Did anyone else think it was odd that the evening news last night (I watched CBS and bits of NBC, can’t vouch for ABC) completely ignored this? A former vice president makes a pretty serious charge about the administration and the networks don’t even give a mention. If it’s damaging to Bush, either it doesn’t get any coverage or the media invent a way to make it look like both parties are equally guilty. Some liberal media.
Ah, so you think he’s speaking from authority not just taking a hypocritical political position? Them’s fine credentials … those clowns asking Alito questions last week had alot of credentials too.
I think that’s overly simplistic. Note my comparison to Nixon.
Daniel
What hypocritical political position exactly?
Maybe the fact that his admin was doing much the same and his admin’s AG argued that the Executive had that power.
For cites search Echelon, Aldrich Ames or Jamie Gorelick and take your pick…
Not entirely clear, as their outer limits have not yet been tested. But, if the whistleblower laws were all they should be, and clearly so, there would be no question of prosecuting the parties who leaked the NSA wiretapping program or the CIA’s “black prisons,” and it would have been inconceivable for Evil One to seriously post this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=352048
So they had. What is your point?
OK, I’ll pick Ames. From Forbes,
The White House rebuttals are simply factually incorrect.
I pick ECHELON (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON), which was covered pretty thoroughly in this ill-conceived thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6934911 Turns out all the right-wing blogoshpere’s talking points about Echelon are lies. For one thing, ECHELON was not created during the Clinton Administration, it is more than 50 years old. It was not even a “Clinton-approved program” except in the sense that Clinton, while president, did not order it discontinued. And there is no evidence (yet) that ECHELON was involved in any illegal activities.
Maybe not enough people care about Gore. I don’t.
Considering how much air time Democrats have gotten on this subject who actually hold political office right now, that observation is laughable. Has this made the Democrats look “guilty” of something?
How about the coverage of the Vallery Plame affair? In what way were Democrats made to look guilty?
Yeah…keep dreaming, homey.
What is going to have more of an effect on peoples’ perception? Will it be the thirty second blurb on the nightly news between the story about the Democrats "denying the godlike Samuel Alito an ‘up or down vote’ and the kitten stuck in a tree, or will it be the six hours a day they happily tune into Limbaugh and Hannity?
Yes, I know, the dittoheads are beyond the reach of reason anyways (oh, and last time I got to listen to Rush one of his little blurbs even said ‘doing the thinking so you dont have to’), but living where I do that’s about all I see.
I’ll believe that the truth can beat the Righty Noise Machine the day we see Bush pilloried and disgraced. Not a moment before.
-Joe
Interesting point, but I think that our collective attention span is a lot shorter than it was 40 years ago.
Whew- had to read that twice. I thought at first you called me “honey”.
Can the truth ever overcome the Righty Smear Machine? I don’t know. But we need to keep trying.
Perhaps the countless comparisons between the alleged perjuries of the veep’s chief of staff (name eludes me for the moment) and those of Clinton. Yeah, yeah, we got caught lying. But so did Clinton! And he received oral sex! We’re not so bad!
Sure, but on the other hand when Robertson or Chavez say something it’s a big deal.
Gore may not be nearly as important as he once was, but certainly his opinion means more than either of those guys.
-Joe
Gore/Hillary, perhaps?
No way she’ll be in the 2nd spot on the ticket, and no presidential candidate would want her there. Hillary/Gore is more likely.
So people would therefore be less likely to remember a candidate’s previous election losses . . .
But Gore has already been vice president! Has anybody every taken that job for a third term?
I am very pleased that there is so much agreement here. Thank you, John Mace, xistme, and Age Quo Ageis for your responses.
Mace and xistme agree that the matter should be investigated. We are in agreement there. xistme called for nonpartisan investigation, and I fully support that position. Therefore, I’m sure he will agree that the Attorney General should recuse himself and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the matter, since the AG was involved in the inital decision to undertake the illegal wiretapping and also because he owes his position to the people he would be charged to investigate. Since Mr. Mace doesn’t care if the congress or the Justice department does the investigating, i’m sure he will not object to both congressional hearings and a special prosecutor. The honorable Mr. Ageis, on the other hand, take the bizzare position that no violations of the law have been proven, therefore no investigation should be undertaken to determine whether or not violations of the law occurred. Then again, maybe his position is not so bizzare, since its circular logic protects the lawbreakers in the administration he is so very devoted to.
