Say Anything Blog

You continue citing an article that you know contains falsehoods. Incredible.

In other news Bill Clinton told the American People that he never had sexual relations with that woman Monica Lewinsky.

He also disputed his testimony over the meaning of is.

Besides, it is two different things.  Your claim in the other post (and you’re still wrong on that one) is that the Times isn’t being hypocritical.  Al Gore is an entirely different matter.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I don’t know any such thing.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The definition of “is” aside, “wiretaps” is an interesting term to use as the Echelon program really doesn’t fall under that definition.

I think Davey is being taken in by some Clintonian parsing.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Former President Clinton said Thursday that he never ordered wiretaps of American citizens without obtaining a court order, as President Bush has acknowledged he has done.

Clinton, in an interview broadcast Thursday on the ABC News program ‘’Nightline,’’ said his administration either received court approval before authorizing a wiretap or went to court within three days after to get permission, as required by law.

‘’We either went there and asked for the approval or, if there was an emergency and we had to do it beforehand, then we filed within three days afterward and gave them a chance to second guess it,’’ Clinton told ABC.

In other news Bill Clinton told the American People that he never had sexual relations with that woman Monica Lewinsky.

Hold on Davey.  We still do not know the nature of what was collected and on who.  He admitted to authorizing a program monitoring the communications of people inside the U.S. who were communicating internationally with known or suspected terrorists.  The type of monitoring is unknown (was it actual content or “on the envelope” type info like to/from, duration, time of day and fequency information) and whether or not Americans were a direct target of any type of surveillance that would normally require a warrant is unknown.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that Clinton authorized warantless physical searches, ie breaking and entering without warrants Dave? Are they somehow less intrusive on the rights of American citizens? Your bias is showing, but your dishonesty on the subject is predictable. Leftists lie, the truth has no meaning to them.

Carrick--
Nice points.
I wanted to say this earlier, but one reason some of us have not weighed in is that we have been working—for the last 40+ years and have not had the time to monitor the internet for false and unsubstantiated statements, which left alone for a while, spoil and are eventually accepted as The Truth.  I am nearing the end of my third career/job and now see a place to lend some sunshine on the darkness, especially on the left.

Dave:

In other news, President Bush did admit to ordering wiretaps without obtaining a court order.

Show me a quote from Bush where he said he authorized wiretaps without warrants.  I want this from Bush, not a misparsed-language attack from the left.

Neither the controversial NSA program nor its grandfather, the Echelon program, involve “wiretaps”.  Clinton can honestly say he never authorized wiretaps, because the Echelon program didn’t involve wiretaps.  He did authorize physical searches of people’s properties, clearly a morally superior position to listening in on Americans’ communications with al Qaeda. </sarcasm>

Finally, if you really want to stack up the civil liberty abuses of the Clinton administration against the Bush administration, please go ahead.  Just let me know, so I can pop some popcorn first.  At least, Bush had a criterion that the individuals involved are consorting with a known enemy.  That clearly was not the case with many of the targets of the Clinton administration.  Nor as far as I know, has Bush authorized the kidnapping of any children and the forceful removal of those children to a despotic totalitarian regime.

A wiretap is a different entity physically and legally than a communications interception.  This is an especially important point to keep in mind for people who ponder epistemologically on the meaning of the word “is”.

This is going to come down to who was being spied on. If Congress Critters, reporters, political enemies, GW will be crucified.

It’s Sunday, so we agree again.

Bush’s executive order to allow NSA surveillne is a Secret order
so no qoutes on wiretaping.

Sounds like wiretaps of Americans were authorized by Bush executive order.
The Congressional Research Service:

The 44-page report said that Bush probably cannot claim the broad presidential powers he has relied upon as authority to order the secret monitoring
of calls made by U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001

The report also concluded that Bush’s assertion that Congress authorized such eavesdropping to detect and fight terrorists does not appear to be supported

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010601772.html

This is going to come down to who was being spied on. If Congress Critters, reporters, political enemies, GW will be crucified.

Clinton’s warantless searches of Ames were legal at the time.

