They had no need to go around the law. They could easily have obeyed it. They just didn't want to.

Or, they think they don't have to.

By the way, there was a title to this post ('Above the Law 2'). Maybe the site is confused by its similarity to Shakespeare's Sister's title.

Excellent post, Hilzoy.

But I have a high bar, not a nonexistent one.

Right on.

Maybe the site is confused by its similarity to Shakespeare's Sister's title.

I've had to put mine in manually, FYI.

I agree with you, H. Both in the height of the bar, and that this conduct is clearly impeachable. What really astounds me, however, is that the NYT sat on this story for a year.

I had lost much of my respect for the TImes over the Judith Miller affair. Now I hold them in utter contempt. I won't even let my puppies shit on that worthless rag.

I remember reading a post on "secret laws". Could this be an incident where the preznit had "secret authority?"

An initial press report on any subject is almost always incomplete. If you really are set on a drastic remedy like impeachment it couldn't hurt to wait a few days until you know a little more than you do now.

...two traumas in a row is really not good for the country, and even though my reluctance to go through a second impeachment benefits the very Republicans who needlessly inflicted the first on us, I don't care. It's bad for the country, and that matters most.

Nothing quite like shutting up for the good of the country.

The Bush administration's argument is that the president is commander-in-chief, and we are at war, and there are no limits on the commander-in-chief's war-making powers. Therefore the president is in effect the dictator for the duration of his term. Anyone who objects is at best unpatriotic and at worst a traitor.

I'm with you all the way on this one. If this, the torture business and waging this unprovoked, insane war of aggression in Iraq based on doctored intelligence aren't all hallmarks of tyranny, what is?

I think it's time to think seriously about impeachment, and I'm not being flip.

Brautigan: I won't even let my puppies shit on that worthless rag.

Don't be cruel. If I were a puppy I'd enjoy taking a dump on the NYT.

Zathras: An initial press report on any subject is almost always incomplete. If you really are set on a drastic remedy like impeachment it couldn't hurt to wait a few days until you know a little more than you do now.

This is a blog, not the House of Representatives. Impeachment will have to wait until the Democratic majority is sworn into the House in January 2007.

Section 1811 of Chapter 36 contains some exceptions for a time of war. You could probably slip around this one by saying that, like with many other wars we've fought in the past decades, Congress never actually "declared" war.

Still, it's pretty hard to say that we aren't at war right now, or try and get around the intention of that exception.

While the scruples you express about impeachment strike me as wise in principle, in practice it seems to me that adhering to a rule of, "Let's not put the country through consecutive impeachment traumas" sets up a perverse incentive. That is, if Democrats adhere to such a rule, then Republicans will quickly realize that they can immunize themselves against impeachments by aggressively impeaching Democrats on the least of pretexts. It is obvious that the current gang will have no scruples about doing so.

Excellent post. That is to say, I agree.

:)

I'm all for using this episode as a political club, and to the extent that calling for impeachment is a part of whacking 'em upside the head, well and good. But it seems to me that, unfortunately, impeachment is almost impossible in this case, and the legal case is not beyond debate.

As to the former, impeachment of course is a political action and not a legal one. The House can impeach an official for the most trivial alleged offense, and conversely even an open-and-shut felony is no guarantee of impeachment. An impeachable offense is what the House decides is an impeachable offense, no more and no less. Given that, about the only possibility I can see for impeachment is if there is a true political earthquake in '06 that gives Pelosi the gavel and brings in a cadre of legislators as ferociously opposed to this administration as the class of '94 was to Clinton. (I think it would also require an issue around which to organize an impeachment movement, but Iraq almost certainly would do for that.) This isn't impossible, but from what I've seen, so far nobody thinks it's particularly likely.

As to the latter, the argument that the administration's defenders seem to be using is the tried-and-true one that a wartime president has extraordinary latitude to do what s/he believes is necessary to conduct the war. This is not entirely specious -- Madison, for example, acknowledged it even as he cautioned against a state of perpetual war, in part precisely because of the imbalance in power war creates -- and it seems to have been accepted both by the courts and by the public in many cases. So even if the statute was already adequate to our (alleged) security needs, and even if it seems like the administration contravened it on its face, they're holding something of a trump card.

So whack away, I say. But let's not expect much more than to chip away a bit at his approval ratings, and maybe motivate some donations to Democratic candidates.

Joe--

Yes, that's right. That is Yoo's argument in his recent book--that the president's powers are essentially only trammelled by Congress' power of the purse.

The only remedy we have for this is impeachment, isn't it? I mean, if the president is going to say that he need not follow statutes, doesn't that also mean that he need not follow rulings by courts?

As someone said upthread, this story needs to develop a bit more substance. But I think it's already clear that the president views himself as above the law.

Still, it's pretty hard to say that we aren't at war right now, or try and get around the intention of that exception.

Bush ordered the NSA to break the law. Period. He should be "held accountable" or whatever the buzzword is today and pay for this.

tbrosz: it's pretty hard to say that we aren't at war right now

It's quite easy, and accurate, to say we aren't at war right now. We won Iraq War 2 when the Iraqi military ceased effective resistance. What we're losing is Iraq Occupation 1 (just as GHWB predicted we would).

It's no different than the 7 year occupation of Japan and Germany after WW2. Nobody claimed that we were still at war in 1946.

