Redstate

"the only important fact is what everybody "knows" really happened - the evil Chimpy McBushitlerburton broke the law and spied on American citizens. they "know" that this happened because it is consistent with their neverending, burning hatred of Bush, and their vision of him as the boogeyman who lurks in their closet, just waiting to throw all Democrats and Liberals in jail and send them off to forced labor for Halliburton in the West Texas desert."

So, Chimpy McHitlerburton has become Chimpy McBushHitlerBurton?

So, Chimpy McHitlerburton has become Chimpy McBushHitlerBurton?

Clearly, a moniker of such marvelous complexity could only have come about through the work of an intelligent designer. I mean, it's ridiculous to assume that the word just mutated all on its own, or that a random assortment of letters just happened to produce a continuous and seamless insult like that. Let's get real.

Now, all fun aside, if this gets turned into an evolution/ID thread, heads are gonna roll.

is 100% percent constitutional and is even more so authorized through the Congressional resolution to war. The question is no longer whether or not Bush's activities are constitutional, but rather whether or not FISA its self is constitutional.

Get ready for a big, big debate.

Just today I heard Jonathan Alter say that the leaking of Valerie Plame's name was far more devastating to the country than the leak of the NSA eavesdropping program. He also asserted that the person who exposed the program was a hero.

He admitted he had not read the UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT or In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 cases that support the fact that what GWB has done is legal.

I think we can relax... There is nothing in the rants of the libs.

What I find especially gratifying in looking over a process like this at this point in time is how quickly and thoroughly Known Facts are now debunked in the blogosphere, and then in many cases safely relegated to the portion of the population that would always have believed them regardless of veracity.  Just a few years ago, things like this would have already long buried this Presidency when Old Media was the only mouthpiece for information, I believe.

Nine years ago Republicans and Democrats were arguing exact opposite positions on the National Security vs Civil Liberties debate. In 1995-96 the Clinton administration was proposing counterterrorism legislation and the Republican Congress was opposing it. For reference research S.390 and H.R.896 submitted as The Omnibus Counterterrorism Act in 1995.

Today both sides argue their preferred position with vessel bulging fervor almost as if It Is, Has Always Been, and Always Will Be the core value of the orator's affiliated political party. I can't be sure of whether this fact is Known or Unknown.

I do propose that the following statement is a Known Fact?

  Republicans are strong on National Security and Democrats are anti-American.

Because the statement is not constrained to a given point in time I conclude that it is, indeed, Known. If one were to constrain such a proposition to a given point in time then one could potentially argue that the following statement is an Unknown Fact:

  Nine years ago Democrats were strong on National Security and Republicans were anti-American.

Naturally the truth of the statement is based on a premise that determines whether being in favor of or opposed to loosened wiretap restrictions ultimately defines whether one is strong on National Security or anti-American. Regardless, if this is indeed an Unknown Fact then one might argue that the following is an Unknown Fact as well:

  Had the Republicans not been anti-American nine years ago the Democrat's attempt to bolster National Security may have prevented 9/11.

Unfortunately we'll never know.

There Are Those Who Say That™

It seems common for the MSM to find some wild theory and turn that into "if you can't disprove this then it must be true" questions.

Example: "There Are Those Who Say That™ the levees in New Orleans were blown up to flood poor black areas to try to save rich white ones. How do you respond to that?"

Before long, since no one has come up with any disproof that is sufficient to the MSM, the ridiculous premise becomes a Known Fact™.

Jeb Bush stole the 2000 election for his brother.

Diebold stole the 2004 election for Bush

Reagan and Thatcher had nothing to do with the collaps of the Soviet union.(it was all those brave democrats and their anti-nuke protesting)

Rich White People dynamited the Levees in New Orleans, because they are just mean.

this is fun

Rich White People dynamited the Levees in New Orleans, because they are just mean.

Don't forget that the Rich White People covered their tracks by killing a higher percentage of white people than the average that actually live in New Orleans.  Afterall, if you're going to wait for the perfect opportunity to blow up a levee, the least you can do is cover your tracks properly.

While there are many legal questions surrounding this entire issue, I take issue with your implication that Richard Posner has said that it is legal.

Upon reading his op-ed, he does not use the words "legal" or "illegal". He does support the idea that the program is a good idea, but he says:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it difficult to conduct surveillance of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents unless they are suspected of being involved in terrorist or other hostile activities. That is too restrictive.

