Before we can possibly answer that, it seems to me we must agree on a mutually acceptable theory of morality.
I say sex outside of marraige is immoral. You disagree. For the most part, the country sides with you.
Now you ask me, in essence, to forget the law… is sex outside of marriage intrinsically moral or immoral?
How can we answer that?
That’s a perfectly reasonable interpretation.
But there’s no indication that Congress intended to refer only to a formal declaration of war when they enacted 50 USC § 1811, other than the similar use of language. So my interpretation is a reasonable one, also.
I don’t mean to suggest that my approach is a foregone conclusion. But it’s certainly something that should either be litigated, or Congress should clarify its meaning.
Absent either of those events, it is NOT evil, un-American, illegal, etc, to do this. It may turn out to not be the way to go. That doesn’t make it evil, illegal, unconstitutional, or un-American.
Good question.
Did Congress take any formal action to mark the end of World War II?
Does the war end when we withdraw our troops? I’d say no… we kept troops in Germany and Japan after the war was over.
I don’t know.
But under any reasonable definition, this war is still on. Our troops are being shot at and bombed on a weekly basis. I don’t know for sure when the war ends, but whenever it is, we’re not there yet.
I agree that the issue isn’t black and white WRT the law. But I think the indication that Congress intended to refer only to a formal declaration of war is that they referred only to a formal declaration of war (when previously they referred to both when intending to refer to both).
But as to your other point, that until this is litigated the actions cannot be considered evil or Un-American, I disagree.
On the issue of morality, you apparently believe that the law is the only form of public morality by which one may judge others. I believe in a branch of philosophy called ethics. Ethics, and the various logical arguments employed by ethicists, is the basis by which we persuade each other to make laws in the first place. It is the independent system by which we can judge these actions outside the law. Do people disagree about which system is right? Of course. The same way that people disagree about which policy option is best. But as with policy, some of these people are objectively wrong and we can argue, using logic, which people these are. Since I assume you believe that an action can be right and illegal, and an action can be wrong and legal, what exactly is your point in tying ethics to legality?
And as for being un-american, an action can be un-american and legal. What the FBI did to MLK Jr. was legal, but certainly un-american. And this too has objective standards–an un-american action contradicts common American values.
Wrong. In 1945 the war was over. Germany and Japan were defeated occupied countries. MacArthur was in Japan and Patton (I believe) was in Germany. The fact is, the war was OVER. It was over as soon as they surrendered. It was not called war anymore, it was called Occupation. Both countries rebuilt with our help, and became world class financial and industrial powerhouses. During the Berlin Airlift, we flew in food. We instituted the Marshall Plan. We set up NATO to preotect Germany. We beat Iraq. Now, what are we going to do for them? Iraq has had their elections, exactly as promised. They have the government we insisted on and which we forced by military action. We are supposedly training their military now. So who are we at war with? Are you advocating an open ended war, with no end? If so, who is the next target? Syria? Iran? North Korea? Where does it stop?
Even if as you said we are still at war, how would that justify deliberately ignoring our own wiretap laws, despite the fact that they do allow surveillance (within very clear limits which even I understand), the government instead chose to not obtain warrants even after the fact, and misused an agency (NSA) that is not allowed to operate within the US? Could it be because they don’t give a damn about the law?
Cite?
Well, we set up NATO to protect Western Europe. But apart from that, yes. So what?
If we are still at war, then our own laws permit the wiretaps. So we didn’t ignore our own laws, as you say.
The NSA is intended to monitor foreign conversations. If it had been used to monitor calls between Buffalo and Hartford, I’d be upset.
But it was used to monitor calls between Buffalo and Baghdad, and between Hartford and Haditha. That’s not exactly “operating within the US,” is it? One side of the conversation was within the US, granted. But not the other, and it was the other that we were interested in.
And I disagree. We’ll see how it shakes out. Certainly you make a solid argument.
Perhaps you misunderstand me.
I do not say that the instant the Supreme Court rules your way that these actions will be ex post facto evil or un-American. I said that continuing them subsequent to a clear judicial finding would be un-American.
If you believe you can make a truly objective case that this particular set of actions is wrong, go ahead.
I generally refuse to discuss right and wrong outside the bounds of “legal” and “illegal” because it’s been my experience that people accept such definitions only when it comports with their personal views. I believe abortion is wrong. Yet it’s legal. I accept that. I argue for a change in the law, but I do not call “evil” those who practice it, because they have an objective measure - the law - on their side.
