Once again, some comment on these two very important stories:
Let's have a quick Q&A:
Q: Correct me if I am wrong. Some amendments to the constitution are difficult to read or understand because of their archaic language and dated historical intentions. But it has always seemed to me that the fourth amendment, like the first, could not be simpler and clearly means what is says. You... need... a... warrant...
A: In general you are correct. While there are exceptions to the warrant provision, none apply here. The administration did not seek or obtain a warrant within 72 hours. Criminal penalties include five years per interception and there are civil penalties available as well. For a guy trying to avoid putting money in the wrong hands, it's a strange way for Bush to act. It is directly contrary to the will of the people as expressed by the Congress in that the U.S. was to try to deter the flow of funds in certain directions. Bush just offered backdoor funding. There is no need for the plaintiff to appear in court in a civial action, or probably even for a deposition given a set of stipulated facts.
Q: Wake me up if I'm dreaming, but can there be any question Bush's internal spying program trashes the fourth amendment?
A: No.
Q: I know he didn't go to law school, but he did graduate from Yale and Harvard and so, at minimum, must be literate.
A: You should have received some training at the trade school you attended against making unfounded assumptions. Based on the available facts (unrelated to the object of your inquiry), there is serious ground to question the alleged standards to which they adhere and the alleged quality of either brand's product. As Bill would ask: What does literate mean?
- Able to give a speech when it's being piped into your ear? (as for example during the debate or last Sunday night)
- Able to read the words off a page without comprehending what they mean? (This would also provide an explanation for the inclination to avoid reading newspapers, although, within the last few years, it was alleged he was reading books without pictures in them.)
Q: How could he find an honest American lawyer who wouldn't slap him silly for even proposing the NSA program of warrantless interception?
A: As in so much else, he failed in this effort. (Delete "honest" and ask again.)
Q: Is there suddenly, for the first time in our nation's history, a shortage of spineless rollover judges (or, alternatively, law and order hanging judges) willing to issue secret warrants on the flimsiest of presentations?
A: In short, no; not sure about the spineless and rollover, however the latest statistics indicate just a few warrants were denied in the last year or two (out of what seems to be about 1,700 approved in the last year).
Q: And who the hell did he brief?
A: The so-called gang of eight (from the Senate: Majority Leader, Minority Leader, IntelComChair, IntelComRankingMember and from the House: Speaker, Minority Leader, IntelComChair, IntelComRankingMember) plus, when Reid succeeded Daschle, Reid was briefed. Over the weekend, Bob Graham said he did not understand there was warrantless interception from the briefing he received. On this point, note handwritten letter released yesterday by Jay on July 17, 2003 which expressed reservations and referred to in the New York Times story Administration Cites War Vote In Spying Case on Dec. 20.
Note that the question is what does "is" mean? These were briefings (ha-ha look what we're doing, you can't tell anyone, refrain from letting the door hit you on the way out) not requests for approval.
You are not confused; Bush is naked and thinks he's entitled to walk around that way and no one will say anything. The issue of executive entitlement was resolved in the period roughly 1776-1783; the decision was: no entitlement. The serfs are commenting already; the real question is whether they will say anything effective.
***
The fat is in the fire - at least two ways.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.), Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, says so and plans to ask hardcore radical far right-wing Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito about his view of the issue of warrantless wiretapping. Then Specter plans hearings on the issue.
Prof. David Cole of Georgetown University Law School and Prof. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School were both on Nightline on December 20, 2005. Prof. Turley has gained a reputation (whether rightly or wrongly) as a "legal expert" who is willing to shill for George W. Bush and the Republicans on occasion. Not on this Nightline. The professors agreed that George W. Bush committed felonies by engaging in warrantless wiretapping. Prof. Turley stated Bush's actions violated not only the law but also the Constitution. Prof. Turley further suggested that warrantless wiretapping is an impeachable offense.
***
Prior to the November 2004 election, the New York Times apparently had the story of the unconstitutional warantless interception of communications that were partially or entirely domestic.
Why Times Ran Wiretap Story, Defying Bush
By Gabriel Sherman, New York Observer
The Times decided not to print this news which was fit to print before the election.
Prior to the November 2004 election, the New York Times reportedly also had the story of the fraudulent wireless communications receiver George W. Bush used in at least one of his joint press conferences (so-called "debates") with Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.)
The Times decided not to print this news which was fit to print before the election.
Inquiring legal minds want to know whether that slogan on the front page of The Times ("All the News That's Fit to Print) is false advertising. Can all of The Times subscribers get a refund on the grounds they were sold the paper under false pretenses?
Also on this subject, Matt Taibbi is a worthy successor to one of the leading lights of American journalism, the late great Hunter Thompson, may Hunter rest in peace. Read The Magical Victory Tour: While Iraq burns, the president keeps playing the same old song. It is in the style of the former national affairs correspondent for Rolling Stone.
Taibbi comments on the poor physical appearance of George W. Bush on the morning of December 7, 2005. We now know that this was the day after George tried and failed to convince the editor and publisher of The New York Times to refrain from publishing the article which eventually appeared on December 16, 2005. It revealed massive unconstitutional and criminally illegal warrantless wiretapping approved by George. The penalty : five years per unconstitutionally intercepted communication.
***
Briefs
Impeachment Watch