Judge Posner here make the case that FISA restrictions need to be  loosened, and does not say that FISA is unconstitutional.

Furthermore, I have seen commenters in other threads suggest that Orin Kerr has said this program is legal. This is incorrect. Reading his post, you'll find some interesting conclusions, including:

So at bottom, I think the AUMF probably didn't authorize this, although the Hamdi case gives some colorable (if ultimately unpersuasive) arguments that it might.

not to mention that he also posted this:

 The interesting question is whether FISA somehow extinguishes this inherent Presidential power to conduct foreign-intelligence surveillance. There's a respectable argument that it does.

Anyway, there's certainly a good set of legal minds who find the situation not clear-cut, to say the least.

...and Sunstein is a hack.  That said, impeachment talk is stupid, and the real question is determining whether this NSA surveillance program on Americans focused on terrorists in a justifiable and accountable way.

I will tell it to you straight - I am a libertarian, passionate defender of our republican way of life and government, and I'm not giving up my 4th amendment rights for any reason, since to do such would be to give up what I take to be the basis of America, rights doctrine, and patriotism.

As Patrick Henry said so well, and we shamefully let a Wisconsin Democrat stand alone in affirming, let it be known to bin Laden, Al Qaeda, terrorists, communists, and totalitarians wherever they may be found on the globe - "give me liberty, or give me death", and, perhaps even more appropriately, in their regard, "don't tread on me!".

As repugnant as the Third Reich was to most human beings, right and left alike, the MSM seems to have taken one very salient quote to heart- " If you tell a lie often enough, people will believe you"-Joseph Goebbels

are frustrating. They make me sad.  And they make me angry.

But ironically for their creators, they also make me increasingly Republican. I'm not giving the Democratic Party a scintilla of consideration until the manufacture and nuture of Known Facts stops.

They endanger my family. The hurt my country.

And their only goal is electoral gain.

It's one thing to point to two bills, introduced by Democrats at the behest of Clinton in the same Congress where Republicans had just taken over power, it's another to point to any substantive remarks that support your position.

Yes, the Democrat bills didn't move in the new Republican congress.  What a shocking development.  But S. 735, which was introduced by the Senator Majority leader, did become law (P.L. 104-132).

So unless you have some actual evidence of what you claim, methinks you doth protest too much.

There are two other factors that contribute to the birth of a Known Fact:

1. Headlines dont necessarily reflect the actual article. The headline of the NSA article in questions screams SECRET goings on. If you actually read the article you realize it was really not that secret at all. Like the secret energy meetings (that dems were invited to), or Cheney's secret bunker (that dems actually toured). This is because they know that most people either just scan headlines or read the first couple of paragraphs. Actuall info gets buried at the end of the article.
   
2. If a democrat did it, pretend it was a republican. Remember Echelon? You may even argue that it is more of encroachment on civil liberties than this latest flap. 60 minutes did a report on it (which was obviously in full swing during the Clinton Administration) but funny how they did it a month after W was sworn it.

http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm

No it doesnt say Bush started it but the timing is such that it is meant to leave an impression that the current administration is eeeeeeeevil.

"The editors in Los Angeles killed the story. They told Witcover that it didn't `come off' and that it was an `opinion' story. ...The solution was simple, they told him. All he had to do was get other people to make the same points and draw the same conclusions and

then write the article in their words." (emphasis in original) Timothy Crouse, Boys onthe Bus [1973, p. 116].

This quote leads off the UCLA paper: A Measure of Media Bias. The authors measure bias (or rather political outlook) by statistically analyzing the number of references to different types of authorites and correlating this to similar references by members of Congress who have been extenrally classified on the conservative-to-liberal scale.

In other words, I think you are dead on and here is objective support for it. Trade mark it.

It's always necessary when reading legal stuff.

In order:

1. Orin Kerr did say he was dubious of the AUMF/Hamdi argument, but he went on to say that he thought the program was legal for other reasons. I know it's hard to read an entire article when it's that long, but give it a shot - it's in there.
   
   
2. Posner did not suggest that FISA was unconstitutional, Sunstein did. If you'll carefully read MY article you'll notice that's what I said. Posner said that he thought that the program ought to actually be expanded, and that computer surveillance does not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th amendment (A computer is not a sentient being).
   
