President Bush Calls the Democrats Out to Play
By Mark I Posted in User Blogs — Comments (206) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
From the diaries...
Responding to a question in his press conference today, President Bush called the Democrats on their dishonest political attacks on him and his policies in the Global War on Terror.
Could this be a foreshadowing of the president's strategy for the fall elections? Let's hope so.
Read on...President Bush was asked the following question about Sen. Russ Feingold (D-kos) drive for a resolution censuring the president for ordering up the NSA terrorist surveillance program:
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. On the subject of the terrorist surveillance program, not to change the (OFF-MIKE) bipartisanship, but there have been now three sponsors to a measure to censure you for the implementation of that program. The primary sponsor, Russ Feingold, has suggested that impeachment is not out of the question. And on Sunday, the number two Democrat in the Senate refused to rule that out pending an investigation.
QUESTION: What, sir, do you think the impact of a discussion of impeachment and censure does to you and this office and to the nation during a time of war and in the context of the election?
President Bush could have answered this with an updated version of a famous Clintonism: "No censure ever killed a terrorist or prevented an attack on an American city." That would have answered the direct question about the impact of the censure movement on the war, but would not have sufficiently defined the motives of the censure advocates.
President Bush's actual answer goes much further in defining Congressional Democrats as both unserious and dishonest about the war on terror. The president:
BUSH: I think during these difficult times -- and they are difficult when we are at war -- the American people expect there to be an honest and open debate without needless partisanship. And that's how I view it. I did notice that nobody from the Democratic Party has actually stood up and called for the getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say, The tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used. They ought to take their message to the people and say, Vote for me. I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program. That's what they ought to be doing. That's part of what is an open and honest debate.
BUSH: I did notice that, you know, at one point in time, they didn't think the Patriot Act ought to be reauthorized -- they being at least the minority leader in the Senate. He openly said, as I understand -- I don't want to misquote him -- something along the lines that We killed the Patriot Act. Now, if that's what the party believes, they ought to go around the country saying, We shouldn't give the people on the front line, who are protecting us, the tools necessary to do so. That's a debate I think the country ought to have.
Indeed. The country ought to have that debate. But Democrats will not engage on that debate because they know it is a political loser. They lack the political courage to actually propose an end to the NSA program or a repeal of the PATRIOT Act, so they resort to useless, baseless, and petty censure proposals and calls for more investigations.
President Bush was so effective with this answer that one could almost conclude that the question was a Rovian plot asked by a Rovian plant. Don't hold your breath waiting to see the video on the evening news.
The president was in fine form during this press conference. He even granted the Dame of the Briefing Room, the execrable Helen Thomas, a chance to take her best shot at him. After fighting off the president's attempt to defuse her with a small charm offensive, Ms. Thomas asked the following question:
QUESTION: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President -- your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is: Why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, your Cabinet officers, former Cabinet officers, intelligence people and so forth -- but what's your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil, the quest for oil. It hasn't been Israel or anything else. What was it?
Is it any wonder why Helen Thomas doesn't get recognized to ask a question by this president very often?
A while ago, after a particularly acerbic performance by Ms. Thomas at a White House daily briefing, I wrote a diary calling for the revocation of Helen Thomas' press pass.
Helen Thomas is no longer a journalist. She is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. That is an important distinction. It means she now trades in opinion openly, instead of pretending to be objective like journalists. I can't think of a reason why the White House should continue to provide Ms. Thomas with a platform to spout her opinions, especially when they are as vile as she has demonstrated hers to be.
President Bush's answer to her question provided the reason to keep Ms. Thomas hanging around. It is precisely because she openly trades in opinion that she can be used as a tool to get the White House's message out and as a proxy for the president to fight back against the attacks of the fringe left and Democrats who would sympathize with them.
BUSH: I think your premise, in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- that I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect.
QUESTION: And...
BUSH: Hold on for a second, please. Excuse me. Excuse me. No president wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true.
BUSH: My attitude about the defense of this country changed in September the 11th. When we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people, that we will do everything in our power to protect our people. Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy, and that's why I went into Iraq. (CROSSTALK) [probably meant Afghanistan]
BUSH: Hold on for a second. Excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for Al Qaida.
BUSH: That's where Al Qaida trained and that's where...
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
BUSH: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for Al Qaida. That's where they trained, that's where they plotted, that's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans. I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council. That's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, Disarm, disclose or face serious consequences. And therefore, we worked with the world. We worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny the inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did. And the world is safer for it.
This was a polite smack down of Ms. Thomas and by extension, all of the far left talking points about the Iraq War that the question reflected. The president was exercised but in control while giving this answer. He took on a demeanor very similar to that which he displayed during the 2004 campaign. He was resolute, passionate, and confident. He displayed all of the traits that once caused the American people to trust him implicitly on prosecuting the war on terror.
The president was in vintage form throughout this press conference. Too bad it took place at 10:00 AM and not at 9:00 PM, when a larger segment of the population could have witnessed it first hand. But, I have a feeling that we may be seeing a bit more of this engaged and embattled presidential demeanor in the months leading up to the November elections.
was masterful, simply masterful. Why can't he communicate like that all of the time, or even most of the time?
This is such as basic premiss...
If you are a terrorist (insurgent) and you are blowing up things and killing people, and as a result you hear your enemy's politicians and news media calling for withdrawl so that the carnage will stop....
...what would you do?
The utter stupidity of those who fall into this category is enough to make me soil my keyboard whenever I think about it. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid.... oh yeah... stupid.
Oh... even I have been stupid on occassion, but this just takes the cake. This stupidity costs American lives, Iraqi lives, and it just prolongs the conflict for no good reason.
...
..
.
They ought to take their message to the people and say, Vote for me. I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program. That's what they ought to be doing. That's part of what is an open and honest debate.
That's not an honest debate. No one is saying that they don't want to conduct surveillance on terrorists. They simply want it to be done in a way that is consistent with the law. And if the law is not up to the task, change it in the Constitutionally prescribed way.
I don't know why the President feels compelled to distort the Democratic position on this. But it's certainly not in the pursuit of openness and honesty.
And in case he hasn't noticed, plenty of politicians, and not just Democratic ones, have indeed been taking their opposition of the Patriot Act to the voters. That's exactly why opposition to the Patriot Act went from one dissenting vote in the Senate originally to the staunch opposition that we saw for the renewal - so that they could boast of opposing it. The President seems to think that repeating Harry Reid's public statement of opposition seems to represent a lack of willingness for Reid to discuss it. That's just dumb.
