The best thing I can say about Feingold is that he seems like a smart man who is ABSOLUTELY blinded by BDS. He blatantly LIED and distorted the truth at the Gonzales hearing, and he lied on the floor of the Senate tonight. Here are a few of them (via of THE RAW STORY):
[1] "... listen to what the President said on June 9, 2005: “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. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S.” Now that the public knows about the domestic spying program, he has had to change course. He has looked around for arguments to cloak his actions. And all of them are completely threadbare. "
Well, it cannot be more obvious that the POTUS was referring to LAW ENFORCEMENT officers, and sane people know that the NSA is NOT part of federal law enforcement; they are part of DoD, and they know that this program is part of the WAR ON AL QAEDA (and their affiliates)authorized by Congress in the 2001 AUMF, and not a law enforcement program. Feingold and Clinton and other Leftie Dems may still think the GWOT would be best fought in the courts, but Bush and a majority of Americans think it is a REAL WAR - and we want to FIGHT BACK ACCORDINGLY.
[2] "The Attorney General knew ... about the NSA program when he sought the Senate’s approval for his nomination to be Attorney General. He wanted the Senate and the American people to think that the President had not acted on the extreme legal theory that the President has the power as Commander in Chief to disobey the criminal laws of this country. But he had. The Attorney General had some explaining to do, and he didn’t do it yesterday. Instead he parsed words, arguing that what he said was truthful because he didn’t believe that the President’s actions violated the law."
Well, this one is almost LAUGHABLE because FEINGOLD JUST ABOUT FISKS HIMSELF!
AG Gonzales correctly maintains that the program is LEGAL, and therefore his answer to the Feingold question during his confrimation hearing IS ENTIRELY TRUTHFUL!
Again, it comes down to whether or not you accept the fact that we are really at war, (a fact made UNDENIABLE by the fact that the 2001 AUMF clearly states we are at war! Well, it's undeniable to everyone except those afflicted with BDS, evidently). Bush has NO MORE violated the criminal law by ordering the NSA (part of the DoD) to intercept enemy communications, then soldiers who kill al Qaeda have committed murder. SURE: If a soldier were to shoot an innocent, non-threatening US person in the USA, then he'd be A MURDERER. But the soldiers - and law enforcement officers - who kill al Qaeda in the course of their duly assigned duties are not murderers. The rules of war are different than the rules which govern criminal conduct in peacetime.
AG Gonzales correctly maintains that the program is LEGAL, and therefore his answer to the Feingold question during his confrimation hearing IS ENTIRELY TRUTHFUL!
Again, it comes down to whether or not you accept the fact that we are really at war, (a fact made UNDENIABLE by the fact that the 2001 AUMF clearly states we are at war! Well, it's undeniable to everyone except those afflicted with BDS, evidently). Bush has NO MORE violated the criminal law by ordering the NSA (part of the DoD) to intercept enemy communications, then soldiers who kill al Qaeda have committed murder. SURE: If a soldier were to shoot an innocent, non-threatening US person in the USA, then he'd be A MURDERER. But the soldiers - and law enforcement officers - who kill al Qaeda in the course of their duly assigned duties are not murderers. The rules of war are different than the rules which govern criminal conduct in peacetime.
[3] "... this administration reacts to anyone who questions this illegal program by saying that those of us who demand the truth and stand up for our rights and freedoms have a pre-9/11 view of the world. In fact, the President has a pre-1776 view of the world. "
This is a minor rhetorical point, but Feingold has used this IDIOTIC RIFF a few times and it MUST be shot down: If Bush's world-view is pre-9/11 in any way, then it is not "pre-1776"; it is "pre-1978" - (the year FISA was signed into law!
And let's remember that FISA is merely a statutary law, NOT an amendment to the constitution! The war powers Bush claims to have, have been claimed by nearly every president since Washington, and certainly by EVERY war-time president. These powers have been repeatedly UPHELD by every court which has ruled on them - including SCOTUS and the FISCR. If Bush is a "King George" than so were Truman and FDR and Wilson and Lincoln and Adams and Washington.
I think Bush is like those presidents and that Feingold, and the leakers and the NYTIMES are BENEDICT ARNOLDS. The extraordinary POTUS/CiC war-time powers Bush has utilized since 9/11 PALE in comparison to what FDR did, but you'll never hear a Leftie say FDR should have been IMPEACHED, do you!?!
[Aside: Remember, assuming a "BENEDICT ARNOLD position" is NOT a novel thing for Leftie Dems DURING WAR-TIME. Remember Genghis Kerry's "Winter Soldier" testimony to the Senate in 1971?! He was a traitor too!]
And let's remember that FISA is merely a statutary law, NOT an amendment to the constitution! The war powers Bush claims to have, have been claimed by nearly every president since Washington, and certainly by EVERY war-time president. These powers have been repeatedly UPHELD by every court which has ruled on them - including SCOTUS and the FISCR. If Bush is a "King George" than so were Truman and FDR and Wilson and Lincoln and Adams and Washington.
I think Bush is like those presidents and that Feingold, and the leakers and the NYTIMES are BENEDICT ARNOLDS. The extraordinary POTUS/CiC war-time powers Bush has utilized since 9/11 PALE in comparison to what FDR did, but you'll never hear a Leftie say FDR should have been IMPEACHED, do you!?!
[Aside: Remember, assuming a "BENEDICT ARNOLD position" is NOT a novel thing for Leftie Dems DURING WAR-TIME. Remember Genghis Kerry's "Winter Soldier" testimony to the Senate in 1971?! He was a traitor too!]
[4] "The Attorney General yesterday was unable to give me one example of a President who, since 1978 when FISA was passed, has authorized warrantless wiretaps outside of FISA."
