At least for today, Sen. John Cornyn (R — TX) is my favorite Texan for posting this on his Senate Web site:
Heh.
***
Uncle Jimbo at Madison.com piles on his Senator:
That’s part of the problem right there Senator, you ought not make factual statements that are not factual. It is not clear by any stretch of the imagination that the President violated the law. It is hyperbolic and prejudges a program that has never been adjudicated, you see Senator, that is when an action is clearly in violation of a law. When the legal advisors to the President determine that a course of action is proper and they give the green light, considerable weight is given to that. The President’s authority to conduct surveillance of enemy communications during wartime has never been abridged by any court anywhere, so the smart play would be to hold your fire.
h/t to Blackfive
***
MORE: One more reason to love our Lone Star Senator.
people who disagreed with me posted comments here.
Pathetic. Senator Feingold is perfectly willing to allow wiretapping on al Qaeda: with a damn warrant. Why are Republicans so scared that they want to give up the Constitution?
It seems like an open and shut case to me:
…
“Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 states that it and the criminal wiretap law are the `exclusive means by which electronic surveillance’ may be conducted by the United States Government and makes it a crime to wiretap individuals without complying with this statutory authority…
Whereas George W. Bush, President of the United States, has authorized and continues to authorize wiretaps by the National Security Agency of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978…
Whereas President George W. Bush repeatedly misled the public prior to the public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program by indicating his Administration was relying on court orders to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States, by stating–
(1) on April 20, 2004, that `When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.’;
(2) on July 14, 2004, that `the government can’t move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order’; and
(3) on June 9, 2005, that `Law enforcement officers need a federal judge’s permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist’s phone, a federal judge’s permission to track his calls, or a federal judge’s permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools.’…
Whereas President George W. Bush has, since the public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program, falsely implied that the program was necessary because the executive branch did not have authority to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States, by making statements about the supposed need for the program…
Resolved, That the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, his failure to inform the full congressional intelligence committees as required by law, and his efforts to mislead the American people about the authorities relied upon by his Administration to conduct wiretaps and about the legality of the program.”
A little more relevant than lying about sex to me.
More good stuff in here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.RES.398:
It seems like an open and shut case to me
Judging by the number of Democratic Senators who have signed on to Sen. Feingold’s resolution — and judging by the number of courts who have upheld President Bush’s inherent Constitutional authority to peform these wire taps — I’d say that it’s not nearly as “open and shut” as you’d like it to be.
Remember, no piece of legislation (i.e., the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) can trump a President’s inherint Consititional authority. That seems pretty open and shut to me.
So you’re saying that FISA is unconstitutional- that can be debated. What isn’t argued is that Bush broke the FISA. This is despite his assurances to the contrary and with no attempt to refine the law to fit within Constitutional parameters. His lies about this program are on the record and included in the Resolution.
This is simple after-the-fact justification of proscribed behavior.
Bush is censured daily by the media. Isn’t that enough for Feingold? Why should our taxpayer dollars support the time needed by our Congressional leaders for an action that the press does for free? Doesn’t Congress have enough to do?
I don’t remember Republicans using that argument with regard to President Clinton. In fact, many Democrats supported the notion of censuring Clinton in favor of impeachment: affirming the importance of the rule of law while continuing without paralyzing the government.
I’m not sure what is more important that restating the importance of checks and balances- it is the essence of our republican form of government.
I don’t recall Bush lying under oath. That is an impeachable offense. Naturally, some of the Democrats would have supported censure over impeachment in the Clinton case. Indeed, I’m sure many Republicans agreed. But, even that wasn’t done. If Feingold believes so strongly in the rule of law or checks and balances, why didn’t he try to censure Clinton?
For the record, I think Bush should have reported the wiretapping after the fact within the proscribed timeframes. Then, all of this hooptara wouldn’t have happened. As I said above, it’s all a big waste of time. People want to feel safe and they want the President to have the power to keep us that way.
Regarding Feingold and the Clinton impeachment:
Democrat bucks party line to vote with GOP in Clinton hearing
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/28/feingold.01/
People want to feel safe and they want the President to have the power to keep us that way.
Alas, it is no secret that large portions of the public have been willing to cede the rights that the founders fought for. Luckily the authority of the Constitution remains even if the citizens are unaware of its protections.
And, of course, everyone is in agreement that the President must do everything in his power to thwart the ambitions of terrorists.
Well, well, gotta hand it to you Preston. I should have checked Feingold’s history before the challenge. However, that doesn’t change my position about censuring Bush. It’s an entirely different situation.
I don’t believe I am ceding my rights. I am giving them to the President, be it a Republican or Democrat, to wiretap my calls if I am talking to a suspected terrorist in another country. I want that to happen. Google earth can show a picture of my house to the whole damn world. Cell phones can be used as trigger mechanisms for bombs. God knows how many people can get into any of my records if they try hard enough.
It’s 2006, not 1776.
It’s 2006, not 1776.
Well, it’s sad that many believe that liberty was good for our grandfathers but not for ourselves as if the world suddenly grew dangerous on September 11 and that these rights hadn’t sustained us as we fought Nazis and Communists.
We used to agree that unregulated spying on Americans was bad. Now when Jimmy Carter referred to the dispicible practice of the FBI wiretapping Martin Luther King’s telephone it was widely regarded to be a criticism of President Bush. However, I’m of the opinion that if you don’t want to be compared to J. Edgar Hoover you don’t behave like J. Edgar Hoover.
We used to agree that unregulated spying on Americans was bad
Preston — I am in complete agreement with you that unregulated spying on Americans is bad.
However — spying on international calls between a person in America (who may or may not be an American citizen) and another person in another country (who may or may not be an American citizen), where at least one of the parties in that international call are suspected or known al Qaeda (or any other terrorist group) operatives? Well, I fully support that and don’t think it’s “bad”.
President Bush wasn’t tapping the phone of a guy from Menominee who was calling his buddy in Sheboygan to talk about whether or not the Chippewa Indian tribes in up-state Wisconsin should have un-restricted, no-season/no-limit hunting rights, while they are restricted to trapping fur bearing animals only between October 20 – April 15 each hunting season.
They were tapping calls coming in from places like Pakistan, made to American phone numbers, which were found on recovered terrorists cell phones.
You do understand that there’s a difference, right? And that out-of-country terrorists calling America aren’t covered by our Bill of Rights. You understand that, right?
Robbie- It’s admirable that you trust the President to operate within the law but our Constitution is not based on trust but upon a system of checks and balances.
Regardless, the President is not deserving of this trust you give him because he has repeatedly misrepresented this program- I don’t know who he is spying on. As the resolution cites:
(1) on April 20, 2004, that `When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.’;
(2) on July 14, 2004, that `the government can’t move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order’; and
(3) on June 9, 2005, that `Law enforcement officers need a federal judge’s permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist’s phone, a federal judge’s permission to track his calls, or a federal judge’s permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools.’
I’m curious, do you similarly believe it is permissible for the President to send the FBI to conduct warrantless searches of the homes of Americans who make overseas phonecalls?
Lastly, I think I’ll cast my two cents in and say Willie Nelson is my favorite Texan.