I Spy a Liar
Bush defenders are churning out so many lies about the NSA spying program at the moment that trying to debunk them all would be an exercise in futility. It's like an endless game of whack-a-mole. You smack one down and two more pop up. Nevertheless, I thought I'd take a second to highlight a few dishonest talking points that really bothered me today.
First, the editors of the National Review have written an editorial which--not surprisingly--leaps to the President's defense in the current spying controversy. The editorial is full of bad legal analysis and half-truths, but this particular talking point (which is repeatedly endlessly by Bush apologists) needs to be put to rest:
This is a flat out lie. The case in question, In re Sealed Case, merely acknowledged in passing that, prior to the passage of FISA, courts had recognized that the president had the inherent authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping. The court did NOT suggest that the president still has this authority now that FISA requires warrants for all such surveillance. Inherent authority just means the president does not have to wait for Congressional authorization; it does not mean he can disregard duly enacted laws. Moreover, the FISA court in Sealed Case was actually dealing with the opposite question. It dealt with the issue of whether FISA (as amended by the Patriot Act) actually gave the president too much surveillance power, i.e., surveillance power that violated the 4th Amendment. So much for the collective wisdom (and honesty) of the National Review editorial board.
And over at the New York Post, John Podhoretz has written a particularly disgraceful column (even by his standards) about the Senate hearings on the NSA program. His idiocy is worth picking apart line by line:
Oh really, John. I had no idea that Arlen Specter, Lindsay Graham, Mike DeWine, and Sam Brownback were liberals. And I don't remember hearing anyone denouncing the administration for pursuing al Qaeda.
Why the sarcasm, John? Do you really think that 12 out of the 18 senators on the judiciary committee are against fighting the War on Terror aggressively or preventing terrorist attacks? Really?
John, you're very confused. The Patriot Act included many key amendments to FISA that were passed at the administration's request in order to update the law to better deal with al Qaeda. You seem to think FISA and the Patriot Act are totally unrelated statutes. Do your homework.
And Arlen Specter, Lindsay Graham, Mike DeWine, and Sam Brownback (not to mention Chuck Hagel, John McCain, etc.). You must have slept through much of the hearings, John.
That's right, John. In December. Right after they learned that the Bush Administration had been conducting illegal warrantless surveillance in violation of FISA (and therefore the Patriot Act). Why should any Senator vote to renew the Patriot Act when the President is actively violating it and claims that he will continue to do so? What purpose would that serve?
Anyway, it continues on like this. Podhoretz is a clown. As usual, he's actively trying to mislead his readers.
First, the editors of the National Review have written an editorial which--not surprisingly--leaps to the President's defense in the current spying controversy. The editorial is full of bad legal analysis and half-truths, but this particular talking point (which is repeatedly endlessly by Bush apologists) needs to be put to rest:
The FISA court of appeals has held that the
president has inherent constitutional authority
to conduct warrantless wiretapping, and, when
the ACLU challenged that decision, the
Supreme Court declined to review the case.
This is a flat out lie. The case in question, In re Sealed Case, merely acknowledged in passing that, prior to the passage of FISA, courts had recognized that the president had the inherent authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping. The court did NOT suggest that the president still has this authority now that FISA requires warrants for all such surveillance. Inherent authority just means the president does not have to wait for Congressional authorization; it does not mean he can disregard duly enacted laws. Moreover, the FISA court in Sealed Case was actually dealing with the opposite question. It dealt with the issue of whether FISA (as amended by the Patriot Act) actually gave the president too much surveillance power, i.e., surveillance power that violated the 4th Amendment. So much for the collective wisdom (and honesty) of the National Review editorial board.
And over at the New York Post, John Podhoretz has written a particularly disgraceful column (even by his standards) about the Senate hearings on the NSA program. His idiocy is worth picking apart line by line:
Yesterday, liberal senators denounced the Bush
administration for the way it has used
electronic intelligence here at home in
pursuit of al Qaeda — sort of.