Er um... we haven't been in a prolonged war since 1978, Senator - and NEVER before have we been in one anything like this one, one in which THE ENEMY IS HERE, WITHIN THE USA! Sheesh.
[5] The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 to create a secret court, made up of judges who develop national security expertise, to issue warrants for surveillance of terrorists and spies. These are the judges from whom the Bush Administration has obtained thousands of warrants since 9/11. The Administration has almost never had a warrant request rejected by those judges. They have used the FISA Court thousands of times, but at the same time they assert that FISA is an “old law” or “out of date” and they can’t comply with it. Clearly they can and do comply with it – except when they don’t. Then they just arbitrarily decide to go around these judges, and around the law.
Feingold actually tells a little bit of truth in this quote (maybe it's an accident!?) - but then he distorts the heck out of it! FACT: Bush has used and is using FISA more than any previous president. FACT: Bush uses FISA when FISA applies, and allows NSA to use other means when they apply - SPECIFICALLY, Bush has signed an executive order so NSA can intercept Al Qaeda's international calls to-and-from the USA. This is very-well thought out, and not "arbitrary."
And what is so so SO SO SO bewildering to me, is that the MAJOR Democrat complaint about this NSA program is that it "LACKS THE CHECKS AND BALANCES WHICH FISA PUT IN PLACE."
This is HOGWASH. Under FISA, all Bush has to do is get one (1) appointed judge to approve it - IN SECRET. Under the special NSA terrorist intercept program Bush informs a FISA judge, AND EIGHT (8) ELECTED CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS! Therefore, the NSA program actually HAS MORE OVESIGHT BY MORE PEOPLE THAN A FISA WARRANT! AND OVERSIGHT BY PEOPLE WHO ARE ELECTED LEADERS. AND WHO HAVE SPECIAL EXPERTISE AND GREATER CONGRESSIONAL RESPONSIBLITY, AND EVEN HAVE DIRECT OVERSIGHT FOR THE NSA!
As far as making sure that the communications are intercepted properly and according to the narrow constraints of the presidential order, well.... the same people who make sure a FISA warrant is followed carefully also make sure the presidential order is followed carefully: the I'sG of the NSA. In other words: there is no reasonable basis for fearing any more abuse of the NSA program than of a warrant authorized by a secret, appointed FISA judge.
[6] "I asked the Attorney General about this, he could point me to no court – not the Supreme Court or any other court – that has considered whether, after FISA was enacted, the President nonetheless had the authority to bypass it and authorize warrantless wiretaps. Not one court. The Administration’s effort to find support for what it has done in snippets of other court decisions would be laughable if this issue were not so serious."
FEINGOLD: YOUR ARGUMENT IS LAUGHABLE! The SCOTUS and the FISCR and the FISC and fedeal courts have ruled that the POTUS as CiC HAS GREATER POWERS! SCOTUS just recently ruled (in a decision written by O'Connor) that the POTUS can designate a US CITIZEN an "enemy combatant"; this is far greater power than that of merely intercepting the international communications of US persons. The FISCR and FISC have made similar rulings as have other federal courts. [SEE THIS POST FOR ALL LINKS.] Though these decisions were specifically NOT about intercepts or surveillance, they undoubtedly give great weight to the argument proffered by the Bush Adminsitration.
In fact, I'd argue that these decisions taken together constitute a "SUPER-DUPER PRECEDENT" if you ask me! (Heh.) Therefore, even though it is true that no court has SPECIFICALLY ruled on this matter, the precedents are clear - STARE DECISIS is clear.
In fact, I'd argue that these decisions taken together constitute a "SUPER-DUPER PRECEDENT" if you ask me! (Heh.) Therefore, even though it is true that no court has SPECIFICALLY ruled on this matter, the precedents are clear - STARE DECISIS is clear.
[7] "Finally, the president has tried to claim that informing a handful of congressional leaders, the so-called Gang of Eight, somehow excuses breaking the law. Of course, several of these members said they weren’t given the full story. And all of them were prohibited from discussing what they were told. So the fact that they were informed under these extraordinary circumstances does not constitute congressional oversight, and it most certainly does not constitute congressional approval of the program. Indeed, it doesn’t even comply with the National Security Act, which requires the entire memberships of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee to be “fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States.”
Nearly every president has done the same EXACT thing - only inform "the gang of 8" about the MOST secret operations - for the last 65 years! The law permits this in extremely secretive cases. If any of the gang of 8 had thought the program was illegal, then they could have objected - or even filed an official complaint with the NSA IG, (in compliance with the 1998 Intelligence Whistle blower Protection Act." NONE DID. So Feingold's claim that the 1947 Act was violated is INCORRECT.
FINALLY... when Feingold offers up Bush quotes from the Spring and Summer of 2004, he KNOWS that the president was talking about the Patriot Act and LAW ENFORCEMENT, and not his war powers and the AUMF. Using them the way Feingold does is disingenous, at best.
After many more LIES AND DISTORTIONS, Feingold finally yielded the floor. I think I wiped it up with 'im!
UPDATE: ANKLE BITING PUNDITS has more on the hearings. More on the difference between law enforcement surveillance and war-time sigint HERE, (hat tip LAURA INGRAHAM). ANOTHER FISKING HERE AT CONFEDERATE YANKEE.
I think these Fiskings are importnt: Rants like Feingold's may very well become the Dem/Left's mantra this fall - if we don't dispense with it now.
UPDATE: ANKLE BITING PUNDITS has more on the hearings. More on the difference between law enforcement surveillance and war-time sigint HERE, (hat tip LAURA INGRAHAM). ANOTHER FISKING HERE AT CONFEDERATE YANKEE.
I think these Fiskings are importnt: Rants like Feingold's may very well become the Dem/Left's mantra this fall - if we don't dispense with it now.
No comments:
Post a Comment