Repukelican think:

1) God's Law
2) Man's Law

the bushcriminal speaks to God (or maybe is God).
Therefore, violation of US Law by the bushcriminal - no problem.

It's quite easy, and accurate, to say we aren't at war right now. We won Iraq War 2 when the Iraqi military ceased effective resistance. What we're losing is Iraq Occupation 1 (just as GHWB predicted we would). It's no different than the 7 year occupation of Japan and Germany after WW2. Nobody claimed that we were still at war in 1946.

Ouch.

tbrosz = PWNED.

Still, it's pretty hard to say that we aren't at war right now, or try and get around the intention of that exception.

No, it's pretty easy. No sacrifices, no tax increases, no changes in any personal behaviour by any of the real elite in this country... I'd say that's business as usual.

Always looking for an excuse for these guys, eh? Shameless.

Hey, 9/11 changed everything. Geez.

Bleh said succinctly what I was already thinking - that impeachment, whether deserved or not, seems wholly impractical within the current make up of the House.

it's pretty hard to say that we aren't at war right now

If the mere fact that American troops are engaged in combat operations somewhere in the world is enough to say that the US is "at war," then we've been at war pretty much continuously since 1941. If that's the case then there would literally be no limit on the President's powers, and he would be a dictator in all but name.

It's no different than the 7 year occupation of Japan and Germany after WW2. Nobody claimed that we were still at war in 1946.

A shorter, better version of my response.

tbrosz: "Still, it's pretty hard to say that we aren't at war right now, or try and get around the intention of that exception."

Some of us would consider your reasoning circular: Bush's invasion of Iraq is a second reason that Bush should be impeached.

Bush invades another country based on fixed intelligence.
But starting a war wrongly is impeachable!
HaHa! You can't impeach the POTUS. There's a war on!

the easy defense is "national security".

there is Absolutetly No Way Congress would go against the president knowing they'd be charged with "wanting to make it harder for the President to keep us safe".

might as well pretend this story never surfaced. throw it on the heap with the torture stories, the indefinite detention, illegal war, bogus WMD claims, etc.. "national security" trumps everything.

war crimes are easily as contemptable as illegal spying on US citizens, if not more so inasmuch as they involve the death, maiming, and torture of innocent people. Bush should have been in prison long ago.

If that's the case then there would literally be no limit on the President's powers, and he would be a dictator in all but name.

Which is precisely the goal, of course. That's why the War on Terror (TM) is so important - it will never end. So they will never have limits.

Tbone, do you really not see this?

How about if they declare war on the weather? Would that make it a little more obvious?

(by the way, I use the name Tbone in an affectionate, Bushian kind of way. You rascal you. heh heh heh)

The Bush administration's argument is that the president is commander-in-chief, and we are at war, and there are no limits on the commander-in-chief's war-making powers. Therefore the president is in effect the dictator for the duration of his term. Anyone who objects is at best unpatriotic and at worst a traitor.

I've mentioned this before several times, but I think there's a real misunderstanding in this country about the Founder's motivations in making the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The point of that designation was not to make the president some sort of supreme warlord or generalissimo who would have unhindered powers during wartime, it was to emphasize that the executive civilian authority, and not the military, was to have the final say. The title was meant as a bulwark against military dictatorship, which makes it all the more ironic that the rabid Republicans are using it as an excuse to bring that about.

"It's no different than the 7 year occupation of Japan and Germany after WW2. Nobody claimed that we were still at war in 1946."

but, but, but...the wah on terra, its a new kind of wah - endless until the bushcriminal says so.

it's pretty hard to say that we aren't at war right now

We have a Constitution that says we're not at war until Congress declares it. Oh I know, that's a technicality. Republicans think every law they break is a technicality.

it's pretty hard to say that we aren't at war right now

Where's the Declaration of War?

I like your style Hilzoy. Indict. Impeach.

So how do we make this happen? He needs to be impeached. Impeaching him will be a cleansing experience, not a trauma.

So the Bush White House is reviving the Nixonian theory that the President is "as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time". I thought the Supreme Court put paid to that thirty years ago?

BTW, what's the legal situation with using the DIA for domestic spying? Is that covered by the Posse Comitatus Act?

Impeaching him will be a cleansing experience, not a trauma.

Not so very different from an enema, really.

I'm sorry, it had to be said.

I'll go back to work now...

So I guess if I were to some up your and most of the left's views on the whole 911 thing it would be to say: it would be better that we be willing to die as a nation, slaughtered to the last man, than to violate our own laws or Constitution.

On the subject, I would have to disagree with you.

I value the freedom not to get my ass blown off ahead of my freedom to curse out the government on my cell phone without them listening to me.

I would note that in the Declaration of Independence that even Thomas Jefferson put the right to life ahead of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I want to live and that is more important than whether or not someone is spying on me doing it.

If you are worried about someone spying on you, don't do anything that is illegal.

While you are all up in arms about people listening to you talk on your cell phone, I'll bet most of your readers are all in agreement about taking away my right to defend myself with a gun.

I guess you and I have far different idea of what freedom really is. After serving 10 years in the Navy at least I can say I was willing to step out and defend you right to your views. What have you ever done for defending mine?

Hilzoy: "...I think that the fact that Clinton was impeached raises the bar as far as impeaching Bush...."

RAISES the bar?? You've got to be kidding. The "trauma" to the country has been caused by Bush; impeachment is the surgery to remove the cancer and begin the healing.

Hostile: you forgot the third bit: Indict, Impeach, Imprison.