   
3. I agree that the argument is anything but clear-cut, but you'd never know that from reading a liberal website. Bottom line is that Kerr, Posner and Sunstein all believe that the administration's position is justifiable under an interpretation of current law - which is lawyer-speak for carefully avoiding giving an ironclad conlusion (lawyers hate doing that), while telling you that what person X did was likely okay.

have to examine themselves.  The central Known Fact, around which the satellite known facts, thousands of them, revolve is that boundless central government is the means by which we will be dragged from the crater of poverty, ignorance,racism, and despair.  Intelligent people, defined by who watches second rate British mysteries on PBS, Know this.  Despite their inborn magnanimity they, unaware, sometimes let slip a triffling scorn towards the slope headed hominoids, too primitive to grasp this greatest of all Known Facts.   But at least they tolerate our miserable existence and even allow us Fox News.

If you read his chat room comments that took place the afternoon of the article (he waded into the liberal hornet's nest), he clearly states that he did not offer a legal opinion; rather a policy opinion. Personally, I think that the Judge realizes that "illegality" is the wrong question, as there is just no way to get to that conclusion. All the legal debate is only relevant in the context of policy and he thinks the policy is a good one and does not find it necessary to take exception to the legal reasoning the administration uses to justify the policy, assuming the facts show they did not go beyond the stated limits of the policy.

And after finding a copy laying around the lobby of the hotel we are staying at, I am reminded of why: the magazine really really sucks.

they runa front cover article which is an infomercail for the movie version of the 'DaVinci code'- in which the producer brags about how he will accurately push its radical anti-Catholic bigotry. An infomercial posing as news.....and the MSM has the gutz to complain that the military is placing stories in the media.

Then the magazine in several places continues to push the lie that FEMA did not get to New Orleans in 5 days. And Newsweak brags that they are a serioius magazine.

I would suggest that they are to good informaiton what supersized fries and a large chocolate shake are to good nutrition.

Will any legal action be taken agains that judge who resigned from the FISA court?  It seems to me that his resignaiton and later statement revealed information that might be useful to our enemies.  

Posner, on the other hand, has been spot on throughout this.  I hope that someday he serves on the land's highest court.  He is a great American -- both a wise man, and a brave men.

As one famous member of the Liberal Left has said "We all have to find
our own truth." For the Left there's no such thing as absolute truth. Your
truth is just as valid as my truth as long as your truth doesn't mess with my
truth. That's why Mary Mapes can go on tv with a straight face and peddle her
book and bogus National Guard memos. This is why Cynthia McKinney can march
a bunch of people into Congress and have them testify to seeing someone blow
up the levees in New Orleans and being held in concentration camps . If you can get enough
people to believe something, like Global Warming, it becomes a Known Fact™.

but I'd hate to take a chance.

Reviewing your posting history one has to conclude you are either trolling or you aren't a serious poster.

Either way, we don't need you here.

I think you make a good point although the "unknown fact" terminology, though cute, is not very usable.

Both R's and D's make generalizations. Genralizing is not the same as KnownFacting. The distinction lies in whether the Generalizer is willing to examine and amend the generalization through empirical analysis. If not... if its "assumptions all the way down and in a circle" then you got a KnownFactor. Divide by zero exception.

the original bills were shot down and rewritten by the Republicans.

Try finding wiretap provisions in HR2703/S735. You won't find them because they aren't there. The Republicans struck it out with amendment 950 to HR2703. The final bill was no more than a skeleton of the original.

Don't take my word for it...look it up.

'supersized fries and a large chocolate shake are to good nutrition.'

Now I'm hungry.............

I certainly did read the entire article by Orin Kerr, including the opening paragraph.

My answer is pretty tentative, but here it goes: Although it hinges somewhat on technical details we don't know, it seems that the program was probably constitutional but probably violated the federal law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

He then asks, is FISA overriden by the president's article II powers? He answers:

I have been unable to find any caselaw in support of this argument.

However, if you feel I have missed something (ie, the part where he says it's legal), please show me.

Posner (and Kerr) have made a excellent case that the program is constitutional. However (and opinions vary), the program may well have violated the law known as FISA. At the least, it was not clearly legal.

If the program was a good idea, it was incumbent upon the administration to change the law in order to allow it - not immediately after 9/11 (the president properly took action in an emergency), but certainly once it became clear that the war on terror was going to last a long, long time.

I apologize if my choice of terms offended you; I hadn't had my coffee yet. As long as you understand my point I'm satisfied.

"Most Americans think ..."