...is built on such a profoundly simplistic series of lies and falsehoods that it begins to resemble the Soviet Empire in the Reagan Era.
A determined propaganda offensive, with Bush at the center, but including Rice (yes, throw Condi into the mix, it's that important), Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Jeb Bush if necessary must use this template we saw today to throw a huge monkey wrench into the Democratic plans to sieze one or both of the chambers this year.
Condi is important because her conversational speaking style and her powerful reasoning ability helps to frame issues in ways that Bush cannot, and the Democratic argument accuses her of mendacity as well. She is admired by the base, too. The object of the exercise? Rouse the base to get out to vote, and remind the base that the Democrats care little about victory, but would rather concentrate on impeachment instead.
...he's not a good actor and doesn't know how to deliver a script. But GWB seems to excel in unscripted settings. When he got out from behind the podium in the presidential debates, he was clearly more comfortable and more effective. Same with today's press conference and yesterday's Q&A in Cleveland.
instead of accepting their spin.
"[Democrats] simply want it to be done in a way that is consistent with the law."
Why should he concede that his program is illegal? it is clearly legal.
"I don't know why the President feels compelled to distort the Democratic position on this. But it's certainly not in the pursuit of openness and honesty."
It's not honesty to blindly accept Democrat lies.
"And in case he hasn't noticed, plenty of politicians, and not just Democratic ones, have indeed been taking their opposition of the Patriot Act to the voters."
Give me one example of that.
"That's exactly why opposition to the Patriot Act went from one dissenting vote in the Senate originally to the staunch opposition that we saw for the renewal"
I believe that 8 Senators voted against renewing the Patriot Act last month.
Staunch, isn't it?
"The President seems to think that repeating Harry Reid's public statement of opposition seems to represent a lack of willingness for Reid to discuss it. That's just dumb."
Reid will be refusing to discuss the fact that he boasted of killing the Patriot Act.
Because that is what we call a Freudian slip. He admitted that he really thought.
It's really refreshing to see the President on the attack for a change. The old hag Helen Thomas grates on me to NO END ! I'll bet Bush has a picture of her on a dart board in the living quarters. Or maybe her mug could grace the big blue "mints" in the mens room. LOL!!
especially to your part D
Go to hell.
I've been around here awhile, and you sir, are a putz. You want to call me out and then claim that you should keep "ramming our knees into their guts," then can rot for all I care. It won't matter much anyway, as the BS you're spouting here and the with us or against us nonsense has long since been ignored and disavowed by a vast majority of the American people. How much have they disavowed it? We'll find out in November, and I'm likin' our chances. Until then, I have nothing but good wishes for the people I debate here who do so honorably (see Leon, Moe Lane, or Erick). But as for you, a twit of a person who insinuates physical threats and thinks that only your political views are "American" as apple pie, there's only one appropriate response.
Go to hell.
If you're Al Qaeda and "you are blowing up things and killing people", and you hear nothing from your enemy's minority party and media outlets... what do you do?
If you're Al Qaeda and "you are blowing up things and killing people", and you hear positive stay-the-course talk from your enemy's minority party and media outlets... what do you do?
And then to modify your original question to more accurately reflect the current situation:
If you're Al Qaeda and "you are blowing up things and killing people", and you hear negative talk from your enemy's minority party and media outlets but positive talk from your enemy's president and majority party... what do you do?
The answer in all three cases is identical for Al Qaeda: you continue making war on American interests. If you don't understand that, then you will be ill-equipped to handle the upcoming decades of continued terrorist aggression against America. If we pull out today, then Al Qaeda will continue it's aggression. If we never pull out and establish permanent military bases (one half of what a positive conclusion in Iraq will entail, in my opinion), then Al Qaeda will continue it's aggression.
Short of a bona fide act of treason there is no effect one way or the other on Al Qaeda and it's ambitions resultant from some segment of Americans exercising their right to protest and voicing their opinions. Although you may find it offensive, whining about it doesn't have an effect either. You're never going to get them to stop voicing their opinions by calling them stupid or treasonous.
You may be able to get (some percentage of) them to reconsider by engaging them and explaining the value of having a pro-American regime in an oil rich country and permanent military bases in the middle of the Middle East - at the very least, and on the too few occassiona that he tries it, 43 makes his case in a positive, engaging manner without denigrating those who disagree with him. Please note, that his persuasive attempts are often following by a rise is support for the Iraq initiative. You might learn something from 43 by following his example...
Both the question about the NSA surveillance controversy and the President's answer concerned the politics of the matter.
Neither addressed the substantive issue, which is whether Bush broke the law.
This is not surprising. White House reporters would almost always rather talk about politics than complicated legal issues, and in this case Bush obviously thinks he is politically strong and legally weak.
The question the President should be asked is, "Why won't you take the legal question to the courts for a ruling?"
I agree that this was a masterful performance. I was in car between meetings while the President was speaking and found myself cheering his responses, particular the polite but firm answers to Helen.
However, there was something missing to what the President had to say.
That is, that to the extent that we allow ideological/military opponents to dismiss and ignore warnings, we do so at our own peril.
Any number of resolutions were passed by the UN Security Counsel demanding that Iraq open its facilities to inspection by world authorities. As we all know, Sadam not only brushed off these resolutions but dared the US to do something about it. The image of him with rifle pointed skywards comes to mind.
What exactly is it that the Helen T's of the world would have us do in circs of this type?
And if we send a message to the Husseins of the world that our lines in the sand are no more substantial than shifting sands, how will we ever deal with an Iran or Korea with nukes?
Do the HT's of the world think that just as with school bullies, just as with urban thugs, just as with child molesters, that what these folks need from us is a bit more understanding? Understanding of why they feel so aggrieved.
When what folks like this really need is the back of our hand; to know that when we are pushed to a certain point that we mean what we say.
Otherwise, we stand for nothing, and doing so, as a society, will fall for anything.
The tenor of your words is nearly as offensive as what we hear from the left!
You raise good points, but poorly!
But, I have a feeling that we may be seeing a bit more of this engaged and embattled presidential demeanor in the months leading up to the November elections.
The Rove-A-Dope has run its course, and the gloves have been taken off for a bare-knuckled political brawl. Put me in President Bush's corner.
Bush obviously thinks he is politically strong and legally weak.
