Your hit and run tactics are getting really funny. You make these charges of illegality, then completely run from the debate that examines the issue, despite repeated challenges.

Planet Earth to el fuser: Officials in all three branches of government were supposed to examine and question the policy. That is the reason all three branches were consulted. That is why changes were made along the way in response to inputs. That is why the program gets sunseted every 45 days and requires reauthorization. That is why the program is subjected to repeated legal review.

So, please give us your learned explanation of the relevance of the Fourth Amendment, Article II of the Constitution, and the various interpretations of those powers by the various court cases quoted in earlier threads to justify your "illegal" characterization. This should be good.

Not being any more than an amateur constitutional scholar I will defer the discussions of "illegality" to others with either more wisdom or hubris. It seems clear to me, however, that the essential focus of this issue is one of trust, as well as one of ethics. The popular argument in support of these questionable wiretapping practices seems to be that there may be times when some liberties must be sacrificed in order to preserve the public interest. What I take issue with is that this point of view assumes a narrow, paranoid, and self-defeating outlook on matters of public safety. Saying that an executive, without having any accountability, can turn the entire power of our domestic and international intelligence apparatus on any citizen of this country, at any time, without any justification other than his own personal suspicions is foolish. The principle of checks and balances is central to the very structure of our democracy- a democracy this administration claims they will do anything to uphold. How can they justify violating the very liberties they hope to provide to the downtrodden masses of the world when it's convenient for them to do so. This country is in dire need of some integrity. When we are willing to violate the very basic tenets of freedom, for any reason, then we are lost.

In short, the ends do not justify the means in questions of democracy. Shame on all of us if we fail to participate in this democracy now when we are presented with an administration that acts so.

Your problem is your assumption that checks and balances are not in place. This thread started with a post about checks and balances kicking in and modifying the program. It simply doesn't get any more clear than that.

Where does the concept that the only branch of government with authority to authorize discovery is the judicial? We have coequal branches of government. Congress issues subpeonas every day. Grand juries issue warrants without judicial oversight every day. Warrantless searches by the thousands occur every day.

What is the source of the idea that a single appointed judge can exercise his judgment in national security matters and that such judgment trumps an entire branch of government as personified in the President?

Do you actually think the President of the United States is going to be told by a Judge Robertson that he can't do a search that POTUS thinks is vital to the security of the country and have POTUS just drop the matter? What kind of a suicide pact do you think the Constitution is?

Checks and balances are alive and well. As in the Truman seizure of the steel mills on national security grounds, POTUS has to eventually justify his actions to the other branches of government. Truman lost that one 6-3. See, it really does work.

There was once a President.....a Democrat....who took thousands of American Citizens and locked them up in internment camps. No probable cause. Without due process. Without warrant. Even their property was confiscated. This was based only on their ethnicity. No one called for the Presidents head, no calls for for impeachment, not too much of an uproar over "Civil Liberties."

That was pretty harsh don't you think? I think this Presidents tactics are mild by comparison, don't you?

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

"No one called for the Presidents head, no calls for for impeachment, not too much of an uproar over "Civil Liberties." "

You're kidding right? Japanese internment camps are pretty much universally considered to have been a pretty heinous intrusion on the civil liberties of Japanese Americans. The fact that people were scared enough to allow it to happen at the time doesn't mean it's ok.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Sadly, it was upheld by the Supreme Court, 9-0, if I am not mistaken.

Never did figure out those three judges that supported Truman with the steel mills either. Different times I guess.

Sure, now it is considered heinous treament, but when it was happening....during a war...I'm not sure if there was a comparable uproar with what is occuring today.

Internment seems more severe to me than having your phone tapped.

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

Not to be pushy, but there is zero evidence thus far that any American phone was tapped. International phone calls only were involved, and perhaps only calls involving international phones that were already linked to AQ.

If the program was actually that limited, it wouldn't even qualify as electronic communication under FISA, since an American citizen was not targeted.

Just guessing on this, but at least I put my guesses on the table unlike any of the reporting on the issue so far.

"I'm not sure if there was a comparable uproar with what is occuring today. "

I'm not sure either. I would guess probably not. Maybe today's uproar is because we see what has happened in previous "times of war" and don't want to allow it to happen again.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Agreed. The issue to me is not whether or not someone can make a justification. I am dismayed that the goverment thinks it is OK to defeat liberty while they purport to be defending it. The comparison to Japanese internment is only valid in that they both involve the unilateral executive infringement of civil liberties. Apples and oranges otherwise. I for one hope, however, that we have learned from one of the greatest mistakes ever taken by the leadership of this country in the name of public good.