-OR-

"Most Americans believe ..."

-OR-

"The majority of Americans want ..."

It's like fingernails on a chalkboard. Please, all you Senators and Congressmen, just state your point without the editorial comment.

It's a mistake to assume anything about what most Americans think. What we think can, at times, change very quickly.

It's also a mistake to think that, just because you were voted in by people in your district, parish, or state, that most Americans think like the fine folks in your district, parish or state. We don't. So stop telling us we do.

He may be part of the leaks. He has a close relationship with Rockafeller.

If the program was constitutional it was clearly legal.

If it was constitutional there is no "incumbent" duty to change a law.

And if there is a conflict between the president's Article II powers and a statute passed by Congress then there is no legal reason the statute should stand.

restrain government.  

Oh wait.

On a somewhat more serious note, Republicans do, by and large, favor expanding government powers during the current, most likely long lasting war.  Their behavior had also made it clear that they have little to no interest in reducing spending.  

Is there someway in which they are not in favor of a larger, more powerful government?

Tom

It's extremely consistent with their world view that judging other people's truths is wrong and unfair.

... but you are incorrect.

If the program was constitutional it was clearly legal.

As a topical example, the NY transit strike was perfectly constitutional, but it was also clearly illegal.

While you are correct that a president's Article II powers win over a statute passed by Congress. While I am not a lawyer, Orin Kerr is, and he disagrees that this is the case.

 Article II. The final argument is that Article II of the Constitution gives the President inherent authority to conduct such monitoring. The Administration introduced this theory in a supplemental brief filed in the FISA Court of Review

...

  So the argument, as I understand it, is that Congress has no power to legislate in a way that inteferes with the President's Commander-in-Chief power, a judgment made, I suppose, by the President himself.

 I have been unable to find any caselaw in support of this argument. Further, the argument has no support from the cases cited in the government's brief.

"experts agree".   Those four or five poor slobs chained to a wall in the basement of the Times.  Bread and water diet, being tickled every day by Maureen Dowd with a feather, and being asked incomprehensible questions by Sulzberger Jr..  A strong back up to Known Facts is "Reality Based".  This is used by people who at any moment fully expect to be trundled off in box cars to a desert camp where they will be forced to watch Spiro Agnew tapes.  These reality based freedom fighters keep a suitcase by the door packed with back issues of The Nation and Free Mary Mapes bumper stickers.  They vote!!

you don't have a constitutional right to strike. The men didn't have to come back to work. They could have quit. The illegal part was continuing to strike while holding their employment. PATCO is still on strike as far as I know.

Well Orrin Kerr is n=1. And actually he doesn't disagree. Read what he says again. Maybe there is no caselaw because it has been intutitive obvious for centuries.

And the other lawyer Leon quotes in the story says otherwise. Think it through. If a statute supercedes the constitution then Congress could make it illegal for the Supreme Court to even rule on cases.

You're right - I should have said that the men didn't have to come back to work, and they could have quit.

Orin's summation/opening paragraph (see my above comment) is that it "seems that the program was probably constitutional but probably violated the federal law", but you are correct that n=1. In cases where lawyers (even good ones) disagree, wouldn't we all prefer that the president act (even if months after the fact) to insure congressional authorization?

Arlen Specter , Republican chaiman of the Senate Judiciary Cimmittee,is very disturbed by the Bush spying program, conducted without judicial warrant. Is Arlen Specter a liberal? No, he respects  about the Fourth Amendment, which many Republicans do not. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 allows the government to seek a warrant AFTER the communications intercept has occurred. That allows more than enough rapid response flexibility for the government in special curcumstances, while still fulfilling Fourth Amendment requirements. But the Bush crowd doesn't want to justify their spying on U.S. citizens to any judge. That makes the spying illegal and unconstitutional. Any principled conservative would be disturbed by this. It's not just liberals. Read George will.  

Is Arlen Specter a liberal? No

I'm sorry, I swear I couldn't get past this part of your post... thanks for a great laugh.

Here in about 15 minutes, I'll get back and read the rest of your post. I have a feeling that won't be good news for you.

You either have the power of your don't. If you've got to ask someone's permission, you don't have the power.

Why any president would ask Congress to authorize any action they took as part of their Article II enumerated powers is beyond me. It simply cheapens the office and further subordinates presidential prerogatives to negotiation with a branch that has no constitutional business meddling in the area.

If you want to see what this behavior gets you, study the history of the War Powers Act. A blatantly illegal statute passed over a presidential veto.

Eugene Volokh notes that "I was extremely impressed by Orin's post on the domestic surveillance issue". While he does not specifically say that he agrees with the conclusions, perhaps n=2.

I also find it interesting, though perhaps not surprising, that (of the three), the liberal law prof leans towards a broad reading of presidential powers, while the conservative law profs lean towards a reading in which there is less presidential power and a stronger congress.

"supersized fries and a large chocolate shake are to good nutrition." two of the major food groups? (pizza and  beer being the third and fourth)

as the KnownFact™ that the World Trade Center was actually brought down by explosives secretly planted by the CIA and Mossad during the night and that the airplanes were just 'cover'. All the passengers and crew were taken off during landings at secret airports just before and are now being held at secret detention camps somewhere in the Western US.

This I think is my all time favorite.

Well, the war powers act was passed over 20-30 years ago, and we've been in several wars since then. If it's unconstitutional, quite a few presidents have had the opportunity to challenge it in court. So why haven't they?

In any case, they did think about asking, but chose not to

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.

The 4 major food groups are Sugar, Alocohol, Salt and Grease

The Constitution enumerates a 'right to strike'.

because every administration from Ford (Mayaguez Incident) forward has ignored it. The Executive has no reason to challenge it. Congress is the party that would have to challenge that Act and they haven't because they know what the outcome will be. The Supremes are most likely going to say that it is a political question and if Congress doesn't like the war they can refuse to fund it. It the Supremes do take the case it is such a gross violation of Article II that it will be tossed out and they will loose the advantage they have by keeping the fiction alive.

And secondly, thanks for making my point. "And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.

The constitution does not say anything about strikes one way or another - thus, a strike is constitutional, but can be made illegal.

More generally though, under the consitution, your employer has no right to force you to work, and you are free to quit working for him at anytime.

is to say there are levels of corruption, just as a sewer as different levels.  I always believe in starting off on a cheerful note.  To ID myself, I voted Libertarian in '00, Bush in '04, in part because of the war and also because the Dems picked Mortimer Snerd as their banner carrier.  At an age I am embarressed to reveal I have been a registered Repub exactly one year.  Therefore gentle jibes about the Repubs are like water off a duck's back or scotch down Ted Kennedy's gaping throat.  Things to do,or that have been done?  Try tax cuts vs tax increases, a lamented but noble effort towards SS reform,read freedom, the recognition of what the Age of Terror really means, a recognition that Christianity is not a disease, mental or psychical, and that it deserves the same respect as a certain Religion of Peace, the tolerance and/or encouragement of school choice based on an old fashioned assumption, that unlike Plato's Republic, the children belong to the parents, and yes, a rare and piddling $40 billion 5 year reduction in spending growth.  And if you want or need a line of demarcation between hints of responsibility and decency and on the other hand the depraved and avaricious you might take that last as a thin and wavering marker.  Thanks for your post, it's a challenge that we all need at times.  Regards, johnt

Streiff should check to see what other handles have been banned from your IP address.

Arlen Specter, really.  That's not even a plausible argument.

I feel it made my point as well. If they thought they could have gotten FISA amended, they would have, and they thought about trying to do so.

You said "Why any president would ask Congress to authorize any action they took as part of their Article II enumerated powers is beyond me."

But they did think about asking. So why would they do that, if they were sure they had the power?

you have no right to refuse to work and keep your job.

"According to a top government official" (a.k.a. the recently fired disgruntled paperpusher or janitor at the State Dept.) or other "unnamed sources" (a.k.a. the reporter's hairdresser).

... it is extremely clear that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, whether the subject be Arlen Specter or the NSA. And what is even worse is that you're apparently seriously (almost completely) uninformed about the debate the entire blogosphere has been having about this issue.

In other words, you're obviously not a serious person with anything important to add to our understanding of what is going on here. So please do not waste our time until you've taken the time to do your homework. Other Leftists here have and we have welcomed their input. Your contribution here, on the other hand, is worthless.

Have a nice day.

you have no right to welfare under the constitution either.

popcorn.

Not being a Democrat, I've never had need of it.

And if you have butter with it, you also get grese! 2fer!! YAY!

Your post is a textbook example of using KnownFacts™, which is, after all, the subject of this thread. Your post is also a textbook example of what life must be like for those who actually and truly believe said KnownFacts™.