The President KNOWS he's on solid legal ground and KNOWS the Dems know he's on solid legal ground and he's NOT afraid to call them out!
The FISA Court has ruled (In RE: Sealed Case) that the executive (President Bush) has the inherent constitutional authority under Article II to conduct warrantless surveillance of terrorists. Additionally, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, as currently constructed, does not violate FISA.
al-Qaeda and the insurgent terrorists in Iraq are not one and the same in regard to ending the conflict. The al-Qaeda terrorist organization will continue regardless, as you point out, because they do not have a nation state for which they are fighting, and which we can defeat in battle.
On the other hand, the Iraqi insurgents do, and they are fighting to restore themselves to their previous position of influence under Saddam's regime. These forces can be defeated and their cause can be crushed and disenfranchied.
Once that happens, the al-Qaeda protagonists will have no base within Iraq from which they can work their evil. They will show up somewhere else, and that battle will continue in some form, likely forever.
...
..
.
The question the President should be asked is, "Why won't you take the legal question to the courts for a ruling?"
I don't believe you can take "the legal question to the courts for a ruling", there has to be a suit filed against this policy in order for the courts to rule on it. At the present, lawsuits challenging the NSA program are winding their way through the courts system, so we should hear some legal opinion on this in the near future.
But here's the main point. Throughout history, each branch of gov't has done its utmost to see to it that its powers are not reduced vis-a-vis the other branches. If the president and his legal advisors believe that he has this authority, then it's his right, if not his duty, to utilize it without prior consultation with the other branches of gov't.
Do you think Congress consults with the judiciary before assuming any questionable powers? If they did, it's doubtful that as many laws would be tossed out by the courts as have been throughout history.
Did Chief Justice Marshall consult with Congress and the Excutive branch before claiming the right of judicial review? He didn't, and neither has any branch of gov't voluntarily solicited advice to determine the extent of its' powers. Do demand that in this case, is to ignore history.
IMO, this is what makes the whole censure issue so ridiculous. Should Congress be censured every time they pass a law that is later ruled unconstitutional? At most, the president has committed a legal error, to attempt to criminalize it is shameless.
I have followed this issue quite closely, and you are mistaken about the law.
The "FISA Court" -- properly called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review -- made no such ruling in In re Sealed Case. The language to which you refer is non-binding dicta.
Indeed, the only courts where that dicta even has any advisory weight is in the courts lower, the Foreigh Intelligence Surveillance Court. The only party with standing there is the DOJ, which has had ample opportunity there to bring a test case.
The DOJ lawyers could make whatever arguments they choose there, including those you mention. The DOJ even has a home-court advantage, because a ruling in the government's favor in the FISC court is not reviewable by the FISCR; only adverse rulings are reviewable, in the FISCR and ultimately in the Supreme Court.
But the DOJ lawyers are quite afraid to bring a test case because they expect they would lose.
As a judicical conservative who strongly supported the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, I am confident that if the President's radical constitutional theory of executive power ever were presented squarely for a decision in SCOTUS, both these justices would join an overwhelming majority in rejecting it. The vote would likely be 9-0 or 8-1.
That's not an honest debate. No one is saying that they don't want to conduct surveillance on terrorists. They simply want it to be done in a way that is consistent with the law. And if the law is not up to the task, change it in the Constitutionally prescribed way.
That makes alot of sense. First let's censure him and impeach him, then let's change the law and do exactly what he did.
If you're talking about changing the law and not the program, then all the Democrats have to do is quietly work behind close doors to change the law so that it provides the neccessary legal framework to allow the program to continue. The ruckus they've raised about this makes it clear that this just another attempt to get Bush.
I believe that 8 Senators voted against renewing the Patriot Act last month.
Well, you're wrong. Only one did, Feingold again.
I was referring to the successful filibuster back in December, after which Reid made his boast, which was supported by Republicans Larry Craig and John Sununu (and a couple others).
Speaking of which, Craig openly discussed his opposition to the act on Limbaugh's show. So there's one example.
Sununu, as I'm sure you know, has been very vocal in his opposition to the act, even penning an op-ed with Russ Feingold for the Boston Globe explaining why. So there's two more examples (Sununu and Feingold). You see where I'm going with this?
Reid will be refusing to discuss the fact that he boasted of killing the Patriot Act. Because that is what we call a Freudian slip. He admitted that he really thought.
Right, and I suppose that's why he turned around and voted for the final bill two months later.
Look, Democrats wanted changes to the bill. They got the changes. They won that battle, and you're too caught up in the spin to even see it.
First off, I was not making any physical threats. What I was mentioning were called metaphors.
Second, I know the truth hurts when it comes to the left and patriotism.
Sure, i'm not Mr. Charming when it comes to the left, but then again, I don't really care.
on FNS nicely,and whupps the bejeezus out of Juan Williams as an added bonus...
-----------------snip----------------------------
WILLIAMS: But you've mixed up two things. You've mixed up the idea of the popularity of the program with its legality. I don't think I've met any American who says we shouldn't be doing everything we can to prevent another terrorist attack against this country, including surveilling these conversations.
But it's not the question of people say oh, yeah, therefore, we don't need the judges, we don't need the Congress, we don't need anything but to put our trust in the president.
HUME: Excuse me, Juan. If I'm not mistaken, the leaders of Congress were fully and completely and repeatedly briefed on this. And for Senator Durbin to say, as he did, that those leaders really were powerless to do anything about it because it's classified is utter nonsense.
Any of them could very easily have objected in a letter to the president in strong terms.
WILLIAMS: They did object.
HUME: No, excuse me. They did not. There was one weak little weird, sort-of-slightly-incomprehensible letter from Senator Rockefeller, which was followed up by him in no way whatever.
They were in the room with the vice president. The vice president chaired the briefings. They could all have objected noisily to this if they suspected it was illegal. They also could have done a great deal of constitutional research into the hypothetical question of whether such a thing would be legal or not. There is not one scintilla of evidence that any of them did that. The idea that this is illegal springs from the fact that it got into the New York Times and politicians within the Democratic Party decided it was a good idea to chase that idea around. It is by no means a settled matter that it was illegal.
There's very good reason to believe that the inherent constitutional powers of the president and possibly even the grant of the use of force to repel Al Qaida would have authorized him to do this. So it's no settled question, Juan.
You GO Brit!!
"Well, you're wrong. Only one did, Feingold again."
10 Democrats voted against renewing the Patriot Act.
Akaka, Bingaman, Byrd, Feingold, Harkin, Jeffords, Leahy, Levin, Murray, and Wyden.
