Comments (27)

M M wrote on August 9, 2007 4:43 PM:

A little comedy from a NYT article about the relationship between Bush 41 and Bush 43; we could use a laugh after the last week and today's presser:

"'It was relatively easy for me to read the sitting president's body language after he had talked to his mother or father,' Mr. Card said. 'Sometimes he'd ask me a probing question. And I'd think, Hmm, I don't think that question came from him.'"

Human/Animal Hybrid wrote on August 9, 2007 5:02 PM:

M M : Good catch. At least we now know that Andy Card has a functioning brain. However, that could be the reason that he is no longer "serves at the pleasure of the president".............

ThomasJeffersonRolling wrote on August 9, 2007 5:07 PM:

Has anyone tested the constitutionality of the "FISA Court"? This is extraordinarily similar to the infamous Star Chamber, one reason why the Constitution provides for speedy and public trials. It is quite possible that the movement to questioning what the FISA Court should hear rather than questioning the FISA Court itself is an extraordinary leap over a basic constitutional provision. But then, perhaps we should give this Administration the benefit of the doubt. [snark]

Gandhi wrote on August 9, 2007 5:32 PM:

The revision was necessary because the Bush regime had violated the limitations of the old version numerous times. Without revision there could have been many lawsuits against the neocons.

And, a fascist regime has a tendency to legalize its violations of the law either by changing the law or by preventing prosecution.

Doctor Jay wrote on August 9, 2007 5:51 PM:

If this suit gets any oxygen at all, they will be able to depose Boehner during discovery, under oath. With the threat of leaking of classified information hanging over his head. That should make for interesting reading.

Yossarian wrote on August 9, 2007 5:51 PM:

Here is my piece on all of what's going on. Bush ain't gonna get convicted, impeached, nor even censured. All of this is so that the dems and their proxies can claim that they were doing something about Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors. In the end it all boils down to Jan 2009 Bush will be sitting at his ranch enjoying his substantial pension from the government, the same government he and his cronies like to show they hate, and sipping gin and juice with Dicky bird, Condi lite, and Rummy funny. Good old turd blossom will be running around getting these three worthies their drinks and freshing the ones that will need freshening. The dems in the mean time will do nothing and just keep pilling on these useless hearings and show trials. In the end they will say "oh look what all we did for you the American suckers," and then go back home to cower in their jammies at home. Big lesson from all this, don't waste your time listening to anything any one says just sit tight and slap, punch, kick, and hit any one who tries to take your money, dem or repuke.

TheraP wrote on August 9, 2007 6:00 PM:

Fourth Branch - Time to Stand UP!

We the People seek redress.

Anon has pointed out what we can do.

Seek audits.

Get State Attorneys General involved.

Impanel Grand Juries.

To Enforce the Constitution

*****************

New Post: Am I my brother's keeper?

(click my name)

M M wrote on August 9, 2007 6:05 PM:

Yossarian: Snowden here in the back of the plane and I'm cold...

this Catch-22 will continue and consolidate if another republican wins in 2008 so while I agree with your premise that all this congressional activity is for naught attention needs to focus on not allowing the dem nominee from being stampeded by the republican election machine

Yossarian wrote on August 9, 2007 6:23 PM:

MM, I agree with you that something needs to be done about the repuke election machine but doing it the way the congressional dems are doing it makes them look feeble and inept. Repukes keep coming out of all these hearings looking more and more powerful. That is the catch-22.

M M wrote on August 9, 2007 6:32 PM:

My focus on the R election machine is less what the congressional dems do than the dem nominee running a very tough, smart campaign that frames the issues favorable to them rather than allowing the Repub's to dictate issue terms and define the Dem nominee for them...

mo2 wrote on August 9, 2007 6:37 PM:

I am not familiar with this Senator Aclu. Is s/he from Hawaii?

(snark - in other words, thank god somebody is trying to oversee the dark lords, since the Congress has to be berated into working.)

Anonymous wrote on August 9, 2007 6:41 PM:

MM, I again agree with your premise again. But how well will that dem prez be able to run the country with a repuke congress? Last time we had a brilliant commander-in-chief (BC) who was hogtied by the repukes in congress, so what good will this one do? I truly believe that in order for the dems to make any dent they very much need a very forceful and aggressive congress. We need power in that house in order for the dem prez to get any kind of useful legislation out the door.

johnnydoughey wrote on August 9, 2007 6:59 PM:

"Here is my piece on all of what's going on. Bush ain't gonna get con..."

I agree with Yossarian. I would go 1 step further, however. With ALL the now precedent actions Bush has set into place, there will be no stopping the next, president. It will not matter if he/she is a Rep or DEM, it will take us farther away from a democracy because, as corny as it may sound the old saying "Power Corrupts" is really true. We have gotten a good look at it these past few years.