KnownFact™ 1 - Arlen Specter a liberal? No

KnownFact™ 2 - respects ... Fourth Amendment, which many Republicans do not

KnownFact™ 3 - [FISA] ... allows more than enough rapid response

KnownFact™ 4 - the Bush crowd doesn't want to justify their spying on U.S. citizens to any judge

KnownFact™ 5 - Any principled conservative would be disturbed by this.

Any principled conservative would be disturbed by this

You will find very few principled conservatives around here.

Principled conservatives aren't willing to sell out civil liberties in the face of adversity, and they certainly wouldn't be letting Russ Feingold get the PR coup of the decade:

Senator Cornyn:"None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead"

Senator Feingold:"Give me liberty or give me death."

a grate country or what :-)

is a Republican to the same extent Zell Miller is a Democrat.

So long, and thanks for all the pointless insults.

And by the way, keep right on winning.

that's going to leave a mark.

he in turn has no obligation to hire you or keep you around.

As I said, the Constitution is silent on the matter of strikes so of course it's Constitutional and can be make illegal by statute.

I score that as a kill.

I guess I am bored, but I did look up the bills and the law and I'm unconvinced you know what you are talking about.

Do you have any statements of Republican members on this issue?  Do you have any report language on this issue?

Again, without any actual evidence, you can make any claim that you want, I guess.  But I ain't buying your whine.

Its Salt Lard Sugar and Caffeine at my house.

They do more than ignore it, they denounce it even as they comply with it.  To do otherwise allows it to become a constituional point through usage.  Sorry but the WPA is just a buggaboo with me.

I suspect Zell Miller is a true Democrat. The Party on the otherhand is uh, ah, well, I have no idea what the rest of the Democratic Party actually is, but it ain't good whatever it is.

I think the process of generating Known Facts will end up benefiting the conservatives in the long term.

Many Known Facts are based on such flimsy evidence that they're easy to shoot down.  And with Fox, CaptainsQuarters, Powerline, Redstate, the WSJ and other platforms, we now have anti-aircraft artillery at our disposal.  Furthermore, the grip the MSM has on American debate is slipping, as is their credibility.  

So what if 33% of Americans feverently believe Known Facts, and 12% are swayed by them to some degree.  As long as the other 55% of Americans are inclined to reject Known Facts on a regular basis--well, 55% reliable support in American elections is a strong enough majority on which to build a long-term governing movement.

So, let the moonbats bark.  It only strengthens our majority.

to get the scoop is directly from the Congressional Record for March 13, 1996. You can read the entire thing beginning here. Discussion begins about 1/3 of the way down the middle column and continues through pages H2175 & H2176 when the vote was recorded.

I can fully understand your skepticism; I was skeptical at first as well. It's hard to believe but the record speaks for itself.

This may get me booted, but I find this whole thread to be highly disingenuous. Both liberals and conservatives engage in Known Factism and both sides engage in the selective use of actual facts. That does not make it any less abhorrent of a practice, but it's a Known Fact.

Those on the Left toss around their ridiculous Halliburton Known Facts just as often as those on the right toss around their Known Facts about how gay marriage will somehow destroy the institution of marriage. The NeoCons and Bush want control of Middle East oil and Bil Clinton had Vince Foster 86ed because he was going to spill the beans on Whitewater. These are all Known Facts from what I can tell.

But perhaps you could tell me whether the number of people who believe this:

Bil Clinton had Vince Foster 86ed because he was going to spill the beans on Whitewater

And the number of people who believe this:

NeoCons and Bush want control of Middle East oil

Are even close to equivalent?

I'm no scholar by any means, but I did pay attention in high school.  If memory serves:

The Constitution is NOT a list of what is legal and what isn't (or at least, it wasn't originally).  It's a document outlining the structure of our government and the rights of the states and the people.

Nothing in the Constitution speaks to the legality of your work situation.  There's nothing in the Constitution about murder, rape, or theft either....except in the establishment of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Powers of the POTUS, Congress, etc are in the Constitution.  The description of those powers, along with the information in the Bill of Rights, should be used to determine the legality of this situation.