But instead his successor will probably pardon him, just like Ford pardoned Nixon.

Dems who bitch about impeachment on the grounds that cheney et al are just as bad amaze me.

Succinctly - it's not as though republicans worried about Gore being worse than Clinton, is it? And in their eyes, he was much worse than Clinton.

The point is that the entire republican party will be shown to be a disgraced coven of traitors.

Section 1811 of Chapter 36 contains some exceptions for a time of war.

It doesn't contain "some exceptions". It specifically authorizes 15-day Presidential authorizations in times of declared war without a warrant.

You could probably slip around this one by saying that, like with many other wars we've fought in the past decades, Congress never actually "declared" war.

And since the provision applies only in times of "declared war", you would be completely correct as a matter of law in so arguing.

Still, it's pretty hard to say that we aren't at war right now, or try and get around the intention of that exception.

The intention of the exception is to recognize a formal Congressional declaration of war, and only such a declaration, as an authorization for a very specifically delineated expansion in executive authority under FISA. Were the intention otherwise, Congress would have omitted the modifier "declared".

Therefore, the only people looking for a way around the intent of the law are those, like you, arguing that a provision expressly limited to apply in declared war should be interpreted to apply without a formal declaration of war.

This is clearly impeachable, if true.

Clinton's offense was lying in a civil case brought against him. Scummy and stupid, though arguably not a high crime or misdemeanor.

Ordering US intelligence agencies to illegally spy on US citizens inside the US? Yeah, that's a high crime.

Tbone, do you really not see this?

They see it. Some of them say it explicitly, like Steve White's post below about how these detainees are clearly not covered by the constitution.

They're just monarchists. After 200+ years the country is still full of those who'd rather see the law subservient to the executive instead of the other way around.

Yes, as others have noted, it's really quite easy to say we're not at war, because, we're not. You can't have a war against an emotion, which is what bush's war on terror is loudly proclaimed to be.

And no man, especially the guy at the top, is above the law. No person, no entity, no body.

For impeachment to succeed, for a conviction to follow, the legitimacy of the charge must be proved in a court of law, and in that sense, it is eminately doable. Impeachment is a legal remedy, politics be damned. Conviction is the harder part, but if it's deserved, it'll happen.

And bush oh so deserves it.

bluebird -

Yes, raises the bar. So that there is not even the slightest appearance of impeachment-due-to-vengeance, as well as what the OP said about one impeachment being bad, and two being worse.

We had to burn the Constitution to save it.

I defend every individual's rights to everytime I speak out against fascist polices enacted by the Bush administration.

The only remedy we have for this is impeachment, isn't it? I mean, if the president is going to say that he need not follow statutes, doesn't that also mean that he need not follow rulings by courts?

If he doesn't have to obey when Congress passes a statute, what obligates him to obey when Congress tells him to pack his bags and vacate the White House?

Boy, you slaughtered that strawman, wayne.

it would be better that we be willing to die as a nation, slaughtered to the last man, than to violate our own laws or Constitution.

...well, sometimes you have to sacrifice everything to preserve what you are. Even Jesus Christ knew that.

I've got to stop those jokes, I keep forgetting to reset by name. The last two "Sheep Everywhere" were me.

"I was for the Constitution before I was against it"

So how do we make this happen? He needs to be impeached. Impeaching him will be a cleansing experience, not a trauma.

Yeah, everybody knows that Cheney is the guy pulling all the strings in this administration. Might as well give him the title. What? You say we'll impeach Cheney too? Well, ok, I guess I could get used to President Hastert. Hmmm? He's gone too? Well how does President Ted Stevens grab ya? Yikes! I see now that the Republicans have a cleverly installed an impeachment-proof Presidential line of succession.

The point of impeachment is not as a substitute for election to get a more ideologically acceptable person as President. The point is to:

1) Establish accountability of the President to the law,
2) Incapacitate the present wrongdoer,
3) Deter future wrongdoing.

You get a good President by electing one. Impeachment isn't a tool to get a good President, its a tool for constraining all Presidents to keep them accountable to the legal (especially Constitutional) limitations on the office.

I smell your fear, wayne.

You stink of it.

Always love that "then don't do anything illegal" crap, excellent argument, misses the whole point completely, but hey, horsehoes, right?

Koresh, what if you're in the way of something some rich guy with access wants? Maybe he likes the view better from your house, or he wants to build a condo project on your property but doesn't want to pay for it. Gets his buddys in the Gest, er, Secret Service to spy on you, gin up some bogus evidence, and get you hauled off to the hoosegow. Then what?

But they would never do that, right? Just like they'd never do propaganda, right? Or make up shit intelligence to start a war, right? Or impeach a president for a personal matter that while il-advised, was not illegal, consenting adults and all, right?

The Times article portrays the Justice Department as at worst an accomplice, and at best dragging its heels to investigate the possible breaches of the law Hilzoy is suggesting.

So impeachment may seem like a pipe dream now, but that's precisely because its looking too far ahead. What is possible now, is getting an Independent Prosecutor assigned to investigate these allegations. Further down the line, if the investigation bears fruit, impeachment will gather support as the investigator will keep the story alive, dragging it into the 06 election cycle.

What needs to happen now, then, is getting such a prosecutor.

