Bush Caves on Warrantless Wiretaps

[Unabogie]

AP reports

"As a result of these orders, any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court"

IMO, this is just more evidence that this program, one that was called "vital" and "legal", was clearly neither.

My prediction is that Bush is reacting to the new Senate's upcoming hearings or the upcoming appeal on Judge Taylor's finding that Bush violated the law and the Constitution, and the next step is that Bush will argue that the point is moot (just like in the Padilla case) and that neither Congress nor the courts can make any final ruling on what Bush did.

That would be a travesty, of course, because I really think we need to bring this question to a conclusion. We need to decide as a country whether or not we have a king, and to me it's obvious what Bush though the answer to that question was likely to be.

Question to the righties who accused critics of Bush's warrantless spying of being traitors, does this action put us all in grave danger, as Bush's apologists claimed before?

 

[Ziggurat]

Question to the righties who accused critics of Bush's warrantless spying of being traitors,

Which righties would that be? Can you name names, or are you just shadowboxing?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Which righties would that be? Can you name names, or are you just shadowboxing?

How about the Wall Street Journal?

Url

 

[Unabogie]

Or this guy? http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/172351.php

 

[Unabogie]

Which righties would that be? Can you name names, or are you just shadowboxing?

By the way, this is the second time you've responded to a post of mine with nitpicks like this. The first was where you made the ridiculous claim that Bush and Cheney argued explicitly against a link between 911 and Iraq, then when I posted a list of items, you ignored the main question, which was did the Bush administration attempt to conflate Iraq and 911, and to focus on this Atta in Prague nonsense that only the right wing blogs seem to believe.

It's doubly disingenuous, since even if I were to concede that point, there are countless other quotes that show that Bush conflated 911 and Iraq at every turn, none more so than in his Mission Accomplished speech he called Iraq an "ally of Al Qaeda", so your assertion was just wrong.

Here, you're being silly. The cries of treason over the wiretap stories were so numerous only someone trying to be dishonest could push this tangent.

And again, you ignore the central question, which is why are they abandoning a "crucial tool in the war on terror" that was "legal"? Doesn't this put your family at risk?

 

[Unabogie]

Here's more, since I have a moment.

http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1134976202.shtml

Here's a Republican Congressman calling it "treason"

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/06/26/congressman-new-york-times.html

The comments were slightly less accusatory than those Sunday from chairman Peter King, a Republican congressman from New York.
"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," King told the Associated Press.


Enough? I have work to do.

 

[Luke T.]

Unabogie, I got the impression that your question to "the righties" was directed to posters on this forum. Not an editor at the WSJ.

As for Bush not reauthorizing the warrantless wiretap program, I am very happy to hear it. It has been a chief bitch of mine about Bush ever since I heard about it.

 

[Darth Rotor]

AP reports

"As a result of these orders, any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court"

The system works. The challenge succeeded.

This is good news.

DR

 

[Unabogie]

Unabogie, I got the impression that your question to "the righties" was directed to posters on this forum. Not an editor at the WSJ.

As for Bush not reauthorizing the warrantless wiretap program, I am very happy to hear it. It has been a chief bitch of mine about Bush ever since I heard about it.

That's a fair point, since my question was inartfully written. I did mean "righties" as a monolith, which I'd be happy to learn did not include anyone on this particular message board.

I'd be just as sad, however, to learn that conservatives here did not condemn that drumbeat, since it included nearly every major right wing pundit.

My question still stands. If Bush earlier claimed this program was vital and legal, then is what he's doing now just scrapping a vital and legal program for no reason? If so, is that a good thing?

I'm just interested to know how people who supported the warrentless spying judge this reversal?

 

[Luke T.]

I'd be just as sad, however, to learn that conservatives here did not condemn that drumbeat, since it included nearly every major right wing pundit.

Well, I'm a conservative and I think anyone who knows me will tell you I have been very outspoken against the warrantless wiretaps.

My question still stands. If Bush earlier claimed this program was vital and legal, then is what he's doing now just scrapping a vital and legal program for no reason? If so, is that a good thing?

The answer to your question is in the article you linked in your Opening Post.