"I was referring to the successful filibuster back in December, after which Reid made his boast, which was supported by Republicans Larry Craig and John Sununu (and a couple others)."
Yep. In the long-run, it's questionable to call the filibuster successful, since Feingold didn't get everything he wanted. In Feingold's eyes, he failed. But, in the scheme of things, I guess the filibuster could be called successful by those who wished to dilute the Patriot Act.
"Speaking of which, Craig openly discussed his opposition to the act on Limbaugh's show. So there's one example."
Yeah, I guess you can call that "going to the voters", although I was thinking more of a "campaign" thing and not just a talk show appearance.
"Right, and I suppose that's why he turned around and voted for the final bill two months later."
Yeah, he said that he killed the Patriot Act, and apparently he resurrected it.
"Look, Democrats wanted changes to the bill. They got the changes. They won that battle, and you're too caught up in the spin to even see it."
Nah, those Democrats felt the heat for their previous stance. They accepted the compromise, but grudgingly.
They didn't get enough to win on the Patriot Act.
They got a pea, we got the steak.
JPH: I don't believe you can take "the legal question to the courts for a ruling", there has to be a suit filed against this policy in order for the courts to rule on it. At the present, lawsuits challenging the NSA program are winding their way through the courts system, so we should hear some legal opinion on this in the near future.
You are right about the existence of the civil suits. But procedural problems -- mostly the problem of establishing standing -- very likely will prevent the courts from considering the merits of the substantive issue: Is the surveillance legal?
But you are incorrect that this is the only path to a test case. As I explained in my post above, DOJ has it in its power to initiate a case within the FISA courts. The merits of the question would be reached quite directly.
About 10 times oer year, according to the Washington Post, the DOJ has occasion to seek purely domestic FISA warrants against someone who already has been the subject of the warrantless surveillance. The chief judge of the FISC court has warned the government lawyers that such warrants likely would be rejected if they were based on information from the prior surveillance, because that surveillance was unlawful under FISA.
If the DOJ wished to establish the precedent that the warrantless surveillance actually is legal, all they have to do is submit such an application to the FISC judge in a real case. Yet they have been afraid to do so.
Sen. Specter repeatedly challenged Atty. Gen Gonzales to seek a test case under existing law, and Gonzales rebuffed him.
As I explained in my post above, DOJ has it in its power to initiate a case within the FISA courts.
Read the rest of my post and you'll see why the DOJ doesn't want to do that.
In court it is not up to Republicans and Democrats. It is up to the judges.
But the DOJ lawyers are quite afraid to bring a test case because they expect they would lose.
It isn't up to the DOJ to bring a test case, they believe they are in the right. You are proposing that the DOJ sue themselves in order to give the Democrats and opportunity to pontificate?
If the Dems think its illegal they should bring suit. But they aren't going to because they know full well they will lose and they then they have hung yet another albatross around their necks.
Your reasons boil down to, if DOJ took the case to court they would lose.
The judiciary is absolutely the right forum to determine what the law is, including a separation-of-powers issue such as this. Read John Roberts on the subject of the Youngstown precedent.
jsteele: You are proposing that the DOJ sue themselves in order to give the Democrats and opportunity to pontificate?
No, the DOJ does not "sue itself." And "Democrats" have no standing to bring suit.
See my responses to others in this thread, which better explain the form such a test case would take.
Your reasons boil down to, if DOJ took the case to court they would lose.
Not at all. I pointed out that each branch jealously guards its powers. To demand that this be different reveals a political agenda. "Concern for the law" has zero to do with it.
It is one thing for the President to claim he has constitutinal power to override a statute. But neither Congress nor the President is the ultimate arbiter of what the law is. The Supreme Court is.
Once again, I invite you to read John Roberts on the subject.
It may be that nothing compels Bush to initiate a test case forthrightly, but he certainly forfeits the moral high ground while he is effectively on the lam from the courts.
Work with me here. When was the last time (or the first) that one branch of gov't asked another to determine the extent of its' powers. I'm no legal expert, so could be there were, but please cite any example you know of, which makes you think that the president has relinquished the "moral high ground" by not consulting with the courts.
Besides, the president has never conceded that the NSA program violates FISA so he is not neccesarily overriding a statute.
your argument now amounts to: The President should do what he can get away with.
In public, he and his subordinates have advanced many legalistic arguments in the Court of Public Opinion to justify his actions. Those arguments are either correct or incorrect on the merits, and it is up to the real courts to decide that.
We should get on with finding out what the law is.
Has any branch of gov't ever voluntarily submitted the extent of its powers for review by another? Yes or No.
Nah, those Democrats felt the heat for their previous stance. They accepted the compromise, but grudgingly.
They didn't get enough to win on the Patriot Act.
They got a pea, we got the steak.
Clinking glasses with that steak, RC.
Test cases are nothing new or extraordinary. They just have to be real cases with real facts, not hypothetical.
Another reason to resolve this matter in court is that by failing to do so, the DOJ lawyers actually have to hold off on getting warrants for suspected terrorists until they can develop indepedent information untainted by the prior illegal wiretaps.
So by failing to resolve the precedent -- if the DOJ legal theory is correct on the merits -- Bush shows that he places a higher priority on protecting himself legally than in prosecuting the war on terror.
what I said.
One more time, the DOJ is not going to seek any form of judicial ruling on the matter --- as far as they are concerned the President is right. The government is not going to challenge itself, why should they?
And perhaps it might be better if you didn't lecture rest of us as if we are three year olds learning to finger paint.
Has anyone ever heard of the standard fallacies of logic? I recommend looking into the 'straw man argument', a 'Fallacy of Quantificational Logic' (specifically the use of existential fallacies), the 'Masked Man Fallacy' and uses of 'petitio principii'.
I'm just guessing from the things I've read on the board here, that most subscribers to this forum never had the opportunity to study formal logic. I know that the large words might be a little intimidating, but I promise you won't be dissappointed.
Test cases are nothing new or extraordinary. They just have to be real cases with real facts, not hypothetical.
If they're "nothing new or extraordinary" can you cite some? Chapter and verse please.
why the DOJ should create a test case, to make Harry Reid or Arlen Specter happy? Who cares.
DOJ works for the President last time I looked and they are not going to seek a judicial ruling in anea where they think they are right.
And then we'll see who is being logical.