Now you come along. You don’t want to hear that abortion is wrong, I presume. Yet you’re eager to foist your own view of right and wrong on me for this issue.
I suspect that many, if not most, common Americans are in favor of the NSA listening to overseas phone calls if it will stop terrorists from destroying the Brooklyn bridge.
So while you may well have a point with regard to Dr. King, I’m not supporting the FBI in that battle. Convince me that a solid majority of Americans don’t favor this move, and then talk to me about common American values.
And THEN try to tell me why we should not turn to common American values to resolve the same-sex marriage issue. It’s abundantly clear that common American values do not support same-sex marriage; the passage of state constitutional amendments across the land speaks eloquently to that fact. Yet this doesn’t seem to persuade you. Or does it?
See what I mean? Your side argues “common American values” out of one side of your collective mouth only.
From the War Powers Resolution of 1973, (Public Law 93-148), which draws a distinction between a declaration of war, and a specific statutory authorization.
If the two are interchangeable, there would be no need to draw such a distinction. No amount of hand waving or quoting of fuzzy, dictionary definitions of the meaning of war, or other obfuscation can change the fact the Congress has recognized a difference between the two.
That’s the problem with having a war against a concept (terrorism) rather than a specific country. As long as some crazy die-hards keep blowing people up, that will be used as justification to do just about anything the executive office wants to do.
When the terrorists move from Iraq to Syria or Lebanon, are we going to chase them there?
When Islamist fanatacism takes a breather and another terrorist group (domestic or otherwise) steps up to the plate, will the “war” still be on? Or are we fighting just one kind of terrorist or anyone who hates America?
This “Things have changed since 9/11” mantra doesn’t make me feel comfortable in the least. As long as people keeping believe this lie, then basically everything we’ve treasured (habaeus corpus, protection for unreasonable search and seizures, presumption of innocent in the court of law, etc.) will be thrown out of the window. I don’t like this at all.
I’m with SteveG1. When does it all stop?
As i said above, there’s no indication that Congress intended to refer only to a formal declaration of war when they enacted 50 USC § 1811, other than the similar use of language. You’re right - the War Powers Act draws that distinction. 50 USC § 1811 does not draw that distinction. Perhaps Congress met 50 USC § 1811 to refer only to a declared war within the meaning of the War Powers Act; perhaps not.
I should note that the War Powers Act itself has never been tested at the Supreme Court.
As I say, it’s a valid, colorable argument.
It’s by no means a black-and-white, settled issue.
Congress is perfectly free to rescind, expand, or otherwise amend their authorization to the President.
Anytime they wish. It only takes 51 senators and 218 congressmen.
I will concur with that, and I look forward to the inevitable investigation, and likely SCOTUS opinion.
Then why didn’t Bush, Gonzales, somebody go to a judge within 72 hours and get the warrants? They could have gotten approval after the fact. It would have been easy and legal. They never bothered. Give me a cite showing that they even bothered. So, through their own negligence, they ignored the law.
Which side were they monitoring, and to what purpose? NSA is not allowed to operate within the CONUS, or to eavesdrop on US citizens/ See below (again). Their loophole might be calls originating from an embassy, but that is not the case. If they were operating on calls from outside the US, then they may be covered (maybe). Cite me where they were only operating only on international calls, and were operating outside the US. Cite me where they have clear authority to spy on US citizens. It looks like you are deliberately ignoring the text of the laws which I already cited (see above posts). It’s all there - NSA authority and limitations, wiretap authority and limitations, time limits, everything. The NSA text talks repeatedly, deliberately, explicitly and plainly about foreign communications over and over and over. What is so hard to understand about that? Wouldn’t there be a reason the word FOREIGN is used so much? It was never their purpose to spy on citizens of the US.
Hmmmm he sounds exactly like I do, regarding the NSA and the ASA. I was IN the ASA. I know what the rules are. I’ll say it again, as a former member of the Army Security Agency, which closely parallels the NSA. We are never authorized to spy on US citizens. Ever.
Again, you say “if we are still at war”. Answer my question. Exactly who are we at war with? When does it end (if ever)? Aside from the congressional resolution for the use of force (which was “sold” as only a way to force Iraq compliance for WMD inspections) was there EVER a real congressional Declaration Of War? Nope.
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.
The Law:
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Its Section 1809a makes it a criminal offense to “engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute.”
FISA does authorize surveillance without a warrant, but not on US citizens (with the possible exception of citizens speaking from property openly owned by a foreign power; e.g., an embassy.)