I think impeachment would be particularly tough in this case. While the President may be breaking the law, it is an area of law that relies almost entirely on Court opinions and not on statutes. This means this area of the law is always arguable, and open to interpretation, and so the argument for Bush would say somehting along the lines of "the President is certainly entitled to make his own interpretations of the Const in light of laws and Supreme Court precedent, and we can't punsish a president for interpretting the law in good faith, even if he is incorrect." I imagine thy would also, though rather speciously, point to the line-item veto by Clintonm, or other examples through history where the sitting President took an action and was later deemed by a court to have acted unconstitutionally.

I am not saying this isn't bad, or even impeachable, but it will be a tough case on this grounds, and the Republicans will certainly tunr it around on the Democrats as soon as anything even resemble this case.

As for Presidents disobeying courts, Nixon seriously considered it when the Supreme Court ordered him to produce certain documents, but ultimately decided not to. THIS would be a clearly impeachable offense: willfully disobeying a direct order from the court. This basically would undue our entire system of laws, ad would probably be the worst thing a President could possibly do, other than treason.

So, the only remedy for El Presidente is impeachment. What about the people who did the wiretaps? Can they be prosecuted, pour encourager les autres?

You get a good President by electing one. Impeachment isn't a tool to get a good President, its a tool for constraining all Presidents to keep them accountable to the legal (especially Constitutional) limitations on the office.

If Bush and Cheney wind up like Nixon and Agnew, I might not always agree with President Hastert, but at least there's the chance he'd be scared straight into responsible government.

But they would never do that, right?

Of course they don't. They never turn on the true Party members! Isn't that right, Mr. Trotsky and Captain Rohm?

For impeachment to succeed, for a conviction to follow, the legitimacy of the charge must be proved in a court of law, and in that sense, it is eminately doable. Impeachment is a legal remedy, politics be damned. Conviction is the harder part, but if it's deserved, it'll happen.

Impeachment and conviction on the articles of impeachment require the charge to be proved to the Senate. It is a political remedy, law be damned. Its largely intended as a remedy for the kinds of offenses for which remedies in civil and criminal law are inadequate to serve the national interest, an inherently political judgement. The only way a "court of law" gets involved is that, in the case of Presidential impeachments (but, oddly, not Vice-Presidential impeachments) the Chief Justice rather than the Vice President presides over the Senate.

...well, sometimes you have to sacrifice everything to preserve what you are. Even Jesus Christ knew that.

Heh... of course that's not even remotely the case here. Just more evidence that rightwingers are chickenshits who don't believe in anything enough to do more than harass people about social greetings. Or, you know, undermine entire systems of government.

So, the only remedy for El Presidente is impeachment. What about the people who did the wiretaps? Can they be prosecuted, pour encourager les autres?

Both they and the President (though impeachment, in his case, is a practical, if only debatably legal, necessity first) may be prosecuted for the criminal violations of FISA, and possibly for other crimes related to that (such as conspiracy, solicitation, etc.)

Wayne,

You can be comforted by the fact that no one, ever, will confuse you with Patrick Henry.

Fear of the trauma of another failed presidency led the Democratically controlled congress to give Reagan a pass on Iran-Contra and not follow it to its conclusion. This only embittered and emboldened the radical right wing of the Repubs.

If, for fear of another "trauma," we allow the Bush administration to walk away from this, then the next time they steal an election and use a national crisis to do whatever they damn well please then God help us and our children and our children's children.

And speaking as a father, I say that we not rest until Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi and the whole sorry crew are making little one's out of big ones at Leavenworth.

If being "at war" gives the President unrivaled powers, then we've been at war for some time. What makes "The War on Poverty" or "The War on Drugs" any different than GB's self-declared "War on Terra"??

If simply declaring "We're at war" makes it so, can the President simply IGNORE the constitution?

Just playing devil's advocate: the administration might well argue that the Congressional resolution was their war declaration, and also that the US has not formally declared victory in the war. Bush called it a victory, said "mission accomplished," but to my knowledge has not formally declared victory (for one reason, because then the detainees would quite possibly have to be released).

These guys are outlandish and totally unsubtle, but they're not stupid. They put together a BS finesse answer to everything they come up with.

When does Bush say "How many divisions has the Pope?"

If the New York Times report is true, then Bush should be impeached.

There were already multiple reasons why Bush should be impeached, beginning with the stolen election of 2000.

So what? Republicans have majorities in both houses of Congress and they will never, ever take any such action against Bush.

That's why the Democrats -- and I mean every single Democratic member of both the House and the Senate -- should boycott all activities and work of the Congress, walk out, and shut down the legislature in protest, until the Republicans agree to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their crimes.

So I guess if I were to some up your and most of the left's views on the whole 911 thing it would be to say: it would be better that we be willing to die as a nation, slaughtered to the last man, than to violate our own laws or Constitution.

On the subject, I would have to disagree with you.

Wayne, that is so craven that I have a lot of trouble believing you would admit it. To summarize:

A People Who Would Sacrifice Liberty for Security Will Lose Both, and Deserve Neither

Great googly-moogly (to quote a better, smarter Nixon):

So I guess if I were to some up your and most of the left's views on the whole 911 thing it would be to say: it would be better that we be willing to die as a nation, slaughtered to the last man, than to violate our own laws or Constitution.

What a fucking coward. I'd die for the Constitution and what it explicitly says before I'd die for a whimpering bootlicker like you.

I value the freedom not to get my ass blown off ahead of my freedom to curse out the government on my cell phone without them listening to me.