We will have proved to the world that, although we seem to be pushing everyone else toward democracy, either by force or support, we ouselves do not believe in a democratic government.

The actions of our leaders as well as "We the People" are proving just that. If "We the People" actually supported a democracy, we would make sure those who attempt to take it away will be dealt with quickly and harshly. "We the People", though, apparently desire our team to win more than democracy itself. It's clear that the team is much more important to many us than true patriotism and the future of our nation...

Go Team!!

Bob wrote on August 9, 2007 8:06 PM:

Wikipedia informs us that a plurality opinion in Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1975), held that a warrant was required for the domestic surveillance of a domestic organization. In this case, the court found that the domestic organization was not a "foreign power or their agent", and "absent exigent circumstances, all warrantless electronic surveillance is unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional."

To the extent that the act passed this week allows domestic warrantless surveillance of US citizens or permanent residents, it is reverting the law to roughly the same circumstances that existed when that decision was made. At that time, the Attorney General was given the power to approve wiretaps. The court ruled this was unconstitutional. If the founding fathers intended for the President to have an "inherent authority" to search without a warrrant, they would not have written the 4th amendment into the Constitution. The Bush Administration is banking entirely on their judicial appointments to ignore the Constitution in favor of their Nixonite vision of America. The only way out of this Constitutional crisis is to vote their entire party and those who would side with them completely out of power, since our Courts have been corrupted by appointments having such a radical anti-American ideology.

kentuck wrote on August 9, 2007 8:22 PM:

Is there any reason to believe that this latest revision of FISA is anything but the first step and they will take it one step further 6 months from now? The Democrats are going to do nothing except twiddle their thumbs. We are losing our freedoms one small step at a time. Some may argue it is one large step at a time?

It seemed to me that the Congress and Senate were more concerned in getting out of town and going on their August vacations than they were at protecting our Constitution. Maybe it was just my impression? Whatever the reason, it is cause for concern.

When our Congress is willing to surrender on such quick notice - not even put up a fight- on matters of Constitutional rights, we should all be concerned. Is it that they are not competent to be in the Congress or Senate or that they simply do not care? It is worrisome.

No doubt, most of these Congressmen believe it will all blow over and be forgotten by the next election. It's just a tempest in a teapot. No need to worry about their re-elections.

But, we wish the ACLU luck on this endeavor. The Courts have been asleep for quite some time. We can only hope that they awaken soon.

Nancy Pelosi says she is ready to bring this issue up before the six months expiration. Most likely, Bush will ask for more before Pelosi gets around to fixing this problem?

Of course, it could all go for naught, if we are attacked by one of these terrorists that the NSA and Mr Bush were warning us about and why we needed the FISA revision. Then, we would be in deep doo-doo. All of the Senate and House would stampede to give Mr Bush whatever dictatorial powers that he may need or ask for. This is not a time for great confidence in our Legislature.

M M wrote on August 9, 2007 8:55 PM:

Just like the NFL, if a play works keep running it. Bush will wait for maximum leverage for the next round and either (1) drum up a bunch of articles about how the telco's refuse to cooperate given their past (and potential present) legal liability or (2) wait for the next congressional recess or the 6 month review, crank some more stories about terror threats to DC and blame the Dems for any attack should they not absolve the telcos for all past and future liability and make permanent the recent FISA changes.

Dems need to have a much better PR and legislative plan this time through as its harder to claw back rights already granted (even if there is a sunset provision) rather than grant limited new rights.

Tom L wrote on August 9, 2007 9:01 PM:

"At least we now know that Andy Card has a functioning brain"

Too bad he didn't have a functioning ethical system when he agreed to be a member of WHIG and help market Bush's war of choice to the American people.

The Oracle wrote on August 9, 2007 9:30 PM:

August 9, 1974, NIXON RESIGNS.

Four years later in 1978, FISA is passed in an attempt to stop any future rogue administrations from using our intelligence and law enforcement agencies for purely partisan spying purposes.

Almost thirty years later, Republicans in Congress, with the help of some DINO mad-dog Blue Dog Democrats gut FISA, accomplishing the long-term goal of Republicans from the 1970s to get rid of FISA.

Does anyone here believe that these same "culture of corruption" Republicans, along with their conservative Blue Dog pals, will allow Congress six months from now to reverse what Republicans have been hoping to do for the past three decades?

These dangerous, un-American, fascist cretins will filibuster any attempt to revise the "revised" FISA as well as block any attempt to strip Alberto Gonzales of his newly-granted unchecked and unlimited spying powers.

Hey, there's an important election coming up in 2008, I've heard.

But, of course, we all know (snark) that Alberto Gonzales would never use his position as U.S. Attorney General to politicize his positiion as the top law enforcement officer in our country (snark, snark).