Apparently neither you nor your Democrat (not democratic--nothing democratic there) buddies have not read the constitional descriptions of responsibilites of the Executive, which is to protect the nation. Only Democrat legislators confuse the practice of constitutional authority with breaking the law.
Put down the Pointy Stick™ and back away - slowly.
Keep your hands where we can see them.
That's a nice newbie...
Wrong again. The President has the power of the U S Constitution behind him.
So long as there is a "case or controversy" under Article III, the judiciary may consider it. That include separation-of-powers questions.
One easy example is found in the recent case of Hamdi v Rumsfeld.
The executive branch argued voluntarily to the Supreme Court that it had exclusive jurisdiction over Hamdi, and that the courts therefore had no jurisdiction at all. No one forced the government to make that argument, which was not central to its effort to keep Hamdi in military custody.
(The executive lost on that separation-of-powers issue, 8-1, while winning 5-4 on the basic question of keeping Hamdi in military custody).
The DOJ made that argument in an effort to establish a precedent. It lost. Things like that happen in the courts.
time I'm at the doc?
Me: I'm going to die eventually, right?
Doctor: Yes.
Me: If I stop drinking I'm still going to die, right?
Doctor: Yes.
Me: If I stop eating brats and pizza I'm still going to die, right?
Doctor: Yes.
Me: So quit trying to get me to give up the booze and start eating healthy!
Just brilliant.
I'm a solid supporter of Bush's foreign policy, but this is ridiculous. If this were a Republican DailyKos, this type of posting would fit it, but it's not. This site is intended for serious analysis, and this type of "with us or against us" tripe should be ignored. Most Americans who feel that we should not have invaded Iraq are wrong, not unpatriotic.
jsteele: DOJ works for the President last time I looked and they are not going to seek a judicial ruling in anea where they think they are right.
But they can't know they are right unless the courts affirm their theory. (In fact, they probably know that the courts would not agree with it.)
If they are right on the merits, establishing the precedent actually would accelerate efforts to prosecute the war on terror. There may be real terrorists whom the government is unable to pursue because it is afraid to make the same arguments in court that Bush and Gonzales proclaim in public.
Additionally, this festering constitutional crisis would go away. And the President would regain the moral high ground politically.
Besides, the president has an affirmative duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed, and the judiciary has the responibility to say what the law is.
For that matter, the AG's oath is also to support the Constitution, not the President. His ultimate duty is not just as an advocate trying to help his boss get away with as much as possible as long as possible.
That is the sort of lawyering I expect from a mafia defense attorney, not the highest law-enforcement officer in the government.
Sorry, Brad, don't see where RC was "calling you out" anywhere. RC, whether diplomatically or not, was laying out the fact that we on the right do need to "fight back" a bit (that, BTW, does not impune violence, in the sense of physical stuff, but ideologically). Fight back against the constant input of negative reporting and commentary that seems to drive some polls downward. You think RC was being combative, read MoDo, Helan Thomas, the Krugemeister, et. al. from a right-thinking (that is, in a political thinking sense) position.
RC posted six positions we, as conservatives, need to hit on. One (D) seemed to get your goat a bit. Too bad. It should. Some Americans do actually think those left-of-center have a patriotism problem because the rhetoric of those on the left - in-toto - seems to support that.
I could write a long screed on why I'm happy you think that your chances are good in '06, just like the media-hyped chances in '02 and '04 (remember, Kerry was going to win in '04, according to all MSM). But I'd rather ask my simple question. . .
Instead of snarking that you didn't like RC's post, why didn't you debate the points made?
the Supreme Court will affirm the President's power.
of your fellow travelers who seem to agree that RC is off his bloody rocker, I'm gonna go ahead and stand by my original statement as a response to his tripe.
He can go to hell.
I live by a pretty simple rule in the area of part D that set me off: you question my patriotism to my face, I leave you with a bloody nose. And I am not being figurative.
but it's patently obvious you've gained no valuable insight from "following this issue quite closely," and are stuck on Talking-Points™.
Whether you believe it, or not, is not important, but the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review acknowledged long-standing and accepted precedent regarding national security: The Executive has the inherent constitutional authority under Article II to conduct warrantless surveillance of terrorists given the current construction of the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program. I'm sorry you don't agree.
And then there's this:
As a judicical conservative who strongly supported the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, I am confident that if the President's radical constitutional theory of executive power ever were presented squarely for a decision in SCOTUS, both these justices would join an overwhelming majority in rejecting it. The vote would likely be 9-0 or 8-1.
That radical constitutional theory of executive power, as you call it, is actually the Unitary Executive Theory, and its been around since our founding. The inherent constitutional power of the Executive is at its highest point when dealing with matters of national security during war-time.
You may be disappointed and your confidence shaken, but I suspect you will find that a majority of the Supreme Court Justices will defer to the Executive regarding matters of national security. Especially given that our country is at war, and the safety and security of the American people are at stake.
You poltroons have been calling the President a fascist and those who support our troops robots. Your leaders time and time again say the very same things Al Qaeda terrorists say about our country and our President. You have Senators who ahve called our troops the equivalent of nazis.
But ohhhhhh, my: someone dared calls your patriotism into question and suddenly that is just toooo much.
Well stuff it.
I hate to break this to you friend, but the "with us or against us" bit hasn't been disavowed by most people, unless ofcourse you look at meaningless polls. Meaningless polls are taken everyday, but meaningful polls are taken at the ballot box only once every couple of years. Looking at the meaningful polls, I'd say our side is doing very good. Ofcourse like weenies, we don't act like it, but we have done quite well nonetheless.
The fact of the matter is, if you don't wan't your patriotism questioned, then DON'T BE UNPATRIOTIC!!!!!! By unpatriotic, I mean say dumb things like "I support the troops but not the war!" That makes as much since as saying "I support the New York Yankees, but I don't want them to play or win." Cmon, you either support the troops and want them to win or you don't Period.
logical fallacies and a few more besides. For example, there's the ad hominem fallacy, where you insult your opponents' character or intelligence in lieu of an argument.
Oh, and my personal favorite, the kissus butticus fallacy. That's where I invite you to pucker up and ...
worth of difference to the Bush Administration. It will be the 'new media' represented by talk radio and the Internet that are going to be the deciding factor. They represent the organs of the President's strongest supporters, and there are huge, huge cracks forming in what used to be a monolith of support.
For example, Malkin writing about the Afghani Christian awaiting execution:
As of Tuesday afternoon, left-wing Amnesty International had nothing to say about the case. But neither did President Bush, a man of faith and a Christian brother. During his extensive White House press conference on the War on Terror and the defense of freedom overseas, Bush spent plenty of time describing what life was like for Afghanis before Operation Enduring Freedom:
"There was no such thing as religious freedom. There was no such thing as being able to express yourself in the public square. There was no such thing as press conferences like this. They were totalitarian in their view. And that would be--I'm referring to the Taliban, of course. And that's how they would like to run government. They rule by intimidation and fear, by death and destruction. And the United States of America must take this threat seriously and must not--must never forget the natural rights that formed our country."
President Bush, who will defend Abdul Rahman's natural rights from being usurped and terminated by Afghanistan's Islamic executioners?
Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council raises the unpleasant question Bush evaded and no one in the White House press corps bothered to ask:
"How can we congratulate ourselves for liberating Afghanistan from the rule of jihadists only to be ruled by Islamists who kill Christians? . . . President Bush should immediately send Vice President Cheney or Secretary Rice to Kabul to read [Afghan President] Hamid Karzai's government the riot act. Americans will not give their blood and treasure to prop up new Islamic fundamentalist regimes. Democracy is more than purple thumbs."
Embarrassingly, the governments of Italy and Germany have already stepped forward to make direct appeals to Karzai to save Rahman's life. Hamid Karzai has ducked the issue so far. Our feckless State Department is "monitoring" the situation.
Then there was Metcalf at Newsmax:
The Bush administration (which has done a lot of 'right' stuff and demonstrated uncommon 'courage') is suffering self-inflicted wounds, which are a direct function of hubris and success morphed with denial and failure. The danger is that in a myopic effort to defend the indefensible and justify the jerky, they now face some very real negative consequences.
I could quote a whole lot more. These aren't paleos rallied around the AmCon or liberals. These are Bush supporters who are having problems with a substantial number of Bush's policies that they perceive as not only not working, but in many cases, as being blantantly anti-conservative.
The MSM can blather all day long, they are talking mostly to themselves. But when Mainstreet America reads Malkin, Novak, and others blasting away at the president on conservative Websites and on conservative news channels - well that's going to leave a mark.
The President has a major, major problem with his base. Afghanistan is now being shown to be little different today than under the Taliban, at least in regards to freedoms that Americans regard as inalienable. That is survivable, because Afghanistan gave us 9/11, and had to be done anyway. But failure to sprout freedom there tends to make us look bad, and bodes badly for Iraq.
The President needs to tend to the base and give it a reason to come out and support him. Otherwise, every Congressman and Senator in the GOP has a greenlight to flip him off at will, and there will be precious little he can do about it.
what your leaders are actually saying, and not write what you wish they were saying.
with no facts.
If you are right about the votes and precedents on the court, then the President should expeditiously seek vindication of his theory there. Alberto Gonzales and Paul Clement can count to nine, which is why they don't try.
As for your faith that the President's powers in wartime are absolute, you should read the Youngstown case carefully, especially Justice Jackson's famous opinion.
Here is what John Roberts had to day about the general issue:
Senator LEAHY: Do you agree that Congress can make rules that may impinge upon the President's command functions?Judge ROBERTS. Certainly, Senator. The point that Justice Jackson is making there is that the Constitution vests pertinent authority in these areas in both branches. The President is the Commander in Chief, and that meant something to the Founders. On the other hand, as you just quoted, Congress has the authority to issue regulations governing the Armed Forces, another express provision in the Constitution. Those two can conflict if by making regulations for the Armed Forces, Congress does something that interferes with, in the President's view, his command authority, and in some cases those disputes will be resolved in Court, as they were in the Youngstown case
- Congress certainly has powers (under Article I Section 8) to regulate the President in this area.
- If there is a conflict, the place for final resolution is in the courts.
- When the President acts contrary to the expressed will of Congress, Justice Jackson said, "Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject." In other words, the court would have to find FISA unconstitutional.
If FISA is constitutional, shouldn't we get that settled and fixed?
Liberals, who blast us for being trigger happy, are the ones resorting to violence.
BTW, by most definitions, "unitary executive theory" has nothing to do with the scope of total executive power vis-a-vis Congress, but rather whether any part of that power can be carved out in such entities as independent agencies or special counsels.
A more radical use of the phrase, espoused by former DOJ lawyer John Yoo, does conflate that idea with the claim that the executive has unfettered, inherent war powers that Congress cannot impinge. Yoo essentially rejects the Youngstown precedent, which separates him from the conservative mainstream
Read Samuel Alito's testimony, in which he embraced the first, limited definition of "unitary executive" and distanced himself from the second. With respect to the FISA controversy, Alito explicitly outlined an analytical framework in which the constitutional question would be resolved under Justice Jackson's Youngstown framework.
- That case was brought against the gov't. The president did not go out of his way to inquire if his detention policy was legal. Hamdi was detained without any consultation with the judiciary and when there policy was challenged in court, they defended it.
- In question was the gov't right to detain Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, without due process. So the excecutive's claim to sole jurisdiction over him definitly was central to it's argument to keep him in custody, although it wasn't the only argument they had.
The DOJ might have been interested in establishing a precedent in their favor once it had gone to court, but here is a fact. No branch of gov't ever tries to limit itself in any way. If they believe they have a specific authority, they will use it.
When I hear you complain about Congress not consulting the courts on whether their laws pass constitutional muster, then I'll respect your motives. As of now, it's just an excecise in GetBush (tm).
While I might disagree with RCs language, I don't agree with a SINGLE thing YOU have to say!!
"The President as commander-in-chief possesses emergency authority to use military force to defend the nation from attack without obtaining prior congressional approval"
This is about defending our nation and preventing attacks, Dems have turned it into, "The goverment is listening to YOU!!!".
Truely mind boggling.
...but why not rebut the argument rather than hurl insults?
of debate is appropriate, why do you stoop to it? I would call the content of your two posts far more combative than anything RC has posted. Instead of using a clearly metaphorical threat of "violence", you literally threaten violence. You personally insult him and tell him "to go to hell". Now please enlighten me how how you are more "enlighted" than RC!!
Here is a little more diplomatic command : Go back to Daily Kos!
(Aside: RC, I did not mean to call you "unenlighted", but you could have been more diplomatic, as others have said)
What infuriates me to the point of infinite frustration about the "they don't support X and therefore are unpatriotic" sentiment that is dripping from RC's earlier post is that 1.) it could easily be applied to everything; and 2.) it assumes that people are challenging and angry with Bush's policy just for the potential political gain and that everything is hunky-dory with his policies.