Then I suppose you'd also support draconian gun laws, because chances are far, far, far greater an American with a gun will kill you than a terrorist. My Christ you are a mincing, shrieking coward.

I would note that in the Declaration of Independence that even Thomas Jefferson put the right to life ahead of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And I would note that the Declaration of Independence is wholly irrelevant here.

I want to live and that is more important than whether or not someone is spying on me doing it.

You should have moved to Iraq when you had the chance. Or the Soviet Union. You could have most likely lived, and stayed even safer under immense government surveillence.

If you are worried about someone spying on you, don't do anything that is illegal.

What happened to conservatives in this country? They used to yell and scream about black helicopters and would have rather screwed Jane Fonda than let the government have this kind of power without even a small note of disapproval. Look you hysterical child, Barry Goldwater would chew your type up and shit you out. I wish there were more Republicans like him these days -- and that's terrifying.

While you are all up in arms about people listening to you talk on your cell phone, I'll bet most of your readers are all in agreement about taking away my right to defend myself with a gun.

Well, we're not, but if we were couldn't we just say that we value our right not to have our ass blown off by the likes of you? After all, that's what you JUST FINISHED SAYING about our civil liberties.

I guess you and I have far different idea of what freedom really is. After serving 10 years in the Navy at least I can say I was willing to step out and defend you right to your views. What have you ever done for defending mine?

You are a fucking coward. You have no clue what freedom is. None. I know Navy guys who'd personally slap you like they used to slap hysterical women in old movies for such cowardice. Your paranoid shrieking over one terrorist attack in the city where I live shames us all.

That said, I've defended your rights too. Support the ACLU sometime. They have a more robust definition of freedom than unilateral disarmament to authority.

By the way, Ben Franklin said that.

I think impeachment would be particularly tough in this case. While the President may be breaking the law, it is an area of law that relies almost entirely on Court opinions and not on statutes.

Er, no, its a criminal violation of a particular statute. It no more relies on court decisions than does the legal interpretation of every other statute.

This means this area of the law is always arguable, and open to interpretation, and so the argument for Bush would say somehting along the lines of "the President is certainly entitled to make his own interpretations of the Const in light of laws and Supreme Court precedent, and we can't punsish a president for interpretting the law in good faith, even if he is incorrect."

Sure, the President can make that argument, but, in fact, it is wrong. Impeachment and removal is a political sanction designed to protect the Constitution and the nation from abuse of the powers of public office. A "good faith" overreaching of power is just as damaging, and the inclination to repeat it just as much of a future threat to the Constitutional order, as one that the actor knows to be out of bounds. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for executive malfeasance.

The NYT aided and abetted these criminals and nothing concerns me more now than WHAT THE FUCK ELSE ARE THE CONCEALING...! Impeachment deserved for many, so many offenses against our constitution, our commonweal, our commonsense, our values and the fuckin' NYT sat on clearly impeachable actions, AS A FAVOR TO THESE PEOPLE!?!?!

In fucking effable...there simply aren't words...

Every morning since September 2001, I blink my eyes twice over my Wheaties, to make sure that I am not just dreaming all this.

The way this administration has exploited what amounted to a lucky sucker punch by 19 suicidal fanatics, continues to astound me. As historical perspective, President James Madison had to hide in the woods outside Washington D.C. as the British burned down the White House in 1812, and he didn't repeal the Bill of Rights, invade a country unrelated to the perpetrators and torture innocent people, as a result.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Invading Iraq after 9-11 made about as much sense as invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

Now, back to the issue at hand - Despite what happened on 9-11, there was no need to throw the 5th Amendment guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure out the window. This action by Bush was an unwarranted, extraConstitutional, ill-advised power grab. Nothing more. Just like Hitler used the burning of the Reichstag to consolidate his power, Bush used 9-11 to consolidate his.

Thank God it is all unraveling now.....

So I guess if I were to some up your and most of the left's views on the whole 911 thing it would be to say: it would be better that we be willing to die as a nation, slaughtered to the last man, than to violate our own laws or Constitution.

Strawman. Besides, no one with whom we're currently at "war" has anything near the capability to do this.

I value the freedom not to get my ass blown off ahead of my freedom to curse out the government on my cell phone without them listening to me.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. We should see to it that our representatives work to ensure both kinds of freedom.

I would note that in the Declaration of Independence that even Thomas Jefferson put the right to life ahead of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I don't know that Jefferson listed "life" first for any reason other than it read better that way. A "life" without the other two is not the kind I want to live, in America or anywhere else.

If you are worried about someone spying on you, don't do anything that is illegal.

Ah, but there's the rub, isn't it? How do we know that what's being spied on is putative "illegal" activity, and not just "stuff the Administration doesn't like"? From what we've heard over the last few days, the latter is more likely. Spying on Quakers, for God's sake?

While you are all up in arms about people listening to you talk on your cell phone, I'll bet most of your readers are all in agreement about taking away my right to defend myself with a gun.

I don't think the 2nd Amendment means what the gun fetishists think it does - read the Founders' first draft of it sometime - but I'm not especially set on taking away your gun, no.

I guess you and I have far different idea of what freedom really is. After serving 10 years in the Navy at least I can say I was willing to step out and defend you right to your views. What have you ever done for defending mine?

Speaking out against the unlawful use of Presidential power is defending your freedom. And I resent the implication that only those who served in the military have earned the "right" to speak up. The quasi-religious reverence for the military is one of the worst aspects of the country, not to mention one of the most often exploited.

Yeah, Wayne, great work with that straw-man.

Here's the John Madden break-down: See, you set up the argument as, on one side, everyone in America dying - Bam! - versus any law that just might one day make us somewhat safer, regardless of how invasive or hapahazardly it's used - Bam!
Smashing!

Perhaps you're not aware of that thing called The Law, or The Constitution and their synergy. Great use of that one line by Jefferson, but clearly we have decided as a society that safety can not utterly overrule our rights or our laws. That's exactly what you fought for.

That's the extent of the argument you deserve based on your "just don't do anything illegal" garbage.

And in fact out of appreciation for your service to our country, which I do respect and appreciate, you avoided getting just explitives.

cmdicely,

I was implying that the Senate would be that Court of Law, not that a regular Court of Law would sit in judgement of these traitors.

The "damned law" would be the Constitution, so it would be a case of both politics and law be damned, and as remedies.

You can't use the Constitution like you would a book of legal precedents, which is why strict constructionists are so full of it, btw, but it does give the legal remedy, impeachment and conviction. How we achieve that is a political matter. But get there we can, and must.

So we're both right! And the trolls are sad!

As a retired Ambassador who had oversight of the NSAs most sensitive operations at Bad Aibling, Germany from 1987-1991 it was difficult to convince others what I knew to be true: the NSA scrupulosly followed both the law and Constitution in protecting the rights of Americans under the 4th Amendment. Since 1997 I have taught courses in intelligence in which I taught my students that having learned from the mistakes of the 1950s and 1960s, NSA was "squeeky clean," going in some cases to absurd lengths to ensure they were not even close to the edge when it came to warantless surveillance of Americans --- both in the United States and abroad.

I've just sent an email to as many of my former students I can locate to tell them I was wrong. I can only express my disappointment that senior leaders at NSA did not resign in protest. Lt. Gen. Michael Haydn, who instituted these changes, is now the Deputy Director of National Intelligence. He testified before the 9/11 Commission and argued that if we were going to weaken civikl liberties in the name of national security, this should be done only after long, serious and public debate.

At the most, he violated the law; at the least, he violated his honor as a gentleman and should resign --- now!

dk: I like the idea of Fitzgerald redux. But I'm not sure it's practical in this case, because the facts don't seem either complicated or mysterious. Bush signed a directive authorizing certain well-defined actions, and officials at the NSA clearly took those actions. The legal basis for the directive certainly is subject to argument, as are the relationship to and applicability of the FISA statute, but those are legal issues, not factual ones.

If this is going to result in any legal action, it seems to me it could start with either (1) a sitting federal prosecutor in any jurisdiction in which violations of the FISA took place bringing criminal charges against officials at the NSA, or (2) a US citizen whose communications were illegally monitored either filing a criminal complaint or bringing a civil suit for damages (or both).

That would certainly help to keep the whole stinking mess in the news for a while. Anybody know anyone who's been making calls lately to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran ... ?

And I would note that the Declaration of Independence is wholly irrelevant here.

I think it's relevant-- the point of that clause, though, which poor fwightened Wayne doesn't understand, is that the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were inalienable in the sense that they were not to be casually abridged by one's own government.

How often in history is a naked power grab masquerading as legitimate impeachment (Clinton) over matters wholly personal (blowjob) immediately followed by a blatantly criminal regime crying out for lawful impeachment & conviction, and yet insulated from justice by the same partisan advantage in congress which allowed for the previous travesty?

Not to pile on, but that guy Wayne really is exceptionally stupid.

what amounted to a lucky sucker punch by 19 suicidal fanatics,

This has always been my take on what happened. It was a big, fat, dumb, lucky crime.

Larger men wouldn't have started screaming like little girls as a result.

I was ready for impeachment when the evidence of torture came to light but felt it would be preferable to dump the administration through the political process. Impeachment should be very rarely used--not for lapses in judgement or personal behavior.

It's unfortunate that this president's egregious actions come so soon after the Republican misuse of the impeachment process but we can't change that.

Is there any question that implementing a regime of torture and illegal spying on American citizens are high crimes? Not from where I stand.

So I guess if I were to some up your and most of the left's views on the whole 911 thing it would be to say: it would be better that we be willing to die as a nation, slaughtered to the last man, than to violate our own laws or Constitution.

Yes, I smell the fear, too. The fear that your entire ideology, everything you believe in, is utterly bankrupt and exposed as a fraud, naked for all to see. And you'll say anything to distract us, no matter how laughable.

Whatever happened to conservative respect for "limited government?" Who would have expected a conservative to trust a run-of-the-mill federal agent with unfettered access to the private lives of any citizen the happen to deem suspicious? Didn't you people used to call U.S. agents "jack-booted thugs?" Or was that only when Janet Reno was Attorney General?

It was always a fraud. And now we all know. And you do, too.

If you are worried about someone spying on you, don't do anything that is illegal.

Why such pathological hatred for America and everything it stands for? Why such rage at the American way of life? And why not move to a Communist country where you'll find many more people who share this view?

I guess you and I have far different idea of what freedom really is. After serving 10 years in the Navy at least I can say I was willing to step out and defend you right to your views. What have you ever done for defending mine?

Cue the violins.

Your freedom has been won for you in ballot boxes, legislatures, and courtrooms across the nation, fought for by dedicated activists, relentless journalists (when we had them) and by your hated A.C.L.U.