Gonzales will treat (and has been treating) the Justice Department just like the Nixon administration treated the Justice Department...as a political tool to steal elections.

Topsight wrote on August 9, 2007 9:34 PM:

The past is prologue.

"The purpose of this report will be to provide a general overview of the structure, power, and function of one component of the Roman government- that is, the Roman Senate. Also, this paper will serve to provide a historical context for the Senate, including both the origins and demise of this governmental body and will discuss the issues of class conflict as it related to the Senate's power and jurisdiction. There were three main components of the Roman Republic. The first of which represents the monarchial element surviving from when Rome had a king. Two magistrates or consuls had ultimate civil and military authority. The two consuls held their office for one year (they were elected by Roman citizens) and then after their term had expired, entered the Senate for life. Each consul could veto the actions of the other, thus serving as a check for one individual gaining too much political power and therefore prevented (at least temporarily) the Republic from being undermined by a potential dictator. Their primary duties included leading the army, serving as judges, and having ceremonial religious duties. The next governmental institution, which represented the democratic element of the Roman Republic, are the Assemblies. These Assemblies were theoretically made up of all adult male Romans (the only exception is that they had to be present at the meetings). Their primary functions were the annual elections of consuls, approving or rejecting laws, and deciding issues of war and peace. One great flaw of this body was that the wealthier citizens voted first and thereby had a great influence on how the rest of the Assembly voted."

The Oracle wrote on August 9, 2007 9:39 PM:

Thirty years ago today, August 9, 1974, NIXON RESIGNS.

Four years later in 1978, FISA was enacted to try to stop criminal, political abuse of our nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Thirty years after Nixon resigned, this week, the Republicans along with some Blue Dog Democrat stooges, gut FISA and go so far as to give Alberto Gonzales unchecked and unlimited spying powers.

Republicans hated FISA because it hsd provided a judicial check on their criminal behavior, so they've now succeeded in cutting FISA out of the loop, and given Gonzales the means to secretly spy on Democrats with the intent of pulling a Nixon on U.S. citizens...stealing another election in 2008.

Sojourner wrote on August 9, 2007 9:53 PM:

kentuck@8:22 PM--

You have said it better than I could! And I think you have pretty well nailed it. The Repubs and Dems both are figuring that the public will have forgotten in six months, and the next step won't matter.

Personally, I plan to do some real screaming about it -- we cannot afford another step that loosens things!

-o- wrote on August 9, 2007 11:31 PM:

Uh, that'd be 33 years, right?

Occasional Observer wrote on August 10, 2007 3:04 AM:

Regarding the FISA amendment, I would direct you to Marty Lederman's post titled "Are New FISA Sections 105A and 105B Mere Window Dressing? Are They Constitutional?"
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/08/are-new-fisa-sections-105a-and-105b.html

In his view, the Protect America Act allows the government to gather intelligence within the US about persons it "reasonably believes to be located outside of the United States" without having to vet its methods with the FISA court.

I began with the contrary, prevailing idea, that judicial review of what the NSA will do is mandatory. I was disabused of the notion by a commenter who knows the ins and outs of FISA, with whom Professor Lederman agrees.

Judge for yourselves, but be sure to read the Anonymous Liberal post Professor Lederman links to.

ThomasJeffersonRolling wrote on August 10, 2007 6:33 AM:

"In his view, the Protect America Act allows the government to gather intelligence within the US about persons it "reasonably believes to be located outside of the United States" without having to vet its methods with the FISA court."

Ah yes. Fourth Amendment?? What Fourth Amendment? If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.

Paraphrasing..A Republican believes that government can do nothing right, then gets in power and proves it.

For all those surprised at what the current occupant of the WH has accomplished, all you had to do was look at Texas in 1999.

Aaron G. Stock wrote on August 10, 2007 11:05 AM:

Tom L, at August 9, 2007 9:01 PM, wrote:

"Too bad he didn't have a functioning ethical system when he agreed to be a member of WHIG and help market Bush's war of choice to the American people."

*sigh* That is what I am going to be saying about almost every decision-maker who shows up in the movie "No End in Sight". I may need to see that movie alone, I'll want to yammer so much!

Aaron G. Stock wrote on August 10, 2007 11:10 AM:

"some Blue Dog Democrat stooges"

and a special THANK YOU to The Oracle for acting as exemplar: avoid the broad brush and be specific.

kentuck wrote on August 10, 2007 12:22 PM:

Let's face some facts:

This war is going to be handed off to the Democrats. The status quo will go on forever unless it is stopped. It would serve the Democrats and the nation well if the Democrats let the people know before hte election that the troops are coming out ASAP. That will give them legitimacy after the election if they win. Because the Republicans are going to be preaching "victory" until we are broke or until our military is broke, whichever comes first...

(SC is "rain" as in A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall)