Redstate

"Still pathetic and proud"

Seriously, great post.

What a buffoon.

if Al toppled over in the woods, would any sound be made?

he sure does act like he intends to run. He or Tipper seems to be giving a speech a week.

It's great the he doesn't appear to be running, that way he is free to speak the truth on the inept and immoral criminals currently running the country.

Because he had to somehow explain to Jesse why the Democratic Party chose to elevate Al Sharpton to compete with him.  So Al borrows the rap, and the other Al gets the polite applause.  How's that plantation, Hillary?

Did He also issue you your Talking-Point-o-Matic™?

Not likely. I think you got that here.

Is that you signed up just to get banned.

Bye.

But that we have to go back to 1998 to find it should say something.  Bill Frist was diagnosing Terri Schiavo from the Senate floor as recently as last year...

But you know, Gore did make a speech Monday... and the central point of that speech was not a partisan issue... it was about our system of government, and what happens when the executive begins to act as though it is above the law...

Does anyone have anything to say about the point of the speech?  Hell, even Neal Boortz admits that Gore was right.  He qualifies that, of course, by asserting that Gore only made the speech because he was bitter... for whatever that's worth.  Interestingly, he further qualifying his endorsement with a misstatement of Bill Clinton's (or Janet Reno's) actions in the case of Aldrich Ames, and asking why Gore wasn't speaking out against Bill Clinton's legal action.

Speaking of which -- I'm just curious about this, so I hope you'll indulge me... I'd like to know how many RedStaters were mislead by the media and the Administration's claims about the Ames case?  How many of you already know that FISA was not amended until 1995 to cover physical searches such as the ones performed on Ames? ... that when Reno ordered that search it was legal, and when Gorelick testified to its legality... it was legal? I'm really interested in knowing just how effective the media has been in this case.

The Next Last President's latest musings and doings are nothing more than a pathetic cry for help, no?

Look at me!!  I SAID LOOK!!

I'm still important!  Really!  I am!!  Honest!!!  Still relevant!  Me!  That's right!!

HEY!  I SAID! LOOK! AT! MEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeee...

Pathetic - and to think that this unhinged moonbat was a mere 538-Florida-votes from being our CinC on 09/11/01.

Thanks again, Florida!

Really though - aren't the Dems just the gift that keeps on giving?  A creation of Rovian magnitude?  And thank Heaven for that, by the way.  An even semi-together, marginally-coherant opposition would have the leaderless, rudderless GOP on the ropes right now, don't you think?

Cheers.

{I'm really interested in knowing just how effective the media has been in this case.}

  Not nearly so effective as your brainwashing in that liberal arts college. Go back to Kos.

Bill Frist was diagnosing Terri Schiavo from the Senate floor as recently as last year...

He didn't have to meet Terri Schiavo to know that she wasn't dying, and she wasn't in pain. She was just very inconvenient for her estranged husband to have around. That's all. I think Frist's only mistake was not trying to prove that Terri Schiavo killed a 7-11 clerk, three motel workers, and was the author, in name only, of some ghostwritten childrens book. Frist should have said that. Then the Left would have wanted to save her, no doubt.

But do you really think of Georgia Tech as a liberal arts college?

And, assuming you were aware of the "Clinton-did-it" response to Gore's talk, did you know that Clinton acted within the law in that case?

If you just can't bring yourself to agree with Gore, do you have any sympathy for Bob Barr's views on the matter?

to see what you were linking to. Kos wrote, "about conservatives who would surrender their rights in order to assuage their overwhelming fear. 'Give me liberty or give me death' has no meaning to these fools as they cower in fear under their beds."

   This poor misguided soul must have mistaken Dean for chairman of the RNC. Surely he'll be quite embarrassed when he discovers the error.

Can you say Echelon?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml

Your argument is basically that physical searches, which are actually more intrusive, were not covered by FISA.  Possibly true, but the data-mining performed by the current NSA program also does not meet the definitions as required by FISA.

(f) "Electronic surveillance" means--

(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;

(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;

(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or

(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.

Please tell me you weren't serious when you said

that Gore's speech was not partisan. How could you possibly believe that?

What little I know about echelon leads me to believe that it is not specifically this program that is under scrutiny.  GWB referred to a "limited number" of Americans targetted for surveillance... doesn't sound like Echelon... I don't know if echelon is legal or useful... but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

Your argument is basically that physical searches, which are actually more intrusive, were not covered by FISA.  Possibly true

... ok "possibly true"... for help in discovering whether it was actually true, I provide a link to the authorization for 1995 that closed that loophole... But I just want to know... did you know it was "possibly true" before you read my argument?  Or did the media inform you at the same time it informed you that Clinton engaged in said activity?

Because he didn't bring up partisan issues?

Because he made his appeal to Congressional republicans and democrats alike to assert their role as a co-equal branch of government?

Because he made it about the issue of constitutional government instead of partisan issues?

Yes, he made a few tangential statements about the Iraq war that could be perceived as partisan... at least in the sense that the GOP has rallied around the Bush vision of the Iraq war, and anything opposed to that agenda is bound to seem partisan.  Yes, he mentioned, respectfully and without admonition, that he opposed Alito's nomination... but it was over an hour speech, and these partisan-ish items took up no more than a minute or two of it.

The main issue was about whether the President is above the law - that's what an hour + of speech was about... that isn't a partisan issue... or God help us if it is.

sponsored by a liberal forum. Which one was it? The Liberal Coalition. He may as well have been sponsored by moveon.org. Give me a break!

I disagree...

FYI, the sponsors were the ideologically progressive, but non-partisan American Constitution Society, and the "transpartisan" Liberty Coalition.

Liberal? Mostly (excluding such noteworthies as Bob Barr, Citizens Against Government Waste, and a few others) ... Partisan? Yeah... MoveOn.org and a couple of other partner organizations...

If the sponsors' ideologies, and in a few cases partisanship make you conclude that the point of Gore's address was partisan... well, then make sure you're watching the football games that advertize your brand of beer, too.

or any other alcohol...makes me unsteady on my feet.

On a more serious note, has anyone here with time and resources taken on his most recent speech, point by point?  You know, the one where he accuses a democratically elected, sitting President of the United States of being a criminal?

Gore in '08.  We should be so lucky.

Starting from the premise that the president isn't above the law is like starting from the premise that puppies are cute.  Who's going to argue with you about that?  Let me ask you this - in the hour+ speech that I don't have the time to read, did Gore actually prove that the NSA wiretaps were illegal, or did he start from one(unasailable) premise and seamlessly segue into another, unproven premise (i.e., the position that the president HAS been acting outside the law). My bet (as backed up by the quote that headed this thread, not to mention nearly everything else he's done in the past 5 years) is that he took the low road.

Al Gore has managed to consistently erode any respect that he might have deserved before the 2000 elections.  Today, he's just another bitter rich kid, groomed for the presidency and unable to find productive work outside of politics.

... and people like Pat Fitzgerald are for...

No, Gore didn't prove anything... He made the case that:

a) FISA forbids X

b) Bush admits to X and promises to continue X.

c) Bush makes no remotely plausible argument how X is legal despite FISA.

He reminds us of the dangers of an unrestrained executive that considers itself above the law, as those are beginning to appear very relevant in light of these facts.

He further suggests that the way this was done and the rhetoric that is coming from the Bush admin is a slap in the face to the Congress and the Judicial branch.

And, he therefore recommends that the congress, on a bipartisan basis, gets serious about this and starts some hearings and investigations - as though they are a co-equal branch of government, and not the executive's little b***h.

And every word of it makes sense.  Legal scholars, interested parties from both political parties - those who are not firmly committed to an agenda of Bush Apologism - are seeing the flashing red warning lights.

c) Bush makes no remotely plausible argument how X is legal despite FISA.

Since the mass of expert legal opinion is approximately evenly split on whether warrantless surveillance was justfiable under Article II and/or AUMF (or even under the "after a declaration of war" exception contained in the FISA statute -- which Gore ignores), I think it can be said that the administration's position is at the very least plausible.

