Less Than Impressive
The Washington Post has an article today detailing how President Bush faced a "Rare Audience Challenge" at a public open forum event in North Carolina. You have to get to the second page to read what the challenge actually was.
A man named Harry Taylor got the microphone and was off and running:
"You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that," Taylor told him. "But while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food."
Bush interrupted with a smile. "I'm not your favorite guy," he joked, provoking laughter.
"What I want to say to you," Taylor continued, "is that I, in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by, my leadership in Washington."
Many in the audience booed.
"Let him speak," Bush said.
"I feel like, despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration," Taylor added.
Repeating vague talking points is a challenge? There is not one single fact in any of that challenge, just nebulous, hot button words. But the point wasn't to actually ask a question, or just to vent, either. Taylor is a self-proclaimed activist against Bush. So the point was to get publicity. The WaPo cooperated. The money quote for me:
Bush hardly won him over, though. "I didn't care about his response," Taylor said. "I wanted to say what I wanted to say and I wanted him to know that despite being in a room with a thousand people who love him . . . there are plenty of people out there who don't agree with him in any way, shape or form."
Fact free rhetoric is hardly a challenge. A president who hushes boos from the audience to let a rant continue is hardly trampling Mr. Taylor's rights.
Update: Gateway Pundit has the transcript of Bush's full answer to Mr. Taylor's statement (along with some things Taylor said that the WaPo left out - Mr. Taylor makes it quite clear he's there only to make a contrary statement). No wonder the WaPo left the answer out. It makes Bush look pretty good.
By Penny, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 7:09 am
Its about time someone is allow to speak out in what they believe and not
being carried off to jail for speaking out. I agree totally with this man who spoke out. This administration has done one thing after another that is
wrong and its just amazing they are getting away with it.
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 7:23 am
Penny,
Please provide even one example of someone being carted off to jail for speaking out.
By Jim O'Hara, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 7:29 am
Assuming Taylor is an American, how are “I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges” vague nebulous talking points? Why did one of the judges that is supposed to preside over secret wire taps resign in disgust?
You crticise Taylor for only wanting to make a statement; Do you honestly think he would be given the time to make a full statement with facts to back up his assertions? In this soundbite world, he did what he had to do to make his point. Did Bush address any of the “vague talking points?” No. So of course Taylor doesn’t care about Bush’s response, because he thinks what Bush is doing is wrong. That doesn’t make Taylor’s points invalid.
By Jim O'Hara, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 7:49 am
Gauis, that video may be conclusive enough, so explain away this:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/renc-a19.shtml
What really upsets me about people like you is you make others do the hard work of having to disprove your points that you do no research to validate. Worse, you’ll still stick to your belief even after it has been disproven.
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 8:00 am
The charge being made here is that Bush asserts the right to tap Mr. Taylor’s telephone. How has he done that? The hold without charges is patently absurd.
I had heard that there were some problems with NYC police arrests of demonstrators, but that is not really the fault of the administration, is it?
By the way, making sweeping generalities about “people like you” doesn’t exactly make you credible. You might want to watch that. Since you’ve never visited this site before and are basing your comment on one post, you don’t look like you are trying to be reasonable. Nor does it look like a Loyola education is doing you a lot of good if that’s your idea of a debating tactic.
Your comment with a download link was deleted. I don’t allow those.
By CountryKen, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 8:24 am
Provide one example of people being arrested for speaking out? What planet you live on?
Ever heard of google? go to the leaker in chiefs event with a sign and they tell you to put it down or go to jail. That’s a fact jack. We have people arrested for wearing T shirts! WAKE UP
By Left of Center, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 8:34 am
Gratz to Harry Taylor. He shocked the hell out of those numbed Bush cultists. Many more Americans would do the same if it werent so hard for real Americans to actually be at a Bush event. Hacking Mr. Taylor just makes you look silly.
By Devil's Advocate, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 8:46 am
“Fact free rhetoric is hardly a challenge”
See Rove, Mehlman, O’Reilly, Coulter, Hannity, Carlson, Limbaugh, Imus, Matthews…
“So the point was to get publicity.”
See all of the above… Again.
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 9:04 am
I let in the last three comments.
Country Ken, you are making the allegation, I don’t need to prove it, you do.
Calling Mr. Taylor for making nebulous charges that meremy repeat talking points isn’t silly. Saying I am hacking him for calling him on it is.
Devil’s Advocate, you have never been here before, so you are deciding to attack based on one post. Fine. Let me explain this so you understand it. None, not one, of the people you mention have ever been quoted on this site. Either learn to read or find somewhere else to troll.
I guess you know you’ve hit a nerve when the left attacks.