Rep. Jane Harman, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Dec. 21:

As the Ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, I have been briefed since 2003 on a highly classified NSA foreign collection program that targeted Al Qaeda. I believe the program is essential to US national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.



T.

You should check your quotes more thorouhghly-

From Harman's December 21 press release:

Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA), Ranking Member on the House Intelligence Committee, today issued the following statement:

"As the Ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, I have been briefed since 2003 on a highly classified NSA foreign collection program that targeted Al Qaeda. I believe the program is essential to US national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.

"Due to its sensitive nature, I have been barred from discussing any aspect of this program, and until the President described certain parts of it on Saturday, I have made no comment whatsoever.

"Like many Americans, I am deeply concerned by reports that this program in fact goes far beyond the measures to target Al Qaeda about which I was briefed."

Even before she issued her statement, Harman had expressed concerns about the surveillance program. On December 17, Harman and other congressional Democrats reportedly sent a letter to President Bush expressing concern that media accounts of the program appeared to "have gone beyond what the administration" told Congress. Harman was also one of five House Democrats who signed a December 18 letter requesting that Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) "take steps immediately to conduct hearings on the scope of Presidential power in the area of electronic surveillance." The letter stated that the signatories "believe that the President must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people, but that intelligence must be produced in a manner consistent with our Constitution and our laws, and in a manner that reflects our values as a nation."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220014

In addition, Harman now says that she believes the Administration has broken a law when the restricted the briefings to the "Gang of Eight" (Rep/Dem leaders of each chamber plus the head of the Intelligence committees); the law states that this restriction only applies to covert activities, not to the gathering of intelligence.

National Security Act of 1947:

[/url]SEC. 501. [50 U.S.C. 413] (a)(1) The President shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by this title.

(2) Nothing in this title shall be construed as requiring the approval of the congressional intelligence committees as a condition precedent to the initiation of any significant anticipated intelligence activity.

(b) The President shall ensure that any illegal intelligence activity is reported promptly to the congressional intelligence committees, as well as any corrective action that has been taken or is planned in connection with such illegal activity.

(c) The President and the congressional intelligence committees shall each establish such procedures as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.

(d) The House of Representatives and the Senate shall each establish, by rule or resolution of such House, procedures to protect from unauthorized disclosure all classified information, and all information relating to intelligence sources and methods, that is furnished to the congressional intelligence committees or to Members of Congress under this title. Such procedures shall be established in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence. In accordance with such procedures, each of the congressional intelligence committees shall promptly call to the attention of its respective House, or to any appropriate committee or committees of its respective House, any matter relating to intelligence activities requiring the attention of such House or such committee or committees.

(e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authority to withhold information from the congressional intelligence committees on the grounds that providing the information to the congressional intelligence committees would constitute the unauthorized disclosure of classified information or information relating to intelligence sources and methods.

(f) As used in this section, the term "intelligence activities" includes covert actions as defined in section 503(e), and includes financial intelligence activities.

REPORTING OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN COVERT ACTIONS

[/url]SEC. 502. [50 U.S.C. 413a] To the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters, the Director of Central Intelligence and the heads of all departments, agencies, and other entities of the United States Government involved in intelligence activities shall -

(1) keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities, other than a covert action (as defined in section 503(e)), which are the responsibility of, are engaged in by, or are carried out for or on behalf of, any department, agency, or entity of the United States Government, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity and any significant intelligence failure; and

(2) furnish the congressional intelligence committees any information or material concerning intelligence activities, other than covert actions, which is within their custody or control, and which is requested by either of the congressional intelligence committees in order to carry out its authorized responsibilities.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Please provide that quote from Harman.

So regularly informing the heads of the Intelligence Committees doesn't qualify as fully informing the Committees? Doing that is breaking the law?

Quite a stretch, but maybe. Of course, if he had told the whole Committee it might have wound up on the front pages of the NY Times. Oh, it did anyway.

I am so glad that we elected the editors of the NY Times to make the decisions as to what classified programs need to be exposed for the good of the American people. When was that election anyway? I don't usually miss any election for anyone, but I don't recall that one.

