geeze, why don't you jerks just crown the guy and get it all over with...

[acroyear]

The Death of the Intelligence Panel - New York Times:

The Senate panel [Select Committee on Intelligence] has become so paralyzingly partisan that it could not even manage to do its basic job this week and look into President Bush's warrantless spying on Americans' international e-mail and phone calls. Senator Pat Roberts, the chairman, said Tuesday that there would be no investigation. Instead, the committee's Republicans voted to create a subcommittee that is supposed to get reports from the White House on any future warrantless surveillance.

It's breathtakingly cynical. Faced with a president who is almost certainly breaking the law, the Senate sets up a panel to watch him do it and calls that control.

Its nice and simple, just like you all said about Clinton: you pass a law, the President breaks a law, you impeach the President.  Or if you really don't want to declare war directly on your President, then at least pick his lawbreaking administration apart piece by piece, starting with Mr. "I *HEART* Torture" Gonzales.

It was so fucking black and white 7 years ago, where's that absolute justice sentiment now?

Comments

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

It's more complex than what the article makes it out to be (but then again, it's an editorial -- the writer has to make sure what he writes only reinforces the opinion he wants to convey). Even WTOP's relatively short news piece gave more information on what happened in the committee and the positions of the parties.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

i'll address the "details" in a bit.

first, answer me this: has this administration broken the law?

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

That's one of the questions that's in doubt, which is why this is a complex issue (despite the absolute certaintude of liberal pundits). Even former Presidents Clinton and Carter are on record as saying that they don't believe Bush violated the law. The eavesdropping is neither wholly "domestic" or "foreign" so doesn't really fit the overall scheme that the law addresses (at least one party always is foreign). The matter of legality is further clouded by the President's constitutional authority in waging war -- and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Added to that is the issue of whether Congress did or did not grant such authorization in the war resolution (either intentionally or not. Sometimes legislation has unintended consequences. I just had to update our coverage of R.I. employment laws because the state's legislature inadvertently repealed the mandatory meal break law).

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

I didn't ask what Carter or Clinton have said.

I asked what *you* think.

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

As I state in a reply on your other post, I am undecided. I think each side has strong, valid points.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

The eavesdropping is neither wholly "domestic" or "foreign" so doesn't really fit the overall scheme that the law addresses (at least one party always is foreign).

which means either 1) the law is strictly interpreted (one party domestic means its domestic) or 2) the law is loosely interpreted (one party foreign means its foreign.

now, answer the realm of the law within this particular statement:

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.

you should know that one well by now.

I repeat: it is black and white. and if the "law" was not violated (under the loose interpretation), the constitution still was.

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

Just being devil's advocate here: the critical question being what is considered "unreasonable". There have been numerous cases that have gone all the way to the Supreme Court trying to figure out how to the determine what is and isn't reasonable. So the question could be phrased as: Is it unreasonable in a time of war to conduct a "search" without a warrent of a citizen's call when the other party to the call is believed to be an enemy agent?

When different rights and powers under the Constitution seem to conflict, some sort of balancing of the issues has to occur. In that sense, none of the rights can be said to be absolute. We can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. A person can't sacrifice virgins in their religious worship. The president's war powers can't be absolute. It's determining what the balance is that keeps the Supreme Court justices employed.

we are not in a time of war.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

we are in a time of armed presence in nations with established allied governments but hostile insurgents. it never was a "war", only an exercise of "emergency powers".

war is constitutionally restricted to being something declared by congress, and in foreign relations its accepted as when a nation (not a "concept" like islamic fundementalism inspired terrorism) openly declares war.

that has not happened since 1940, and has been a rant of mine already.

(granted, its one of those nice vagueties that the lawyers can go either way on, if it comes to it...lawyers love playing with weasel words, don't they, which is why more politicians are lawyers than poly-sci majors...)

and for that matter, the surveliance has yet to publically disclose that "the other party to the call is believed to be an enemy agent" in any way. in fact, most of the surveiliance was being used to try to determine that fact in the first place. it was full of fishing expeditions, stuff that would never survive a court hearing if charges were filed on the domestic participants' side...so of course combine that with naming domestic terrorists as "prisoners of war" (meaning private military trials, detainment overseas without access to a lawyer, and all those other inconveniences of the 4th and 5th amendments) and well it doesn't really matter then, now does it?

and if they ARE "believed to be an enemy agent", that's what the damn law was put in place to efficiently and constitutionally handle: a means to give "reasonable cause" a semi-public hearing BEFORE you go violating rights unnecessarilly, or a quick 3-day turnaround to defend your actions (I don't like that part of the law, but its a better compromise than the current one being proposed).

but this administration would rather none of its actions be given a public hearing. i know that conceptually every president would like that, but the constitution says otherwise.

this agreement says "we'll let you get away with it for now, violating without warrent the rights of american citizens, and we'll check up on you in a couple of months to see how you're doing."

as you say (at least we agree on this), that's not oversight. this congress has given up its check on presidential power, thereby guarenteeing that either it goes to the court, or the president continues to take yet more power for itself.

Re: we are not in a time of war.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

i meant "1941"

Re: we are not in a time of war.

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

:-)

Well, poo! How am I supposed to nit-pick now?

S'alright. I knew what you were talking about.

[mandrakan.livejournal.com]

I swear, is there a talking point generator that all Republicans have access to?

First: The question is not what "unreasonable" means.

The Fourth Amendment says:
1) "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
2) 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. "

The warrant requirement DEFINES the term unreasonable, and it IS in the text of the constitution. There is no "the search was reasonable, so you don't need a warrant" exception. There never has been. Only when a warrant cannot be obtained (exigent circumstances, for instance) or when no search is being performed (plain view), are there exceptions.

I repeat, there is NO exception to the warrant requirement when there is time warrant can be obtained.

Second: When two rights conflict, the court determines the balance. When two branches' powers conflict, the court determines the balance. When a power granted to the government conflicts with a right preserved by the Constitution, the right prevails--that's what a right means.

[motherwell.livejournal.com]

why don't you jerks just crown the guy and get it all over with...

Because they already crowned Sun Myung Moon "King of Kings," remember? Crowning someone else now would look inconsistent.

[fiona64.livejournal.com]

Its nice and simple, just like you all said about Clinton: you pass a law, the President breaks a law, you impeach the President.

But it's different when they're your own, Joe.

Remember how the special prosecutor suddenly became unconstitutional when the Dems wanted to appoint one?