 

[Darth Rotor]

That's a fair point, since my question was inartfully written. I did mean "righties" as a monolith, which I'd be happy to learn did not include anyone on this particular message board.

From over here in the cheap seats, it looked like you were trolling for a scrap. Have a care with labels, righty and lefty, as they are inexact when it comes to detail.

DR

 

[Unabogie]

Well, I'm a conservative and I think anyone who knows me will tell you I have been very outspoken against the warrantless wiretaps.

And I commend you for that. But I'm also still angry at the smear campaign that went on to demonize not only the New York Times, but also critics of this wiretapping, on the grounds that even discussing it was tantamount to treason. In light of the stakes that the right placed on this program, what possible excuse could they use to explain how Bush can now scrap the program and comply with the law, since complying with the law was akin to helping Osama Bin Laden plan his next attack?

 

[Luke T.]

And I commend you for that. But I'm also still angry at the smear campaign that went on to demonize not only the New York Times, but also critics of this wiretapping, on the grounds that even discussing it was tantamount to treason. In light of the stakes that the right placed on this program, what possible excuse could they use to explain how Bush can now scrap the program and comply with the law, since complying with the law was akin to helping Osama Bin Laden plan his next attack?

There has always been a minority of Republican conservatives in Congress who have criticized aspects of the War On Terror. They just get drowned out by "small men with press secretaries".

There are voices on the Right who piss me off as much as some on the Left. But I have always remained confident in America's amazing ability to have cooler heads prevail in the long run. In the beginning of all this, when I was ranting about the Patriot Act, I recalled similar events surrounding the Alien and Sedition Acts during times of hysteria that were eventually withdrawn or defeated in our courts. We have a wonderful system that still works. The wheels turn slowly, but they do turn.

I am glad they turn slowly. Gives people time to think. And I think that is what is now happening.

ETA: The trick is to not succumb to payment in kind. Don't want the pendulum on the end of those cogwheels swinging to the opposite peg.

 

[Unabogie]

Well, I'm a conservative and I think anyone who knows me will tell you I have been very outspoken against the warrantless wiretaps.




The answer to your question is in the article you linked in your Opening Post.

From over here in the cheap seats, it looked like you were trolling for a scrap. Have a care with labels, righty and lefty, as they are inexact when it comes to detail.

DR

Well, I have to admit that I'm a little more than peeved at this tactic by Bush. They break the law, lose in court, lose the Congress, and then try to weasel out before this question can be settled in the courts.

I disagree with you that the system worked, because the Unitary Executive Theory is not buried under six feet of dirt. It's still out there, and unless and until its dead, our democracy is at risk. The fact that Bush is trying to skirt the issue and declare the issue moot is irrelevant, since he's still delving into our financial records, opening our mail, jailing us without charges, and threatening to take us to war against Iran.

We need to decide this issue, and this doesn't help.

 

[Ziggurat]

How about the Wall Street Journal?

That's an argument in favor of the program. I see nothing in there about calling anyone a traitor.

Or this guy? http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/172351.php

This guy did accuse someone of being a traitor, though not because they criticised the program in question, but because they revealed it when it was secret. But in any case, more below.

By the way, this is the second time you've responded to a post of mine with nitpicks like this.

No, it's the first time I've nitpicked about a largely stylistic problem. The previous time was about a factual claim of yours which was simply wrong.

The first was where you made the ridiculous claim that Bush and Cheney argued explicitly against a link between 911 and Iraq, then when I posted a list of items, you ignored the main question, which was did the Bush administration attempt to conflate Iraq and 911,

I'm afraid you've CHANGED the "main question". The original claim you made was not whether or not the administration conflated Iraq and 9/11 (a charge which seems to rest largely on an assumed ignorance and stupidity in the audience), but whether or not they claimed that Iraq played an actual role in 9/11. So I didn't ignore anything. You just can't even keep your own position straight anymore. Lazy thinking, Unabogie, lazy thinking. Exercise those nerves.

Here, you're being silly. The cries of treason over the wiretap stories were so numerous only someone trying to be dishonest could push this tangent.