Mace and xistme both say that the current whisleblower protections are adequate. After reading the linked thread that Left Hand provided, I’m not so sure, but I’m sure both Mace and xistme will join me in calling for the current whistleblower protections to be extended to any and all sources in the executive branch who speak to the media about this inexcusable, unconstitutional, un-American, and iillegal systemic program of spying on American citizens without a warrant. Mr. Ageis’ position, as far as I can understand it, seems to be that the lowly bureaucrats do not currently give enough fealty to King George.
As to the extension of the Patriot Act, xistme agrees wholeheartedly with me and Mr. Gore. I am very pleased and hopeful that we can see eye to eye on many issues in the future. Mr. Ageis professes his ignorance, and I accept his profession. Mr. Mace says it’s an overreaction and that we shouldn’t shut down an existing National Security (which is obviously important because it’s captialized) program for no reason. I say that there is a very good reason to shut it down: it is illegal and unconstitutional. Provisions in the law exist for the conduct of such searches under judicial oversight. President Bush deliberately chose to ignore those provisions and break the law for reasons that cannot be known without further investigation.
As for the call for civil disobedience by telecommunications companies, none of our three panelists will endorse that, not even our professed libertarian. Mr. Ageis specifically says that he’s not sure what kind of information the telecommunications companies are providing. It’s pretty clear that they are providing access to the NSA to listen in on phone conversations–in addition to the phone numbers involved–without a warrant. I say they should tell the government to get a warrant or take a hike. What say ye?
So I see very strong basis for agreement moving forward, and it gives me hope. It seems our panelists have more objections to the messenger than the message, and that’s perfectly OK as long as they sincerely support the message.
Now, I invite our panelists and anyone else who cares to respond to this comment, which I will reproduce for the third time in this thread:
Also, please answer this question: Does the President now have the power as Commander-in-Chief under the AUMF or under any other statute or constitutional provision, to order Al Gore’s international communications be monitored by the NSA on the grounds that he is a potential terrorist, enemy combatant, evildoer, or whatever? Does the President have the right to have me detained indefinitely without access to a lawyer? If not, why not?
You’re welcome.
That’s not my position. My position is that we don’t know what would constitute a violation of the law. You obviously assume that Bush has broken the law. However much you’d like it to be so, it isn’t clear that even the actions alleged would be unconstitutional or illegal. And yet you would like to launch an investigation without knowing what the law requires.
Without knowing what actions are illegal, what should the investigator be looking for? How does can the investigator know if he/she has found a violation of the law? The investigator cannot draw conclusions until the Supreme Court has ruled on what the law is. Thus, it only makes sense to hold off on an investigation until we know what actions the investigator should be investigating.
That’s not circular; it’s linear. On the other hand, your argument assumes facts not in evidence.
Well, at least you’re honestly assessing and responding to my arguments. :rolleyes: Excellent use of the schoolyard taunt there, by the way. “King George.” So we all know your non-partisan analysis is to be trusted.
Please note that my position was not limited to “King George.” I think the bureaucrats work for the elected representatives (Democrat or Republican). They’re given access to confidential information on the basis of their promise that they’ll keep that information secret. They shouldn’t be given free reign to disregard their promises and contradict the will of the people (through their elected representatives) and potentially jeopardize natinal security merely because they disagree with a program.
Even assuming that Bush’s NSA program was illegal and unconstitutional, how does it relate to the Patriot Act? Bush’s program was not authorized by the Patriot Act. It was completely independent of the Patriot Act. Bush argues that his authority to conduct the NSA program comes from the Constitution, not the Patriot Act.
So how will shutting down the Patriot Act help stop Bush’s NSA program?
Methinks you (and Gore) are just linking two programs that you don’t like in the hopes of shutting them both down. If you have evidence linking the Patriot Act with the NSA program, I’d love to see it.
I’d say nothing of the sort is “pretty clear.” In fact, I’d say you’re pulling government actions from your nether regions.
Can I have a cite for some evidence that the phone company is “providing access to the NSA to listen in on phone conversations”? I seriously doubt that the NSA needs the phone company’s help to listen in on phone conversations. Nor do I have any idea how the phone company could provide such help. Do you imagine that the phone companies invite NSA agents into giant rooms and give them headphones and plug them into ongoing conversations? Really?
As for the latter, there’s no reason that the phone company should stop providing publicly available information like phone numbers dialed. The Supreme Court has already held that individuals don’t have any privacy interest in this information. See, e.g., Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). Therefore, there’s no reason that the government should need a warrant to gain access to the info.
No.
No. Because he doesn’t have any reason to detain you.
In the future, it might make this discussion quite a bit easier if you actually quote and then respond to my posts, rather than making up what you wish I’d said. Save straw and all that.