As to #1, it would be just as easy to say that RC is unpatriotic because he wants to keep our fighting men and women over there to be shot at by the enemy, and sacrificing more American soldiers is unpatriotic. Similarly, I could argue that cutting any type of veteran benefits or not increasing some aspect of defense funding enough is "unpatriotic". I obviously find these arguments to be absurd, and believe they are equally so when applied to: "you disagreeing with Bush's Iraq policy and calling it a reckless waste of human and monetary resources is unpatriotic." It's not unpatriotic, it's a difference of opinion.
As to #2, I have no doubt that some Democratic politicians see potential political gain in the lagging support for Bush's Iraq and terror policies. But to say that opposition to his war policies is unpatriotic attempts to presuppose that the policies are correct. After all, why would there be lagging support if these things were going well. He has had some time to implement any sort of coherent policy over there that could even remotely be defined as exit strategy. Unlike some of my fellow Kossacks, I refrained from attacking any of his war policies for some time, waiting to see if they would adjust to changing situations on the ground, but alas, I waited in vain. After all, people are often confronted with the unexpected (even though I would argue that it should have been expected), but I give people a chance to make up for mistakes, whoever's fault they are. These guys don't seem to want to do anything different, and I have no reasonable way to see where an endgame happens. I suppose the theory is that the insurgency will slowly cycle down into oblivion, losing support over time and thus evaporating into a stable Iraqi state. But nothing indicates this is happening, and in fact seems to be going the opposite way. Thus, we can hammer each other with rhetoric all we want, but Bush as the CIC doesn't seem to want to do anything to actually win. My view as such and his (what I will negatively call stubborness) doesn't make either one of us less patriotic.
On one final note, I am disheartened. I am disheartened because the Big Ditch keeps getting wider. Since I began coming here some time ago, I see more blasts of liberals as unpatriotic and unamerican, and more angry rhetoric of the type of the Free Republic variety. My angry statement above, which I still stand by, is a reflection of that and the daily attacks impugning all liberals, and thus, my, patriotism. My heart hopes things get better in this area, but my brain tells me they likely will not. I only ask that when you (meaning the conservatives here) call liberals "cowards", "unpatriotic", or any other epitaph that currently escapes me, that you remember that there are good people who are behind those labels. Fate put us here with you, for better or worse. I hope we can make the best of it.
Once again, there were two issues argued and settled in Hamdi v Rumsfeld. The first was what you describe, a habeus issue brought by Hamdi to contest the government's plan to hold him as an "enemy combatant."
The second was a separation-of-powers claim, which the government expanded the test case to make. DOJ did not have to make that claim to win the underlying question of holding Hamdi as an enemy combatant (which it did). DOJ deliberately tried to break new ground by establishing the precedent, just as it would have to break new ground today by claiming FISA is somehow unconstitutional.
DOJ won on the first question, and lost on the second.
In facts at issue in real FISA situations over the past four years, the government has had multiple situations in which it wanted to surveil terror suspects legally after they had been surveilled in contravention of FISA. But instead of straighforwardly seeking to do so (since, we are supposed to believe, Gonzales has determined that the prior surveillance is lawful), DOJ ducked the issue and went around the barn to try finding independent evidence it could swear was not untainted by the prior surveillance.
So -- at least in the cases where it can produce such evidence -- DOJ did proceed in actual cases, but ducked the legal precedent. We don't know if there were other cases where DOJ could establish no such untainted evidience and thus could not proceed at all.
Not only does the government not bring a test case, it goes out of its way to avoid one.
All of which seriously undercuts Bush's argument here in the Court of Public Opinion that everything is somehow "legal." If it were, the President would be willing, in fact eager, to tell it to the judge in a real court.
into what Chief Justice Roberts said during his confirmation hearing in response to a question by Sen Leahy. His ability to narrowly focus the debate and define the relevant constitutional issue, as in Rumsfeld vs FAIR, is a much better indicator of his constitutional jurisprudence. It's clear to me that he acknowledges the constitutional limitations placed on the Judiciary by Article III.
If FISA is constitutional, shouldn't we get that settled and fixed?
The problem with FISA: It is constitutional, and it is unconstitutional, depending on the ebb and flow of the inherent constitutional authority of the Executive, and at what point in time the FISA statute conflicts with that executive authority. However, that conflict has been resolved by congress through the Authorization to Use Military Force. Hence, the inherent constitutional authority of the executive is at its highest point.
That may not have been what congress had in mind, but the law of unintended consequences is absolute. In order to restore the balance of power, congress must recind the AUMF. However, to do so given the threat posed by Al Qaeda to the safety and security of the American people would be political suicide.
and vast majority of elected democrats during most of 2004-thru this past sunday, yesterday and today, both in terms of what they say, what they dont say in terms of righteous anger at the enemy and praise for pride in our mission in Iraq to liberate a people from a brutal dicatator and the deafening silence of all of them despite extremist statements of many, I cannot argue with your outline.
One has a hard time concluding anthing but that most dems are in fact hoping for american defeat to advance their political fortunes, they think. Murtha says he fears an american victory. I wonder if maybe UBL also fears an american victory. The dems and their msm allies push lies that have become conventional wisdom about saddam being a benign character before we invaded. I was alive in the 90s and I was a lib dem then and a clinton lover and I knew back then that saddam had to go. Saddam was on the terror state list for a decade. Clinton named saddam and UBL co-conspirators and saddam openly harbored Yasim who was in on the 1993 WTC attcak. After 911 that could not stand. Much less the games he played with wmd inspectors. Clinton said we would have to take him out BEFORE 911!! Bill was right.
After 911 it would have been impeacheable NOT to take saddam out.
The evidence was legion and public before we attacked. What is so funny to watch now are coservatives jumping on the new docs and acting as if they tell us much more than we already knew or even needed to know before we attacked saddam.
DONT get me wrong. Im all for translating the docs, but I dont favor surrendering to the dem msm meme that we were all wrong about why we invaded Iraq with the PUBLIC EVIDENCE we had before 911!
In the Civil War, WWI and WWII the behavior of the dems and msm would have gotten them more than a bloody nose. They would be shamed into silence or exile.
We have let the meaning of the word patriotism be reduced to nothing. Just another dire sign of weakness, that causes me to pray that we have the backbone to defeat the barbarians.