If there is a law, or something in FISA, that conflicts with the constitution, then it is UNconstitutional...and therefore invalid unless the constitution is amended.

an apples to apples comparison. The concern was largely over the ability to use evidence gathered, on a terrorism pretext,for criminal prosecution of offenses not remotely related to terrorism -  "I call this a Mack truck provision, Mr. Chairman,

because it is so broad, in looking

back over it, that one could drive a

Mack truck through it."

b 1400

"This is the so-called good-faith exception

to the exclusionary rule for

wiretap evidence. In layman's terms,

Mr. Chairman, this provision would

allow the Government to use whatever

it overhears in any electronic surveillance

activity, whether related to a

crime of terrorism or any other crime

or other behavior which the Government

seeks to stop, even if that evidence

was acquired illegally,"

If the Attorney General attempts to use NSA intercepts to prosecute "medical marijuana" growers, then it might have some relevance.

on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately for the average Democrat, too many of theirs hold prominent positions in the party, to wit, Howard Dean.

"The wiretapping is 100% percent constitutional and is even more so authorized through the Congressional resolution to war."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've seen those two points hotly debated here on this very site in at least two different threads.

I think the jury is still out.

If you agree that the issue is anything but clear-cut (your words) then it strikes me that the subject for this post is somewhat premature.

It could actually turn out that the illegality actually becomes a known fact, as opposed to a Known Fact, if you get my drift.

The power of the President in the specific area of conduct of a war are, to me anyway, fairly clear; just about whatever is necessary.

The argument comes from the belief by some that this specific President is trampling on all of the other rights in the Constitution. And at the end of the day it really does come down to this specific President. It isn't that the Dems want to hamstring the president, its that they want to hamstring this President.

The Democrats despise George Bush and everything he believes in, and everyone that believes in the same things as he does. And that is really all this is about; how much harm can they do to George Bush and the devil take the hindmost.

It is a stupid, dangerous game certain to cause some degree of harm to our country and our citizens, but they are either blinded by their hatred to the point where they can't see that or don't care, or are sufficiently arrogant that they believe that whatever harm they do they can 'fix' once they drive the 'Devil Republicans from power.'

--------------------

Around these parts, (ampersand)trade(semicolon) to make the trademark symbol.

the question is why would they NOT ask congress if they thought they DIDN'T.

I can think of any number of reasons they might have considered it: to get buy in; to build up good will; to push to get it to include domestic intercepts a la MI5.

On the other hand, there is no reason to think they would do it if they didn't have the authority.

What's amazing is that you can post this with a straight face.  Here you are, positing that this situation can already be written off as a Known Fact(TM), and the best you can do is quote some people who say that the program might be constitutional.  Are you kidding me?

Here are some problems with the "write off":

1. Posner has never met a constitutional provision that he wouldn't toss out on economic efficiency.
   
   
2. Sunstein and Kerr both missed or didn't address some of the strongest arguments against the legality of the program
   
   
3. The NSA's letter defending the legality of the program is so riddled with legal holes that I could use it to make my coffee.  Please read that and see how many times you see the word "concurring."  
   

Most of the legal arguments the NSA can come up with to defend the President's program either come from dicta (not binding), concurring opinions (so unpersuasive they couldn't command a majority), or cases and statutes that have since been overruled by congressional activity.

Seriously, the possibility that you can write off something as a known fact when you can't find one ironclad argument in its favor, says a lot more about you that about the law or the Democrats.

and ask for an injunction if you are so legally sure of you position? Probably the same reason the Dims and the Deanies and the Kos Krappers don't. No legal basis to win on.

I've been wondering about that for a while, struggling for a substitute for alt-0153 that doesn't look too stupid.

Thanks, NotSoBlue. That's a KnownFact™ worth knowing.

Fact #1-The Fourth Amendment requires a judical warrant for wiretaps

Fact #2- FISA law requires judical approval of communications intercept,

Fact #3-Bush signed presidental orders for NSA domestic electronic spying on U.S. citizens without judical warrants,

Conclusion- Bush committed illegal acts and violated the law and the Constitution,

Constitutional Remedy- Impeachment

     

#1. No it doesn't.

#2. Not in all cases.

#3. And???

Conclusion- Have a Merry Christmas just don't have it here.

testing KnownFacts &^TM

™ thanks

For the record, when I say illegality is the wrong question, I mean in terms or whether the President "broke the law". I don't think that question gets any traction for reasons expressed here and here. Furthermore, they apparently have not attempted to use evidence gathered from the program in criminal proceedings.