Contrary to your humble assertion, arguments do not become implausible when you reject them.

The only people I've heard talking about it are the ones that have severe concerns, and the ones that are closely tied to the Bush administration... Granted, that's not a scientific poll of legal opinion, so I'm open to the idea that by some objective criterion "the mass of legal opinion is evenly split"... where exactly are you getting this?

BTW, out the gate, the Bush admin had no argument about how it was legal.  Bush got on TV and said "it was legal"... Then Condi got on and said "it was legal, but don't ask me how, 'cause I'm not a lawyer"... after the machine cranked up for a day or two, we started hearing stuff about AUMF that.. well, to me was ridiculous on its face, especially in light of the fact that the admin actively lobbied for AUMF to provide for domestic powers like this and the congress didn't see fit to include that  language.  I honestly don't see how anyone can take that argument seriously unless they are carrying water... but maybe it makes perfect sense to you...

"It doesn't sound plausible to me."

Gotcha. Well, ordinarily I would find that pretty persuasive, but you might want to check out Douglas Kmiec, John Yoo, and Richard Posner. I understand they're, like, influential lawyers or something. Are you?

So the "mass" of expert legal opinion consists of appx 6?

Oh yeah.. and I know John Yoo and Richard Posner would never carry water... as if... I'll check to see if I can find comments from Kmiec on the matter.

and it took them a while to think of it...

and the authorization bill wasn't written in Chinese... nor was FISA, nor is the constitution...

and that Bush saw fit to reassure the rest of us during 2004 that anytime you hear about government wire-tapping, it requires a warrant...

But, you know -- I'd be happy for the Congress to do get the investigations rolling and for this to be settled through due process of law.

I mean, hell... OJ had the right to a fair trial...

I couldn't find too much in the way of his specific comments on FISA and how it's legal to violate it... but I did find an amusing collection of his past water-carrying moments:

here.

Stack your three up against these fourteen, which includes conservative experts:

Beth Nolan, Curtis Bradley, David Cole, Geoffrey Stone, Harold Hongju Koh, Kathleen M. Sullivan, Laurence H. Tribe, Martin Lederman, Philip B. Heymann, Richard Epstein, Ronald Dworkin, Walter Dellinger, William S. Sessions, William Van Alstyne

Congress did not implicitly authorize the NSA domestic spying program in the AUMF, and in fact expressly prohibited it in FISA

The DOJ concedes (Letter at 4) that the NSA program involves "electronic surveillance," which is defined in FISA to mean the interception of the contents of telephone, wire, or e-mail communications that occur, at least in part, in the United States. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801(f)(1)-(2), 1801(n). The NSA engages in such surveillance without judicial approval, and apparently without the substantive showings that FISA requires--e.g., that the subject is an "agent of a foreign power." Id. § 1805(a). The DOJ does not argue that FISA itself authorizes such electronic surveillance; and, as the DOJ letter acknowledges, 18 U.S.C. § 1809 makes criminal any electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

The DOJ nevertheless contends that the surveillance is authorized by the AUMF, signed on September 18, 2001, which empowers the President to use "all necessary and appropriate force against" al-Qaeda. According to the DOJ, collecting "signals intelligence" on the enemy, even if it involves tapping US phones without court approval or probable cause, is a "fundamental incident of war" authorized by the AUMF. This argument fails for four reasons.

First, and most importantly, the DOJ's argument rests on an unstated general "implication" from the AUMF that directly contradicts express and specific language in FISA. Specific and "carefully drawn" statutes prevail over general statutes where there is a conflict. Morales v. TWA, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 384-85 (1992) (quoting International Paper Co. v. Ouelette, 479 U.S. 481, 494 (1987)). In FISA, Congress has directly and specifically spoken on the question of domestic warrantless wiretapping, including during wartime, and it could not have spoken more clearly.

