Truong Dinh Hung was a Vietnamese citizen, not American.
See, this “fevered imignation” business is exactly why sometimes people think you’re a dick.
I’m curious, by the way, how you managed to get from “the President…followed his interpretation of the law” to “what the President was doing was not illegal” in less than one post.
Which worries me.
Why are the Republicans so willing to heap unlimited power on the Executive Branch? Isn’t it generally accepted that at some point there will be a non-Republican president?
Other than nearly-criminal shortsightedness, are there any non-sinister reasons that they wouldn’t have fear of a too-powerful Executive?
-Joe
Right. But convicted with Truong in the same case was a USIA officer named Ronald L. Humphrey, who passed documents to Truong.
Wow, you mean a Justice Department headed up by people appointed by Bush would cover for him doing something illegal? I’m shocked! And “some legal scholars” agree with that interpretation, too? Again, I’m shocked that someone, somewhere could find “some legal scholars” that agree with a certain point of view. Especially partisan hack scholars only seeking to justify what their side is doing!
Have you taken a good look at the Democratic party lately?
I have no problem with a Carter or Clinton administration chasing spies or terrorists, and I wonder about the motivations of people who would impede a Republican administration as they go about doing the same thing.
Some people will be the first to criticize the government for not “connecting the dots” while simultaneously voting against necessary tools that allow government agencies to do that. I can’t support that, no matter what party is involved.
But were his phones tapped without a warrant?
Was Humphrey subjected to warrantless wiretaps?
I’ve read the Justice Department’s defense of the actions, as well as many legal scholar’s opinions, and they hold no water. In very plain language, FISA makes it illegal to wiretap US citizens. That express and clear language cannot be overriden by a vague authorization of military force, especially in light of Hamdi. The best written piece on the issues can be found here. I should be surprised that such a textualist as yourself would dismiss the clear language of FISA in favor for the vague AUMF, but I’ve come to learn that consistency of view may not be your strongest suit. Of course it is not “utterly certain” that the actions were illegal, mainly because we don’t have the details from a Congressional investigation into the matter. But it’s pretty clear to me that the actions were illegal.
Lawrence Tribe, George Will, Ronald Dworkin, Richard Epstein, and a myriad of others are all suffering from “fevered imagination”? Next time, just go with the standard “liberal conspiracy” crap you spew, it’ll save time.
I will point out that Truong involved pre-FISA surveillance, and that, in fact, that case seems to hold that FISA is Constitutional and not a violation of the President’s Article II powers.
Presumably it’s being “corrected” to FIRST by the software or someone’s making a typo with the shorthand stuff. Kinda like the time MSNBC accidentally changed Niger Innis to Nigger Innis.
I’m pretty sure that when the president does it, it’s not illegal. Or maybe that rule only applies to Republican presidents.
Jeez, another Mr. Moto tu quoque goes down ignominiously in flaming wreckage! Not only does it appear that the Truong Dinh Hung matter pre-dated FISA, but he was corresponding with the Vietnamese Ambassador in Paris, making him an agent of a foreign power. As such, he would be subject to legal warrantless wiretapping even today. Certainly, however, you can correct me if I’m wrong about that.
One thing you have to respect about Mr. Moto is his complete lack of shame. No doubt he’ll be along to clarify that this was not a tu quoque, but, like the comparisons between Adlai Stevenson and Dick Cheney, he was simply providing some historical context regarding the media coverage of the incidents. Of course, I would be embarrassed and ashamed were I to commit such stupid and hamfisted acts of blind apologism, but that’s just me.
Yes, yes. It’s all the Evil Libruls.
You have anything substantive or just talking points to regurgitate?
If it’s all Evil Libruls, surely there was a flap about this between 1981 and 1993?
Nice job, though. Admit nothing. Deny everything. Deflect the blame.
-Joe
Perhaps. Although a few things bother me:
- I’m not seeing where the article mentions Truong’s citizenship, nor where it says anything about Humphery.
- The Court of Appeals “admitted the evidence collected during the early days of the collection”; it’s not clear to me what time span that covers (FISA’s 72 hours? More? Less?)
- It appears to me that the case concerns the use of criminal evidence, not foreign surveillance.
- This seems to be an isolated incident, not part of an insitutional program.
So, no – I’m not seeing the “uncanny similarity” you’d like. But then, the linked article was pretty sketchy about the case, so I could be wrong. Furthermore, at the end of the article, we have this:
Except that I believe that’s precisely the issue – there was absolutely no “watchful eye of the courts” involved in Bush’s actions.
Interestingly (and tangentially), which I didn’t know, was this tidbit (on page 3): “A very significant change is that the USA PATRIOT Act makes terrorism a predicate offense allowing for a wiretap under Title III.” I’m totally unfamiliar with Title III, but from page 1, we have:
I see nothing in the article that indicates that that (i.e., probable cause, identified phone or location, particular crime, predicate offense, etc.) has changed.
Aw, fer fuck’s sake. I just wasted a half hour analyzing something that isn’t relevant at all? Dammit. :mad:
It’s called a Red Herring. Don’t feel too bad, we all fall for it from time to time 
You raise a fair point here.
From a textualist perspective, I agree that the President’s actions were illegal.
I’m merely pointing out that Bush is himself obviously not a textualist. HE believes his actions were legal. If he had asked me to advise him, I would have advised him that they violated the plain, black-letter law as written.
How do you DO that?! I’ll be the first to admit that, irrespective of native intelligence and quality of schooling, I could never be a lawyer, if only because I can’t change channels in my head that quickly.
Don’t imagine that that’s a criticism, Rick. It’s more of a…not-quite-to-to-the-level-of-admiration, sort of. I’m kind of in awe that anyone can argue a reasoning that they think is untrue with as much conviction as you can.
And he would have ignored you completely, like he did the FISA judges, and perhaps even asked for your resignation, and gone on and done whatever the he wanted.
Two reasons:
-
The issue simply isn’t what I think. Lord knows it should be; you’d all be much better off if you’d collectively simply listen to me.
But since the world stubbornly refuses to acknowledge my wisdom in this hap, we’re stuck with letting those actually elected or appointed to the various constitutional offices exercise their best judgement. -
It strikes me as a bit unfair to expect to prevail on a textualist argument only when it suits your side. (Not you, jayjay; ‘you’ in the more general sense.) That approach ITSELF flies in the face of textualism. Either it’s what we use, in all cases, or it isn’t. To call me on it and say, “Why isn’t textualism the right answer here?” would be fine, if you were agreeable to applying it universally. To apply it only when the outcome favors you, and strenously resist it the rest of the time, just isn’t cricket.