FISA also says that the Attorney General can authorize emergency surveillance without a warrant when there is no time to obtain one. But it requires that the Attorney General notify the judge of that authorization immediately, and that he (and yes, the law does say ‘he’) apply for a warrant "as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance."
“In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof”
The law specifically allows for warrantless surveillance in emergencies, when the government needs to start surveillance before it can get a warrant. It explains exactly what the government needs to do under those circumstances. It therefore provides the flexibility the administration claims it needed.
So give me some cites for your argument. The government BROKE THE LAW. They had the tools they needed and wanted, but IGNORED them.
Read 50 USC § 1811. The monitoring they did was legal under THAT section, not under §§ 1809.
Bricker:
I think you’ve misunderstood my position. You’re arguing that because these actions were legal (or maybe were legal) they are not immoral or un-American. I disagree. Something can be immoral or un-American and still legal.
From what I can tell from your last post, you agree that something can be immoral (abortion) or un-American (FBI re: MLK) and still be legal. So, all I’m asking is that you renounce your earlier position. If you’re going to positively assert that these actions are moral or not un-American, you will actually have to argue about ethics and values—arguing the law will not get you there.
Let me also be clear that just because I disagree with your argument, I don’t necessarily disagree with your conclusion. I just think its an important point to dispute.
If you’re going to punish or not punish someone for having an abortion, the law is a great standard for that decision. But if you’re going to convince someone that having an abortion is wrong, the law is a poor standard, if not irrelevant.
Likewise, if you’re going to argue that Bush’s actions ought to be punished, I think reference to the law is entirely appropriate. But whether those actions are wrong or not is independent of your references to the law.
FWIW, I think labeling an action as un-american is mostly meaningless. But to the extent that it means something, I don’t think it means what is popular with Americans. I think people that are against same-sex marriage, for example, still share fundamental values with most Americans–they are just misapplying them for various reasons.
I agree.
Some actions are morally neutral. In fact, in law we distinguish between acts that are wrong in and of themselves (malo in se) and “wrong” only because a law forbids it (malum prohibitum).
The sexual abuse of an infant is wrong, no matter what the law says. The failure to depreciate non-taxable income brought forward from the previous tax year is a morally neutral act; it may be “wrong” or it may be permissible.
In fact, the classic thought experiment: imagine a man walking down the street with an ounce of gold, an ounce of marijuana, and a flask of whiskey in his pockets. At one time or another, all three of those things were legal; at other times, one or more have been illegal for an American to posess.
So I’m not blind to the distinction.
I’m arguing that monitoring US-foreign calls for the purpose of uncovering terrorism plans is a morally neutral act.
If you have an ethical argument otherwise, trot it out.
Well, I think you share fundamental values with most Americans too, but to the extent you’re opposed to monitoring overseas calls to uncover terrorism plots, you’re misapplying those values.
I don’t really have a strong ethical position either way. My dog in this fight is simply that if you’re gonna take a side, you’ve gotta back it up with something more than law. Which is what other posters in this thread have done; they’ve made the argument that this wiretapping is immoral because it violates people’s privacy and because it allows the government to possibly monitor and punish dissenters. I’m not saying there is no response to those ethical arguments, I’m saying your response (reference to the law) is inadequate.
Great! Now, if I did oppose them, we could have a relevant debate about values and proper application of them, instead of an irrelevant debate over laws. 
It still talks about FOREIGN intelligence. In domestic cases, they still need a warrant. It also does not say anything about doing any of this stateside. It also does NOT say the NSA can operate stateside.
The Act also expands the government’s power to conduct surveillance pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Security Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§1801-1811 (2000))[FISA] . To use FISA surveillance, no predicate crime is required; nor does the FISA require a “probable cause” showing. Instead "the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title to acquire foreign intelligence information" with the proper minimization procedures. FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1802. .
Through the USA PATRIOT Act, Congress enlarged the scope of law enforcement surveillance situations to which FISA authority would apply. Section 218 enlarges the scope of the FISA authority by authorizing applications for wiretaps or physical searches so long as the gathering of foreign intelligence information is “a significant purpose” of the application. Prior to this change, the FISA authority had been interpreted as only available when the gathering of foreign intelligence information was “the primary purpose.”
That law has a calendar limit of 15 days. According to Bush himself the program was reviewed every 45 days. Clearly that means this program went beyond the limits provided by 50 USC § 1811.
So is Bush defending himself at the expense of national security, or is he being less than candid with us? Either way, there’s little reason to trust what he says on this subject.