Don't have the letter; here's my source: http://www.nytimes.com/.../politics/05nsa.html

The NSA of 1947 specifically calls out when the briefing can be restricted to the Gang of Eight; the case in question is not covered by that. In addition, the Act specifically says (the bolded text I quoted) that issues such as you raise are not a defense against such briefing ("ooh, we can't tell you 'cause it's tip-top secret stuff"). Doesn't fly, which is probably why they put the explicit exception in the law in the first place.

Of course, this all doesn't matter to you since the President is authorized by the Constitution to defend the country, and any law that prevents him from doing so can be disregarded.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I can't offer an opinion on those laws because I just don't know anything about them. Maybe the argument has merit, don't know. This whole posture by Harman sounds really strange though. The quote from your story that sums up my reaction is this one:

Mr. Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, added that he was "surprised and somewhat bewildered" by Ms. Harman's letter to the president, "because, in my observation, you have never previously complained or stated concern about the limited number of people briefed on this program."

I guess she goes along with the approach for four years without objection as cochair of the Intelligence Committee, and only now, after it has been made public, does she scream "lawbreaker."

Doesn't that sound a bit odd to you?

Or, not being the whistleblower type, and being restricted to not even consulting legal or technical experts, she was compelled to remain silent? How about that the "briefing" she and others received was revealed (by the reporting of the New York Times) to not rise to the standard of the NSA of 1947 law (like that it wasn't complete)?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

(today in nytimes.com)

WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 - A legal analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concludes that the Bush administration's limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping without warrants are "inconsistent with the law."

The analysis was requested by Representative Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who said in a Jan. 4 letter to President Bush that she believed the briefings should be open to all the members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

Instead, the briefings have been limited to the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and of the Intelligence Committees, the so-called Gang of Eight.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Are you familiar with the legal concept of estoppel?

Yup, the slippery slope will surely have us sliding into fascism. I wish people would really get over themselves in thinking this wiretapping is a bad thing. Fact is, no one really cares. The truth is that it's a political issue. Another strawman.

Needs to be re-stated:

If you want to see real abuses of civil liberties, read Geoffrey R. Stone's 2004 book "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism." It tells how John Adams jailed a congressman for criticizing his "continual grasp for power." How Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and had the army arrest up to 38,000 civilians suspected of undermining the Union cause. How Woodrow Wilson imprisoned Socialist Party leader Eugene Debs for opposing U.S. entry into World War I. And how Franklin D. Roosevelt consigned 120,000 Japanese Americans to detention camps.

You can also read about how presidents from FDR to Richard Nixon used the FBI to spy on, and occasionally blackmail and harass, their political opponents. The Senate's Church Committee in 1976 blew the whistle on decades of misconduct, including FBI investigations of such nefarious characters as Eleanor Roosevelt, William O. Douglas, Barry Goldwater and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

All you have to do is recite this litany of excess to realize the absurdity of the cries of impeachment coming from the loonier precincts of the left. Muttering about "slippery slopes" isn't enough to convince most people that fascism is descending.

Hell, even Dianne Feinstein claimed that none of the alleged violations of the Patriot Act amounted to "abuse".

the briefings have been limited to the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and of the Intelligence Committees, the so-called Gang of Eight.

Apparently they aren't cleared to know, anyhow: http://www.washtimes.com/...111-112622-2876r.htm


The National Security Agency has warned a former intelligence officer that he should not testify to Congress about accusations of illegal activity at NSA because of the secrecy of the programs involved.

Renee Seymour, director of NSA special access programs stated in a Jan. 9 letter to Russ Tice that he should not testify about secret electronic intelligence programs because members and staff of the House and Senate intelligence committees do not have the proper security clearances for the secret intelligence.

Miss Seymour stated that Mr. Tice has "every right" to speak to Congress and that NSA has "no intent to infringe your rights."

However, she stated that the programs Mr. Tice took part in were so secret that "neither the staff nor the members of the [House intelligence committee] or [Senate intelligence committee] are cleared to receive the information covered by the special access programs, or SAPs."

"The SAPs to which you refer are controlled by the Department of Defense (DoD) and ... neither the staffs nor the members ... are cleared to receive the intelligence covered by the SAPs," Miss Seymour stated.

Amazing.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I think it needs to be determined whether these so-called 'wiretaps' are even illegal. That's an open question. Of course, if you reside on the left side of the political fever swamp, anything that the government does is patently illegal. Unless, of course, the government is doing something that you approve of....like letting doctors assist in the suicides of people, or helping 13 year old girls get abortions without the knowledge of their parents. That's okay, then.

T.