I count myself among the weak. I have too often stayed silent while some venal and some naive libs have repeated unpatriotic lies that slander this country.
I pray for the strength to stay silent no longer.
The only way the dems will be shamed into stopping this disgraceful behavior is by being shamed in public.
The real failure is that of the GOP senate. It shouldnt have to be President Bush. GOP senators should shame their "honorable" colleagues live on hardball!!
and they could give the US a sorely needed civics lesson
and make themselves useful for the first time since 911
The democrats are stuck with the plain meaning of the words they have spoken.
RC simply takes them at their words.
Cambell v Clinton (not a Supreme Court case, BTW) was about the power to initiate military action abroad. And the quote you cite was about congressional approval, or absence of it.
That is a very different situation from overriding a criminal law governing conduct in the United States, in which Congress explicitly has forbidden surveillance activity outside the "exclusive means" defined in FISA and Title III.
It really doesn't make a difference. Iraqi born insurgents, whether they're Saddam loyalists, Baathists, or just opportunists are not paying attention to what the minority party and media in America are saying. Heck, they're not even paying attention to what the American majority or the military are saying. Their primary focus is on the developing Iraqi regime and which party, which leaders, and which direction they will go in - pro-America? pro-Shia? pro-Iran?
The insurgents are akin to violent special interest groups, and I don't believe they themselves are a singular group with a leadership structure but rather a numvber of smaller groups which may at times find themselves in cooperation with each other - at other times they may be fighting one another. Gang warfare on a much larger scale, but fairly far from a traditional civil war where you'd expect to see a much larger number of common citizens taking up arms.
Honestly, this has been a rough week, trying to be civil to certain friends. Honestly, I dont know them anymore. I thought we shared certain values, even liberal Christian values, if I may be so bold, that cared about fellow human beings.
Forget 911 and the value of what we are doing in Iraq for our own security, but these so called caring liberals that I used to think were my ideological allies, even when challenged, show no Christian joy that we have freed the Iraqis from tyranny.
These dems are truly scary in their detachment. Their lack of pride in America. Were they not educated about our past liberations and to be proud of what the US has done that we didnt have to do?
have these people no soul!!! In many ways I have lost a lot of friends in seeing their true selves evolve into selfish political animals.
I hurt man, for you see, like Reagan, Im still a liberal!!! in the classic sense, and I know you know what I mean,
so I really do appreciate the bravo tonight.
rbdwiggins: His ability to narrowly focus the debate and define the relevant constitutional issue, as in Rumsfeld vs FAIR, is a much better indicator of his constitutional jurisprudence.
Except that Rumsfeld v FAIR had nothing to do with presidential war powers or with FISA. It was a straightforward question of statutory interpretation, complicated only by the weak First Amendment claims made by the law schools. The court rightly rejected these arguments, and Roberts wrote an excellent, unanimous opinion. Impressive work by the chief justice, but not really relevant here at all.
Roberts' testimony about Justice Jackson's Youngstown opinion, which is really the linchpin of the whole argument for or against Bush's Article II claims, was obviously not just chatter. The new chief justice showed a real reverence for Jackson's landmark. Alito adopted the same framework.
Maybe you meant:
you: Even if I keep running into this brick wall with my head, I'm never going to knock it down, right?
Doctor: Yes.
you: Just brilliant.
At least that would be somewhat parallel to my point that continuing to lash out against those opposed to the Iraq initiative by referring to them as stupid, traitorous, etc is an exercise in futility, whereas the positive message that 43 brings out (on the all too rare occasions that he does) is aimed at educating and persuading and results in measurable attitude changes and increased support. Even a parent scolding their child doesn't treat them with humiliation and derision, they teach and mold minds.
rdbwiggins: The problem with FISA: It is constitutional, and it is unconstitutional, depending on the ebb and flow of the inherent constitutional authority of the Executive, and at what point in time the FISA statute conflicts with that executive authority. However, that conflict has been resolved by congress through the Authorization to Use Military Force. Hence, the inherent constitutional authority of the executive is at its highest point.
Yes, Bush's lawyers are entitled to make all those arguments in court. The AUMF might have authorized the surveillance after all, or FISA might be unconstitutional as-applied in this particular case. Etc.
But in order to make any of those arguments, the DOJ lawyers would have to show up in court and actually make them.
that you touched on the greatest sin of all; that many on the left they have traded their immortal soul for a few minutes of political rhetoric.
has once again been misunderestimated.
One of the few things that we have learned over the years, is to never succumb to the demands of terrorists, or criminals, kidnappers, or whatever form the bad guy takes.
Why?
Because once you do, you signal that there is profit in such behavior, and before you know it the activity is adopted by scores of copycats.
The only way to tamp down such behavior, is to continually reinforce the notion that there will never be a good outcome for those who attempt the evil activity.
And thus... the Iraqi insurgency is no different, except in it's deadliness. The US military has not signaled a reward for the bad behavior, but the world-wide news media has, and that works against those who are standing firm in the fight.
.
Justice Jackson used in Youngstown, in which you seem to place great faith, will inevitably lead to this DOJ argument:
The AUMF places the President at the zenith of his powers in authorizing the NSA activities. Under the tripartite framework set forth by Justice Jackson in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring), Presidential authority is analyzed to determine whether the President is acting in accordance with congressional authorization (category I), whether he acts in the absence of a grant or denial of authority by Congress (category II), or whether he uses his
keep ramming our knees into their guts until they collapse.
The Democrat Party should be forced to choose between pro-terrorist positions and pro-America positions when it comes to the War on Terror.
Bush should keep charging. He should declare that the time for bipartisanship has ended due to Democrat partisanship, and if they want to end the partisanship, they'll lay down their rhetorical arms. Until then, Bush should keep beating on the Dems until their ratings are in the gutter.
My outline
Part A: Democrats want to punish Bush instead of punishing terrorists.
Part B: Democrats would rather lay down the weapons we use to fight the war on terror.
Part C: Democrats are emboldening the enemy to continue fighting in Iraq though their own constant pessimism on the war.
Part D: If you're a Democrat and you feel like your patriotism is being questioned, then don't whine, because it is being questioned. You're either with us, or against us.
Part E: You can't support the troops while you don't support the completion of their mission.
Part F: Democrat leadership are on the fringe with other kooks like Cynthia McKinney.
If we do not take the offensive, we lose. End of story.