By the way, I’ve read through the CRS report several times. I was struck by several points:

The first is that the public revelations of the NSA surveillance has sparked a new power struggle between Congress and the President.  One rather curious issue is that Congress continues to insist it plays a joint role in the execution of a war (and not just in the authorization for use of force).  On the other hand, this Administration, as with previous ones, continues to insist it doesn’t need Congressional approval in order to exercise its War Powers.

The claim (or perhaps “suggestion") by the CSR that Congress plays a joint role in the execution of the war is frankly more than a little bizarre,.  The comment I’ve made a number of times about Bush being “Commander in Chief” and not e.g. “Congress’s Lackey to Run the War For Them [tm]” is a response to that odd claim.  It seems reasonable to expect that this is not an assumption that Congress would choose to test with the judicial branch, because most likely they would lose.

The CRS report also questions whether electronic surveillance constitutes an act of force as envisioned in the AUMF.  In this respect, the original language of the AUMF is:

[...] the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

There are two possible outs for the CRS report.

One is that intel intercepts are not a form of military force, a position that is quite at odds with the rather broad legal definition of the “use of military force.  As far as I can tell this is already settled law.  (In any case, just try and explain to an al Qaeda member that the intelligence intercept that led to the destruction of their CCCI center is not a form of military force.)

The second is that EI is an inappropriate or unnecessary form of military force to use “… against those nations, organization or persons”.  This is an utterly laughable and indefensible position.  As the DOJ letter makes clear, who can fight a war blind?  Is it reasonable to expect Congress to have intended the war in this fashion?

Then there is this little tart from the CRS report:

The Court of Review, the only appellate court to have addressed the issue since the passage of FISA, “took for granted” that the President has inherent authority to conduct foreign intelligence electronic surveillance under his Article II powers, stating that, “assuming that was so, FISA could not encroach on that authority.” However, much of the other lower courts’ discussions of inherent presidential authority occurred prior to the enactment of FISA, and no court has ruled on the question of Congress’s authority to regulate the collection of foreign intelligence information.

The “appellate court” ruling was FISA 2002 ruling:

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided this issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power

Again… the settled law is that “the President’s has inherent authority to direct foreign intelligence electronic surveillance.” In the end, all the report has left to argue is that no court has ruled on the question of Congress’s authority to regulate the collection of foreign intelligence information, a comment that cleverly leaves out the point that for all intents and purposes, Congress has already so-ordered this type of intelligence gathering by their 2001 AUMF.

As I’ve said before, the key question left to be answered is whether international intercepts of electronic communications with one leg in this country are covered by the AUMF.  The DOJ opinion argues affirmatively.  The CRS report fails to address this question in any meaningful way, choosing rather to diverges off into a flight of legalistic fantasy about the extent of Congressional powers in the event of wartime.

[...] Unfortunately for America, Gore didn’t have any legal opinions on the Echelon program authorized under the Clinton administration. [...]

Carrick, sometimes I think you should just turn some of your comments into posts.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Thanks, Rob!  What I like about the comment section is how it sparks creativity.  Sometimes I do end up with enough content to warrant “front paging” it I suppose.  I haven’t had too much time recently to blog.  Pretty hectic spring schedule… though it looks like things just slowed down.  One of the rocket launches we were preparing for has been delayed.

On the other hand, I have to say I admire how you are able to be so generative without the foil of e.g. WOOF or Ryan to spark an idea!  It’s one thing to respond, quite another to be generative & still have plenty of interesting things to write about!

To be honest with you, sometimes I really have to push.  Most of the time a story or whatever will spark my interest and a post will just flow right out.  It is a very fast process for me (which will probably explain for you why my spelling and grammar are often so bad), which works well because I’m always jamming the blogging in amongst 20 other things.

Of late I haven’t been participating in the comments nearly as much as I did back when I first started getting a decent response (this would be after the time when it was just me talking to the void).  I find some of the commenters...tiresome.  I’m a lot more thin-skinned then I let on.  Sometimes it is hard to put myself and my opinions out in the open for everybody to ridicule and kick about.

But I still love doing this, even if I am intellectually dishonest.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs: