t… know…
We can presume that the government has the most puritanical motives in mind but then we know that the government is laced with darkness, corruption and plotting in the secret places behind closed doors.
I am not trying to play conspirarist here, however I am not naive enough to laugh off the potential. NOTHING surprises me these days.
The idea might be preposterous, but then again, a week ago we thought the idea of the NSA spying on US citizens was preposterous. The point is… we… don’t… know…
We can presume that the government has the most puritanical motives in mind but then we know that the government is laced with darkness, corruption and plotting in the secret places behind closed doors.
I am not trying to play conspirarist here, however I am not naive enough to laugh off the potential. NOTHING surprises me these days.
The idea might be preposterous, but then again, a week ago we thought the idea of the NSA spying on US citizens was preposterous. The point is… we… don’t… know…
We can presume that the government has the most puritanical motives in mind but then we know that the government is laced with darkness, corruption and plotting in the secret places behind closed doors.
I am not trying to play conspirarist here, however I am not naive enough to laugh off the potential. NOTHING surprises me these days.