The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[AaronB]

... I was sitting here watching President Bush make a speech about Iraq, etc... left quite an impression.

... Every time I hear him speak, every word he says seems .. calculated.... rehearsed.... completely unnatural.

I think that this is just his speaking style. Some people are not very comfortable at public speaking. Of the last 4 presidents, we have had some great comunicators (Reagan & Clinton) who were able to make that connection with the public. The Bush's are just not as good as the president's that they followed.

... Now I realize well enough that they all (big-time politicians) rehearse their lines - hell, Kerry ran his speeches, even his prepared debate comments, through focus groups, looking for the best impact.... It's just incredibly sad to think that a majority of Americans are so easily "moved" (persuaded/manipulated).

Weather or not you agree with his policies, I think that Bush does less of that then some of the other polititions that are out there.Two examples come to mind, he has been pushing this amnisty for illegial immigrants and the fact that he is keeping with the buliding of democracy in Iraqeven when his approval ratings have been abysmal (although they have improved of late).

Also, you need to remember that politics (no matter what democratic country you are talking about) is all about persuation. Otherwise how else do you think that they get elected?!

... I hope like hell McCain runs in 2008. McCain vs Hillary. Should be quite a show.

Personally I would prefer to see Condi Rice or Gulianni as the GOP nominee. But for both parties it is still too early to call a favorite.

[Dr Maturin]

God! Bollocks rules again now and then. So if you vote democrat you are easily manipulated but when you vote republican you aren't ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????

No:

But most of Kerry's voters weren't manipulated, either; they just saw the Massachusetts liberal as a favored alternative.

Personally I would prefer to see Condi Rice or Gulianni as the GOP nominee. But for both parties it is still too early to call a favorite.

Condi isn't going to run. She said as much this weekend. It's all about George Allen.

[Towelmaster]

Yo ZhD; I's a bit in a hurry atm, but I don't think I was responding to your posting this time.

[AaronB]

About the NSA Surveillance Program

I mentioned this on my blog as well but Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Mason University, has an interesting overview of the whole issue (not surprisingly, it's from a legal standpoint). Here is the whole article (along with the comments).

[Dr Maturin]

Here's the deal, in easy and simple terms:

1. Congress declared war on Al Qaeda, giving Bush the powers to deal with them
2. Bush used his powers to wage war to institute a program which would crack down on threats at home
3. The individuals being surveilled are persons of interest, whether they're a citizen of the US or not
4. You don't need to worry about the government spying on you, as they have limited resources and don't really care to dip into your personal lives
5. The redneck down the street has probably been listening to your phone calls for years by using his PO-lice scanner

[Jan]

So here's the question, in equally easy and simple terms:

WHY didn't they follow the already established procedure and go through the court established under FISA?

Jan

[The Puzzled Pak'Ma'Ra]

So here's the question, in equally easy and simple terms:

WHY didn't they follow the already established procedure and go through the court established under FISA?

Jan

... The reason (excuse... take your pick) I heard was that there just isn't time. In example, a call comes into the US from Afghanistan... maybe from OBL or one of his top guys, to a phone in Chicago. Nobody answers... Thinking OBL (or whoever) will call back in a few minutes, there just isn't enough time to go to a court, do the paperwork, etc...

... I'm not sure I buy that, but there have been no successsful attacks on US soil since 9/11 . . . so who knows?

... Bill Clinton did the same thing without criticism, but he had the forethought to make it public knowledge.

[Jan]

Except that from what I've read, if it's an emergency, they can go ahead and do it and they have 72 hours to notify the court. First time I've ever heard of a retroactive warrant, but I'll grant that it's a valid workaround given what's at stake.

For that matter, is there anybody who really believes that the president is more accessible than any one of eleven justices? I sure don't.

And there were no successful attacks on US soil before 9/11 either so I think that's just rhetoric.

Jan

[AaronB]

Except that from what I've read, if it's an emergency, they can go ahead and do it and they have 72 hours to notify the court. First time I've ever heard of a retroactive warrant, but I'll grant that it's a valid workaround given what's at stake.

For that matter, is there anybody who really believes that the president is more accessible than any one of eleven justices? I sure don't.

And there were no successful attacks on US soil before 9/11 either so I think that's just rhetoric.

Jan

There actually was a sucessful attack on US soil before 9/11. The first WTC bombing. Which would be one reason why President Clinton issued executive order 12949 stating that physical searches were allowed with out warrents. Or when President Carter issued executive order 12139 in 1979, that approved electronic survailence foregin intelligence information with out a court order. I would go back to Lincoln suspending Habeius Corpus or Adams and Jefferson both using the Alein and Sedition Act but that's a little out of context at this point.

PS. My browser is acting up so I wasn't able to post the links to the executive orders. I hope to do that when it's working again. My apologies for that.

[Jan]

There actually was a sucessful attack on US soil before 9/11. The first WTC bombing.

You're right, of course. I don't know why I didn't remember that.

Jan

[Towelmaster]

Just for the record : I read that permission to eavesdrop on American citizens can be given within minutes. It has been that way for decades, exactly for the reasons that are now given for not asking ; sometimes you just cannot wait. A special service was set up a long time ago specifically for this purpose. People - even the democrats - weren't completely crazy, they saw that this was necessary then too.

There have been several thousands of requests since then and less than 10 have been refused by a judge. Further more, as Jan said : in emergencies people can be spied on.

So there are plenty of 'loopholes' built into this system. Of course it's not as easy as just doing it without asking...

But HEY! You're the Americans so you have to live with it. I'm just on the outside observing it all.


Welcome to 1984. Even 'Homeland Security' sounds ominously like 'The Ministry of Peace".

[Andrew_Swallow]

But HEY! You're the Americans so you have to live with it. I'm just on the outside observing it all.

You hope that you are on the outside. You may not know what the Dutch Government is doing.

[Towelmaster]

Oh I have no doubt at all that I don't know what Harry Potter is doing. I do know that he got himself a 'make-over' last weekend. He looks different now...(note I'm not saying 'better').

Anyway, I was half joking because I believe that if America sneezes the rest of the world has a cold. It actuallly IS my business too in that respect. Just can't vote for your guys, gotta do it with the noobs down here...

[Radhil]

So here's the question, in equally easy and simple terms:

WHY didn't they follow the already established procedure and go through the court established under FISA?

There's only a handful of possible reasons. Either they had reason to think the court wouldn't allow their requests, or they had reason to not want any oversight or records of their requests. Presuming that these were all terror related warrants, I have a hard time believing either possibility. So that brings this Bush-approved program into question.

I don't know a lot of facts about this secret court other than hazy history that says they rarely turn down anything, and most of the stories I manage to see shy away from that angle and focus on the usual BS politico reactions. So if anyone can shed factual light on those two possibilities, I'd appreciate it.

[AaronB]

There's only a handful of possible reasons. Either they had reason to think the court wouldn't allow their requests, or they had reason to not want any oversight or records of their requests. Presuming that these were all terror related warrants, I have a hard time believing either possibility. So that brings this Bush-approved program into question.

Or it could be for the following reason:

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

That was from John Schmidt, who served as Associate Attorney General in the Clinton Justice Department and wrote an opinion peice in today's Chicago Tribune. So let's try and keep things in perspective and look at what precident there was before President Bush came into office.