By now at least most of you are aware of the article the New York Times printed this past Friday regarding Bush’s authorization of a program that allowed domestic surveillance on American citizens. Because there are already more than enough people both on and off line yammering about this issue, I’ll try to just stick to giving you a quick, bullet-pointed opinion.
#I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Questioning the President for allowing domestic eavesdropping is definitely something that I do not knock Democrats doing in this recent issue. What I do knock many Democrats and Liberals for is their fear to take a firm position on anything regarding this new type of war we are currently fighting.
#As long as the president can prove to the American people that this program is being solely targeted towards individuals who want to do harm to other Americans, I see no problem with eavesdropping on would-be terrorists.
#The following question has been fielded many times but with very little to no input from Democrats and Liberals:
How do you fight domestic terrorism with international connections if those who are behind it are Americans?
#Democrats and Liberals became scarce when one of their own (Rep. John P. Murtha) came up with a possible “solution” to the war in Iraq that was widely supported verbally by most within his party when the bill was squashed with a vote of 403-3. (article)
# And if that wasn’t embarrassing enough, Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Minority leader makes the following conclusion regarding the Democratic stance on Iraq in 2006:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party. (more…)
#All the people who were quick to accuse Bush for having prior knowledge of the attacks on 9-11 now have the gall to whine about a program that enables him TO KNOW.
Critics of Bush’s decision to conduct domestic eavesdropping are right to be concerned about the protection of our civil liberties. But to totally ignore the results of these actions (the one that we know about so far is would-be terrorist Iyman Faris) is simply pretending that domestic terrorism does not exist.
Unfortunately we live in a time where in order for us to fight this type of enemy, there has to be some level of trade off. Our only hope as voters is to choose a president who will know and respect the fine balance between ensuring the civil liberties of decent Americans and others who want to take those liberties away from us. If Bush’s critics know of a perfect way to do this, let them speak now or forever hold their peace…
and that ain’t gonna happen!
*******UPDATED*********
18. Does FISA authorize surveillance without a court order?
Yes. In general, the Justice Department may engage in electronic surveillance to collect FII without a court order for periods up to one year. 50 U.S.C. § 1802. There must be no “substantial likelihood” that the intercepted communications include those to which a U.S. person is a party. § 1802(a)(1)(B).
Such electronic surveillance must be certified by the Attorney General and then noticed to the Senate and House intelligence committees. § 1802(a)(2). A copy of the certification must be filed with the FISC, where it remains sealed unless (a) an application for a warrant with respect to it is filed, or (b) the legality of the surveillance is challenged in another federal district court under § 1806(f). § 1802(a)(3). Common carriers must assist in the surveillance and maintain its secrecy. § 1802(a)(4).
In emergencies, the Attorney General may authorize immediate surveillance but must “as soon as practicable, but not more than twenty-four hours” later, seek judicial review of the emergency application. § 1805(e). (Source)
*****UPDATE II********
Here is an article written by John Schmidt. Here is a little bit about him:
John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.
President had legal authority to OK taps
====
Now the question remains keeping the above excerpt in mind “What if the American citizen is working with a foreign power?” This is the question that most Liberals do not want to address because they do not want to take the responsibility for any mistakes or accept the blame for any consequences. The fact that the Democratic party does not want to take an official position on Iraq proves that it is far better to blame and find fault than actually contribute some real world solutions.
Here are the choices for those that wish to respond to the above excerpt: America does nothing despite the fact that evidence may suggest that some American citizens are working with terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda–result: Millions of lives are jeopardized all in the name of protecting civil liberties, or act on potential leads–some may be inaccurate, some are not. But by doing so, you decrease the success rate of planned terrorist activity. Checks and balances do need in place, but as long as it does not hinder America’s fight against global terrorism.
Yeah, these are tough choices indeed. Anything else is just emotional rhetoric.
I see the problem when the rights of Americans are abused or if the government abuses the power that it has.
The fact that some members of congress knew means it was legal.
The fact that the president says it’s legal means that it was legal.
If war had been declared, I’d be fully in the camp behind our president, but it wasn’t. I don’t want to hear/read any “defacto” garbage. There was no explicit declaration of war.
And I’m sorry, but the means don’t justify the ends.
Look, Bush should go to congress and ask for an official declaration of war.
I see the problem when the rights of Americans are abused or if the government abuses the power that it has.
But what if those “Americans” have intentions on doing harm to other Americans? This is where this huge debate does its “deer in the headlights” impression.
Look, Bush should go to congress and ask for an official declaration of war.
Then that begs the question “Would Democrats and even some Republicans have the “pair” to consider such an action?” I only ask that because that would a pretty major action for the US to declare war on an organization and not a country (mind you, an organizaton that cloaks itself in a major religion). Bush would have had to ask for a lot more than $87 bil .
I see your point, but naah. That would have been a far worse move
There is no excuse or rationalization for encroaching upon our basic and fundamental human rights. If this is in fact illegal, Bush should be Impbeached.
Bush is using a broad statement of the constitution as a blank-check on his executive powers. If that broad statement was even remotely applicable to his powers, then he would not have needed congress to give him ’sole’ authority to launch this clearly illegal war.
Democrats have been quiet at time when they should not have, but one has to be very careful when the opposing party has a wartime presidency. It’s far too easy for any comments or decisions to be demonized and taken out of context to the advantage of the administration in power.
Furthermore, Murtha or the Demo party did not suffer an embarrassment. The immediate quick vote was launched by the republicans as a cheap, unconstructive, unproductive tactic to get those opposing the war to make a public stand as to pull out or not pull out IMMEDIATELY. Murtha was calling for the immeidate consideration to start getting troops out of Iraq in a way that minimizes risk to mission and troops.
The Republicans have shown once again, their utter contempt for American’s laws and her constitution.
DBlack,
I am adding some of my findings from the Net to the posting above.