Journal pudge's Journal: Feingold, You Lost Me 8
Russ Feingold was so reasonable during the judicial hearings for Justices Robers and Alito. But now he is going to attempt to censure the President over the NSA wiretaps.
The problem is that the Congress has no authority to say that what the President did in the NSA wiretapping is illegal. The courts have all, in every case, upheld the President's inherent authority to conduct searches without a warrant, and without Congressional authorization. The FISA Court of Review said so as recently as a few years ago, when overturning the lower FISA Court's attack on the PATRIOT act.
Feingold simply lied on This Week today when he said the President's justification for "inherent authority" allows him to assassinate American citizens at will. But that's false, and he absolutely knows it: this is specific to searches alone.
Maybe the FISA Court of Review, and all others who have consistently upheld the President's authority to do this, were wrong. But Congress can't say so. Only the Supreme Court can.
I am still very uncomfortable with the President having this authority; I do not believe any branch of government should be able to operate either openness with the public, or oversight by another branch. I am not saying Bush did the right thing. I am saying that, by all indications, he is doing the legal thing, and Congress has nothing legitimate to say about it.
And I am saying Feingold is simply lying, because he knows he is saying things that are false, just to score political points against Bush, and that's really annoying.
Well... (Score:2)
We are entirely in the dark as to the scope and the nature of the wiretap program. To claim the constitutional and legal authority exists to enact such a program requires that we actually know what the program entails, and we're simply not privy to that information. On the other hand, a reasonable inquiry into the program is being fought tooth and nail, and they have already sidestepped perfectly good existing legal structures that permit what they claim to want
Re:Well... (Score:2)
No, it's not.
We are entirely in the dark as to the scope and the nature of the wiretap program.
Not entirely, no. I feel free to assume that the many things that the administration has said about this program are essentially true, because the Democrats who do know the details would be free to say the administration was lying if they were not. Not one person has in any way contested any of the released details, few as they are.
(Of course, it could be the case that t
Re:Well... (Score:2)
The gist of what I'm saying is that it's suspicious. I understand the President is unafraid to act independently when he feels the situation calls
Re:Well... (Score:2)
But that's beside the point. Feingold is not asserting "this looks suspicious." He is asserting other things, as matters of fact, which are either not proven, or are flat-out false.
But why do the former and risk the latter even if you're probably in the right if there is an existing avenue to getting what you want?
Because you sacrifice the President's authority by giving in. It was a similar issue when Rice spoke in the 9/11 hearings. They didn't want
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Haw haw haw.
You can check the record. They gave all the reasons up front. From the very moment this appeared and Bush acknowledged it, he was already were giving as his two primary justifications: inherent authority, and legislated authority (under the Iraq war authorization).
I was misremembering something I'd read earlier about the Attorney General's legal justification for the program, which has shifted over time be
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Emphasis has shifted, yes, which confuses matters. Like those who think the only reason we went to Iraq was to get rid of WMD, which is totally false. That was
Re:Well... (Score:2)
We have been fed a steady stream of misinformation up to and after accomplishing our mission over there. It's a deception to put the public emphasis on reasons the private emphasis isn't on. It's a deception to draw connections -- whether directly or through frequent contextual implication -- to unrelated (or at least unproven to be related) events. If you spend 98% of your time hammering on one or two just
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Name one example of intentional deception.
It's a deception to put the public emphasis on reasons the private emphasis isn't on.
Name one example of intentional deception.
It's a deception to draw connections -- whether directly or through frequent contextual implication -- to unrelated (or at least unproven to be related) events.
Name one example of intentional deception.
If you spend 98% of your time hammeri