The NYT has had this information for "about a year." Does that mean they knew it (and covered it up) before the last election?

I like the idea of Fitzgerald redux. But I'm not sure it's practical in this case, because the facts don't seem either complicated or mysterious.

The need for a special prosecutor is not one of the complicatedness of the facts, but the necessary independence from the people who are the subjects of the investigation. Unless someone -- perhaps a sitting US attorney -- is delegated authority to pursue the case independent of supervision of superiors in the Justice Department, its hard to have confidence in the integrity of any criminal prosecution.

And, of course, there are facts that are not known, including who the particular targets were on both sides. This is important because there are cases where warrantless searches are allowed. Now, the NY Times description of what it has been told by sources clearly seems to violate those parameters, but such a story is inadequate basis for prosecution. Someone needs to investigate to get the facts in a form that will be presentable in a court of law, and that investigation needs to be carried out with substantial independence.

cmdicely,

What statute? Is there one about this exactly. If there then you are right and I was unaware of it.

But certainly you can't mean the 4th Amendment by itself.

Also, I didn't say this wasn't impeachable but that clearly the President must overstep the bounds of the Constitution where it has not been defined by the Supreme court from time to time, and many people, esepcially the public will never be able to distinguish between Clinton and the line-item veto and this. I'm just saying it will be hard to sell, and hard to not open the door to Repubs going for impeachment next time there is an example of a dem doing something like the line-item veto.

I don't know that Jefferson listed "life" first for any reason other than it read better that way.

Alek Hidell

He was channeling Locke, who listed "life, liberty, and property as inalienable natural rights.

I bet Rear-Admiral Gun-Packin' Tough-Talkin' Wayne doesn't even live in a city or state that was attacked on 9/11. I do.

Nor does he recall that all four such places voted for Kerry (and, therefore, against Our Dubious Leader and his dubious policies).

And adding to the chorus: It is exactly loud dissension and discussion that preserves freedom, not wiretaps and blind obedience. While it is necessary to follow orders on the battlefield, this nation is not a battlefield from coast to coast.

"The way this administration has exploited what amounted to a lucky sucker punch by 19 suicidal fanatics, continues to astound me."

There is evidence in abundance that not only did the administration know what was going to happen, they also conspired to make it even easier for the son of a close family friend to help with the installation of a quasi-military dictatorship.

what amounted to a lucky sucker punch by 19 suicidal fanatics,

Yes – classic overreaction. As I said at the time, it is necessary to increase safety measures to prevent any further attack, but it is also necessary to look at causes of the original motivation to attack us. And it is simplistic to say it is because they hate us for our freedom. Give me a break. There is nothing that can be done that can completely erase the possibility of another attack, so to ignore the root causes, is ultimately foolish. So yes, let’s keep eroding our civil liberties in our cowering reaction to terror!

cmdicely:

You're right, you should give up the pseudonyms. Now you're USA PATRIOT for longer than I suspect you intended.

I still intend to nominate you for Attorney General in the Hidell Administration, though. So hurry up and pass the bar.

What statute?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- in particular, the criminal provision, 50 USC § 1809 -- prohibits such surveillance under color of law without specific statutory authority, and makes it a federal crime punishable by fines and up to 5 years imprisonment.

Nick T: in addition to the bits I mentioned in my post, there's this exception:

"Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress."

Note: "following a declaration of war by the Congress" -- nope.
Not to exceed fifteen calendar days" -- nope.

And, as I said before, this applies more generally:

"A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—

(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute"

So I guess if I were to some up your and most of the left's views on the whole 911 thing it would be to say: it would be better that we be willing to die as a nation, slaughtered to the last man, than to violate our own laws or Constitution.

Wayne, terrorists do not pose an existential threat to us. Even if they managed to get hold of a nuke, it would just be one. They could maybe take out one city, maybe even MY city (if they were smart they would go after it, but they aren't that smart). I would be expensive, and painful, and man oh man would it piss me off. But it would not destroy America as a whole.

Osama bin Laden would like you to think that he poses an existential threat to the US. And he might at that, if he can trick us into betraying our own principles. Principles enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In the past 5 years, Al Qaeda has maybe killed 5000 people total, about 3000 of which were US citizens. That's their best shot. I don't call that an existential threat.

It's quite easy, and accurate, to say we aren't at war right now. We won Iraq War 2 when the Iraqi military ceased effective resistance.

I'd say they're resisting quite effectively right now. They might not be wearing uniforms, but we're not fighting a bunch of amateurs, in case you hadn't noticed.

So I guess if I were to some up your and most of the left's views on the whole 911 thing it would be to say: it would be better that we be willing to die as a nation, slaughtered to the last man, than to violate our own laws or Constitution.

No, if there were such an existential threat, whoever violated the law to prevent it should be prepared to openly, directly, and forthrightly acknowledge the violation and present their defense of it, and be prepared to accept the judgement of the appropriate authorities -- Congress, the courts, etc. -- as to whether the exigency alleged really justified the action.

If you believe your nation will be destroyed if you do not act, you act -- and then you accept responsibility for that act.

Just listening to the people on the right defend this reveals that in fact, the terrorists have won. We have given up our liberty for security.

Brava! Hilzoy, Brava!

Over at the corner, they are whining about the leak of classified information that must have occurred for all this to be made public. no mention of how spying on your own citizens should be an anathema to a conservative.