Oh really, John. I had no idea that Arlen Specter, Lindsay Graham, Mike DeWine, and Sam Brownback were liberals. And I don't remember hearing anyone denouncing the administration for pursuing al Qaeda.
For you see, these liberal legislators on theNot so fast, John. I don't think any of the Senators want to give the president the explicit right to act "just as it has been acting," and for a simple reason: No one knows just how the administration has been acting. And that includes you.
Senate Judiciary Committee also claimed
they would have been thrilled, delighted and
just absolutely tickled pink to "work with" the
administration to give it the explicit right to
act just as it has been acting.
After all, they said in response to testimony
given before them yesterday by Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales, everybody wants
to fight the War on Terror aggressively and
prevent more domestic attacks.
Why the sarcasm, John? Do you really think that 12 out of the 18 senators on the judiciary committee are against fighting the War on Terror aggressively or preventing terrorist attacks? Really?
So why, oh why, the senators sadly asked,
didn't the administration just go to the Congress
and request a revision of the 1978 law — called
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or
FISA — governing wiretaps? One senator who
spoke more in sorrow than in anger was Dick
Durbin of Illinois. He suggested to Gonzales
that if the Bush administration had only made
its wishes clear, the same Senate that had
passed the Patriot Act with only one dissenting
vote in 2001 would surely have gone along with
the president in revising FISA to suit his wishes.
John, you're very confused. The Patriot Act included many key amendments to FISA that were passed at the administration's request in order to update the law to better deal with al Qaeda. You seem to think FISA and the Patriot Act are totally unrelated statutes. Do your homework.
Similar arguments were made by Sens. Edward
Kennedy, Patrick Leahy and Dianne Feinstein.
And Arlen Specter, Lindsay Graham, Mike DeWine, and Sam Brownback (not to mention Chuck Hagel, John McCain, etc.). You must have slept through much of the hearings, John.
Wait a minute. In December, these senators —
indeed, all the Democrats on the Judiciary
Committee — voted against ending debate on
the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, thereby
keeping the bill in limbo.
That's right, John. In December. Right after they learned that the Bush Administration had been conducting illegal warrantless surveillance in violation of FISA (and therefore the Patriot Act). Why should any Senator vote to renew the Patriot Act when the President is actively violating it and claims that he will continue to do so? What purpose would that serve?
Anyway, it continues on like this. Podhoretz is a clown. As usual, he's actively trying to mislead his readers.
posted by A.L. at 10:53 PM
4 Comments:
Good post, hold on to that frustration energy for another day, we'll need it eh? My thought for the day is that these "believers" remind me of Patty Hearst and the Stockholm syndrome - after 5 years of being locked in a closet in the dark, fed lies and fear it's time for them to come out of the closet and participate in free thought again. Stockholm syndrome, yeah, that explains alot.
Following your link above "in re sealed case" I found this: The Truong court, as
did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent
authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was
incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional
authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority
and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.
Seems prettly clear to me. tell me where I'm wrong.
In the passage you quote from Sealed Case, the court is merely acknowledging that there are some areas of exclusive presidential authority where no Congressional statute can encroach; it was not suggesting that FISA does in fact encroach on such exclusive powers. The Truong case (and the other cases like it) were pre-FISA cases, i.e., they addressed the president's surveillance powers in the absence of any legislation on point. They held, unremarkably, that the president did not have to wait for Congress to pass a statute in order to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance. That's all inherent authority means. It doesn't mean that the president has the power to act contrary to Congress's expressed will. This was the whole point of the Youngstown case.
It would have been truly bizarre if the court in Sealed Case was intending to imply that FISA encroached on the president's exclusive powers (and was therefore unconstitutional). After all, FISA is the statute that created the FISC court and gave it its jurisdiction. And the holding of Sealed Case was that the amendments to FISA made in the Patriot Act were constitutional. So Bush's apologists would have us believe that the court, with one toss away line, was intending to undermine everything else it said in that case as well as invalidate its own existence.
That's nonsense.
As a fellow Liberal, I just wanted to say thanks for your site.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home