I'm afraid you didn't understand my point, because you presumed something beyond what I actually said (a sadly common mistake). I am not denying people made that charge. But your post was a direct challenge to people who have made that claim, demanding an answer. That carries with it an implication that such people are part of this message board, and so might actually see the question. My point is not that nobody in the world made such charges, but that I don't think anyone on this board ever did, and if they did, you might as well name them specifically rather than leaving the impression that you might think this was a common opinion of "righties". Or, if that is indeed your opinion, you might as well come out and say that as well.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I disagree with you that the system worked, because the Unitary Executive Theory is not buried under six feet of dirt.

This Unitary Executive Theory seems to be your private windmill, Unabogie.

"Sancho, my Lance!"

Have at it. Your focus on this resembles the CT version of world history, but thankfully does not reach its depths of silliness.

DR

 

[Unabogie]

I'm afraid you've CHANGED the "main question". The original claim you made was not whether or not the administration conflated Iraq and 9/11 (a charge which seems to rest largely on an assumed ignorance and stupidity in the audience), but whether or not they claimed that Iraq played an actual role in 9/11. So I didn't ignore anything. You just can't even keep your own position straight anymore. Lazy thinking, Unabogie, lazy thinking. Exercise those nerves.

I was responding to an affirmative statement that you made, wherein you claimed:

"That's something the administration has not claimed, and has in fact made explicit that they do not believe was the case."

Considering the numerous statements by Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld on this very topic, it's completely disingenuous to claim that because they used carefully parsed insinuations, claiming that there was "A link between Saddam and Al Qaeda" and that "Saddam was an ally of Al Qaeda" and countless other statements, (but at the same time made quiet admissions that they had no evidence of the very things they were claiming), then they therefore weren't engaging in a campaign to get people to believe there was a link is simply dishonest.

When Bill Clinton denied "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky, he was obfuscating the truth. Just because what he said was technically correct, doesn't change the fact that he was trying to create an impression that wasn't the truth.

Bush and his gang were trying to conflate Iraq and Bin Laden, so they used carefully parsed sentences- using 911 in speeches about Iraq, calling Iraq and Al Qaeda "allies", raising the specter that Saddam would hand his weapons over to Bin Laden. They did this so often and with such regularity that at the time of our invasion, 70% of the public thought Iraq was behind 911, and just last year, a poll showed 85% of our soldiers still thought that.

Now if your contention is that Bush and his cabinet were too skillful, and the populace, too stupid to realize they were being parsed, then I might agree with you. But if your contention is that Bush was "making it explicit that they didn't believe it to be the case," then you're not engaging in lazy thinking, you're engaging in revisionism.

 

[Unabogie]

This Unitary Executive Theory seems to be your private windmill, Unabogie.

"Sancho, my Lance!"

Have at it. Your focus on this resembles the CT version of world history, but thankfully does not reach its depths of silliness.

DR

I don't see it as my windmill so much as Dick Cheney's and David Addington's. In fact, today, Alberto Gonzales claimed that courts should have no part in decisions on "national security". So yes, I see this as a crucial question which doesn't involve a "conspiracy" so much as a cabal of neocons with contempt for our system of government. And it requires our attention, whether I end up appearing silly or not.

 

[Luke T.]

Well, I have to admit that I'm a little more than peeved at this tactic by Bush. They break the law, lose in court, lose the Congress, and then try to weasel out before this question can be settled in the courts.

This question is still going to be settled in the courts. Just because Bush is stopping the program doesn't mean the "injured parties" of the program when it was operating suddenly disappear.

Their case will go on.

 

[Unabogie]

The

This question is still going to be settled in the courts. Just because Bush is stopping the program doesn't mean the "injured parties" of the program when it was operating suddenly disappear.

Their case will go on.

You think? I disagree. The NSA suit is a request for injunctive relief. If the US goes into court and avers that the program is dead, then the case seems moot to me. What would the plaintiffs need beyond that?

If I am going to cut down a tree in both our yards, you sue for an injunction, I lose and appeal (not sure if I could appeal a case like that, though), then I walk into court and tell the judge I won't cut down the tree, wouldn't my appeal be thrown out?