"Just listening to the people on the right defend this reveals that in fact, the terrorists have won. We have given up our liberty for security."

Actually James, it shows us who the real weak willed appeasers are. They are the ones who want "give up" our rights and liberties without a fight.

If he doesn't have to obey when Congress passes a statute, what obligates him to obey when Congress tells him to pack his bags and vacate the White House?

It was only when the generals told Nixon that the military wouldn't protect him when the U.S. Marshals showed up at the White House to remove him from the Oval Office that he decided it was time to board the helicopter for Whittier.

Having seen the lying, dishonorable gang of generals who play footsie with Bush and the Cabal, I'm afraid I don't see anything similar happening even if, in 2007, a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress stands up and throws the bum out.

It seems to me that the administration has committed innumerable impeachable offenses in addition to this one in connection to the "War on Terrorism"

This is a great post. My one quibble is that I don't think that the Clinton impeachment was traumatic for the country. It was an embarrassing waste of time for the national government, but most of the country didn't care.
And although it did distract the President in many ways, and arguably harm the country because he couldn't focus on certain problems,but it really wasn't all that "traumatic" for most people at the time.

Doctor Jay: Osama bin Laden would like you to think that he poses an existential threat to the US.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would like you to believe that Osama bin Laden poses an existential threat to the US, except when they'd rather you forget about Osama bin Laden and think that Saddam Hussein poses an existential threat to the US, except when they'd rather you forget about Saddam and think that Iran poses an existential threat to the US, except when they'd rather you forget about Iran and think that some vaguely defined "Islamofascism" movement will always and forever pose an existential threat to "the free world" and this requires never-ending war and the imposition of a permanent military-industrial dictatorship in the US.

In the past 5 years, Al Qaeda has maybe killed 5000 people total, about 3000 of which were US citizens. That's their best shot. I don't call that an existential threat.

Particularly since TEN TIMES that many Americans are killed EVERY YEAR in automobile accidents and everyone considers this to be normal and acceptable.

In terms of the numbers of American lives lost, the 9/11 attacks amounted to a one time, ten percent per year increase in transportation-related fatalities in the USA. A statistical blip, not an existential threat.

Nuclear terrorism might be an existential threat, but nuclear weapons have been an existential threat not only to the USA but to all life on earth, ever since they were invented. And the threat from the nuclear weapons that are still under the control of both the American and Russian military, which could easily be accidentally launched as has almost happened on several occasions in the past, are a much greater threat than the chance of a single weapon falling into the hands of terrorists. But few people today concern themselves with the threat from the thousands of nuclear weapons still maintained on hair-trigger alert status by both the USA and Russia.

cmdicely,

Thanks for the clarification. Impeach that fucker!

"So I guess if I were to some up your and most of the left's views on the whole 911 thing it would be to say: it would be better that we be willing to die as a nation, slaughtered to the last man, than to violate our own laws or Constitution."

In a word, Wayne. Yes.

That is if you are willing to actually believe so strongly in something, your rights and liberties and the constitution and laws that grant and guarantee them, and are willing to die for what you believe in. You obviously, lack that strength of your convictions. You are a moral coward, are you not?

Well... Looks like Hilzoy's on his/her way to blogospheric fame & fortune... LOL

Off-topic, but worthy of note: Democratic (for practical purposes, Green) Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, and Republican (for practical purposes, Libertarian) Rep. Ron Paul of Texas introduced a resolution in the House today regarding Iraq.

Kucinich Introduces Bipartisan Legislation To Allow Iraqi Parliament -- Not US House of Representatives -- To Vote On The Future Of US Occupation

Kucinich/Paul Legislation Would Have Sovereign Iraq Vote On The Future Of US Occupation

WASHINGTON - December 16 - Irony defined. On the same day the United States House of Representatives debates a bill to have the House of Representatives decided the length of the US occupation of Iraq, Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) and Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced bipartisan legislation calling on the United States to support a vote in the Iraqi Parliament on the future of the US occupation of the country.

Kucinich issued the following statement today on his legislation:

"The new permanent elected body in Iraq, not the US House of Representatives, should vote on the length of the US occupation. It is their country. What Iraq needs and what Iraq wants in terms of continued US military occupation should be determined by the Iraqis, not the US occupying force or politicians in Washington.

"Over and over this Administration has compared Iraq's progress towards democracy with our nation's struggle over 200 years ago. Using the Administration's own analogy, it is time to allow Iraq the chance to write its own Declaration of Independence.

"Iraq has passed a Constitution, and has held elections to have a permanent elected body. Iraq, by all measurable means, is a sovereign nation. As such, it should be able to debate and vote on the most important issue facing their nation-the US occupation. The Administration has repeatedly stated that if the Iraqis ask us to leave, we will leave. Poll after poll in Iraq indicate that the Iraqi people overwhelming oppose the US occupation.

"It is now time for this Administration to live up to its word, and allow Iraqis to make the most important and basic decision about the future of their country. The Iraqi people cannot fully be free until decisions about their future are made in Baghdad and not Washington."

The Kucinich/Paul resolution will make it the sense of Congress, "that the new permanent Council of Representatives should debate and vote on whether or not a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq is desired by the government of Iraq; and that such a debate and vote should be conducted in an open and transparent manner, and occur as soon as practicable."

It was only when the generals told Nixon that the military wouldn't protect him when the U.S. Marshals showed up at the