Nevertheless, I apologize for the diversion because I observe that your discussion of the "legality" has proceeded along the lines of its relevance to the policy discussion. In other words, do his constitutional and statutorial powers validate this policy. I just think that this distinction is important to keep in mind, since as Leon H.'s story points out, many Dem's (echoed by the media) are not making this distinction, but are rather presenting the Pres. as 'breaking the law'.

One thing that occurs to me since the below thoughts is that I think that the senate was controlled by the dems at the time and adds to the general incentive for the president to indulge congress.

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/12/22/124426/39/85#85

Here's a paragraph...

Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.

The editorial is available to subscribers.

Regardless of what has been said here about lack of case law, the FISA Court of Appeals reviewed several and concluded that all assumed that Art II gave such authority to Prez and that they also took it for granted.  Further, that, therefore, FISA could not restrict that power.  Sounds like it was legal to me.

But even if there were a more colorable argument that FISA's restrictions applied despite AUMF and Article II, the editorial's characterization of the surveillance as willful disregard of a law is completely over the top.

The administration didn't just jump into this action in disregard of the statute -- they carefully examined the legal issues and determined the surveillance could be legally justified before they took the step.

I didn't know Barron's had a moonbat editorial board, but I guess I know it now.

"Thus, a program in which computers sift through the international telephone calls of known Al Qaeda operatives for certain key words gives birth to ludicrious headlines like, "Bush authorizes spying on Americans,"

If that's what it was, very possibly constitutional.  But if it was sifting through all overseas commuincations for key words that indcate "bad guys, that's another thing.  

Why?  Because in that instance we must all take on faith that's all they do.  If in fact such generalized surveillance is taking place with no judicial oversight, the precedent is very dangerous.  If allowed to stand, it would empower any President to authorize monitoring communications of American citizens under the guize of "national security" but without oversight be free to look for other things, things like political opposition.  

Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum that should frighten you.  It has nothing to do with what political persuasion you have, it has to do with the power conferred on the executive branch.  That power accrues to whomever holds that office.  The entire concept of the Constituion incorporated the seperation of powers and distrust of concentrating too much power at any point.  That concept is what is at stake.

If enough people agree it's real, or if authoritative/credible people (again, people who other people agree are credible) say it's real, it's real by virtue of that agreement.

This isn't entirely a bad thing.  Money's reality and substance is based on agreement.  Imagine- without this agreement, would you try to parlay a useless piece of paper for something useful?  Nations, states, and laws exist by virtue of that same agreement.

I don't think the number of people who believe a Known Fact really matters. The point is that both sides (amazing that there are such tightly defined sides on some of the complex matters about which these Known Facts arise) rely on them.

O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, and their sad immitators would have precious few rants to lob if the Known Fact were to vanish from the universe this very moment (as I suspect would Franken, et al).

My point is simply that, yes, in some cases, you can say, "Liberals/the left/the wingnuts do X, I don't agree with it, and here's why..."  In this case, I don't think it passes the smell test, because you're singling out one group's use of a behavior when another group is equally at fault.

In order for you to say:

another group is equally at fault

You'd have to demonstrate, I think, that both groups were, you know, equally at fault. In other words, that at least some similarity exists between the number of people who believe/espouse nutty conspiracy theories on both sides.

"The other side does it too." Is there nothing absolute in the liberal mind other than hipocrisy?

yes, you are absolutely right. I am a raving liberal who cannot abide when my wingnut compatriots are unduly criticized. "Your side" is always correct and "my side" is always wrong. Everything is black and white.

Don't you have some required Anne Coulter reading to do?

.. that would take more time than I have, digging for polling results and such when I should be working. The one thing that pops to mind is the whole gay marriage thing. If one gay marriage opponent who has spouted hate speech about the "radical homosexual agenda" can point to one piece of hard data that shows how "traditional" marriage will be eviscerated because Tony and Thomas who have been cohabitating in Topeka for 8 years want to get hitched, I'd be amazed to see it. And, yet, if you ask the average Joe or Jane who voted in favor of a gay marriage ban in their state why they did so, I would be willing to bet you would hear something to that effect, parroting the Known Fact preached by many conservatives in Congress and state legislatures (as well as Dobson et al).

I would like to be more fact heavy to support my Known Fact that all sides are guilty as charged here, but don't have the time. Sorry.

we were on to something when we were comparing those who believed Clinton offed Vince Foster to those who believed we went to war because the neocons want to control all the oil in the Middle East. Now it turns out that you were just tilting at windmills.

Toodles.