As noted above, Congress has comprehensively regulated all electronic surveillance in the United States, and authorizes such surveillance only pursuant to specific statutes designated as the "exclusive means by which electronic surveillance...and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted." 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) (emphasis added). Moreover, FISA specifically addresses the question of domestic wiretapping during wartime. In a provision entitled "Authorization during time of war," FISA dictates that "notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress." 50 U.S.C. § 1811 (emphasis added). Thus, even where Congress has declared war--a more formal step than an authorization such as the AUMF --the law limits warrantless wiretapping to the first fifteen days of the conflict. Congress explained that if the President needed further warrantless surveillance during wartime, the fifteen days would be sufficient for Congress to consider and enact further authorization.[3] Rather than follow this course, the President acted unilaterally and secretly in contravention of FISA's terms. The DOJ letter remarkably does not even mention FISA's fifteen-day war provision, which directly refutes the President's asserted "implied" authority.

In light of the specific and comprehensive regulation of FISA, especially the fifteen-day war provision, there is no basis for finding in the AUMF's general language implicit authority for unchecked warrantless domestic wiretapping. As Justice Frankfurter stated in rejecting a similar argument by President Truman when he sought to defend the seizure of the steel mills during the Korean War on the basis of implied congressional authorization:

It is one thing to draw an intention of Congress from general language and to say that Congress would have explicitly written what is inferred, where Congress has not addressed itself to a specific situation. It is quite impossible, however, when Congress did specifically address itself to a problem, as Congress did to that of seizure, to find secreted in the interstices of legislation the very grant of power which Congress consciously withheld. To find authority so explicitly withheld is...to disrespect the whole legislative process and the constitutional division of authority between President and Congress. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 609 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

You need approximately 11 more to get this back to "approximately evenly split".  It would help if you could include some that were in the mainstream of legal thought, too...

While you're looking, you might want to glance through this PDF from the CRS... It's worth mentioning that the CRS isn't exactly the legal expert equivalent of MoveOn.org... or FreeRepublic.org on the other side...

So, someone who has a generally conservative legal outlook is a "waterboy"? But Tribe, Dworkin and Epstein are "independent" and "in the mainstream of legal thought"?

Your value-added to this site is below zero, but at this point, I'm keeping you around because you're apparently unaware of how ridiculous you sound.

based on your recent posts, your argument seems to have evolved to, "The Bush administration's position is not plausible because it doesn't sound plausible to me, and, incidentally, several legal scholars with records of opposing the Bush administration have also argued against it," despite the fact that the Attorney General of the U.S. and his staff and several constitutional and legal scholars agree that the legal or constitutional justification for bypassing FISA warrants is, in some measure, persuasive.

The legality of the surveillance is an open question. Not in your mind, perhaps, but everywhere that matters.

But closer still:

The Bush administration's position is not remotely plausible (to me, and many others), because there is no language in the war authorization bill that supports his contention, despite his having lobbied for such language, and, incidentally because several legal scholars with mixed records ... have also argued against it,", and because it only evolved after several days of an assertion that the actions were legal, without any public case made about the specific legal justification, and because Bush seemed aware that domestic wiretapping required a warrant during the 2004 election campaign, based upon his comments, and because the FISA act is strong and clear and precludes any but a very strong and clear legislative or constitutional action that would amend it's intent.

The people who don't accept the Bush rationale seem to be willing to give substantive reasons for feeling that way, instead of just waving hands in the general direction of the war authorization and saying "trust me... it's in there somewhere"...

mistatement to say that legal opinion is evenly split. They are split along party even though few of them would admit it...Justice is blind.

the Last Next President?

that colorable arguments exist and are being argued by constitutional scholars on both sides.

To claim that one side of the debate (the administration position) had "no remotely plausible argument" is a blatant falsehood.

had "no remotely plausible argument" is a blatant falsehood.

Or a strongly held opinion...

After all, whether an argument is "made" or even "believed", in politics, often tells us much less about the plausibility of the arugment than about the people making or believing it.

correct.  Good catch.

Doc

on that. The press has been completely one sided on that. Oh wait...democrat...press. Is there a difference in those two?

For some reason, I don't remember this.  It's great though.