By Sven, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 9:32 am
People, people. Claiming this Taylor guy as a champion only reinforces the notion that Bush’s audience screening was justified.
That said, I’ll side with Jim that the telephone tapping charge is substantive. I’d replace “right” with “Constitutional authority” and add “without a warrant.”
Are you denying he has asserted that authority, Gauis? How would you qualify that statement: “Bush asserts the Constitutional authority to tap Mr. Taylor’s telephone without a warrant.”
By cian, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 9:42 am
I’ve never ‘been in here before’ either so forgive me if I seem nervous. Here in the UK politicians are challanged by the public all the time. They deal with it, as do their supporters, and move on. In the America of today, speaking truth to power seems to set the bowties of Bush advocates spinning. Relax. Get used to it. Move on.
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 9:46 am
Sven, my position on the NSA program is the same as it has been all along:
Unless and until it is found to be illegal, as opposed to being alleged to be illegal, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the constitutional experts who have said it likely is legal.
And, quite frankly, if Mr. Taylor (or you) is saying that anyone has a right and expectation of privacy to carry on conversations with terrorists, you can’t honestly expect me to support that. If Mr. Taylor was talking to a known or suspected terrorist - I would want our government listening in.
Ok?
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 9:52 am
cian,
Please do look around a bit and don’t judge by one post.
If you do, you’ll find I am very hard on fact-free argument. Period. The reason you see more left-leaning people getting called on it is because most of the left-leaning argument is fact-free these days.
And I’m not actually a strong backer of Bush - which you should be able to figure out since I’m dead set against his immigration plan.
By R.Mutt, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 10:01 am
In response to Jim O’hara:
Gauis Arbo Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 8:00 am
…â€By the way, making sweeping generalities about “people like you†doesn’t exactly make you credible. 
In response to Tom:
Tom Says:
April 6th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Stupidity knows no bounds, except with the Dems & McKinney…
Gauis Arbo Says:
April 6th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
“As I like to say, never underestimate the power of human stupidity.â€
Practice what you preach Mr. Gauis Arbo? I guess sweeping generalizations are fine, as long as they are sweeping to left.
R.Mutt
By Rob, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 10:17 am
What Mr. Taylor stated was not without fact - For example, today in the New York Time, there’s an article about AG Gonzales congressional testimony:
Gonzales Suggests Legal Basis for Domestic Eavesdropping
WASHINGTON, April 6 — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales suggested on Thursday for the first time that the president might have the legal authority to order wiretapping without a warrant on communications between Americans that occur exclusively within the United States.
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/washington/07nsa.html?ei=5065&en=658b2f14a25cde82&ex=1145073600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
As for being arrested and held without charges, we have the case of Jose Padilla. No matter how reprehensible he may be, he is still an American Citizen and according our constitution, is entitled to due process.
So overall, I think it is incorrect to say Mr. Taylor’s comments are “fact free rehtoric.”
By ITSTHEFATSTHATAREBIASED, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 10:42 am
It’s getting media attention because much like the gated community of conservative blogs Bush has avoided addressing his critics and still does. See his talking point faux answer for details.
Speaking of Bush’s Answers, what did he have to say about the Plame Investigation on Sept. 30, 2003?
isten, I know of nobody — I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.
“‘Leaks of classified information are a bad thing,’’ Bush said then. “And we’ve had them — there’s too much leaking in Washington. That’s just the way it is. And we’ve had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I’ve spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.â€â€™
By the person my mom said I could be, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 10:45 am
You know, I must confess that I’m a little puzzled by the mad rush on the part of lefties to embrace Mr. Taylor. Its nice that he spoke his mind, sure. Its nice that Bush got to hear something different from someone other than the usual dittoheads and worshippers.
However, I listened to Harry Taylor speak and it was like watching a cliche come to life: A rambling listing of a series of issues (or talking points, if you prefer) spoken by a soft-spoken stereotypically over educated activist lefty.
And I would agree w/his criticisms of this administration, by the ways.
However, is it really in the self-interest of lefties to rally around those who end up reinforcing stereotypes? Don’t these stereotypes hurt the left? Wouldn’t a gruff straight talker who could cut to the chase (instead of throwing in everything but the kitchen sink) be preferable? Or maybe I’m just too PR centered.
Anyhow, just throwing that out to the folks coming in from Daou.
By Sven, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 10:55 am
I will give the benefit of the doubt to the constitutional experts who have said it likely is legal.
The consensus among those experts is that the program is constitutional as far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned, but that is illegal under FISA. Thus the scramble in Congress to amend FISA to retroactively make the program legal.
The adminstration fully admits that it broke a law that has been in place for nearly 30 years. It claims that Congress never had the authority to pass it in the first place, because it infringes on the president’s powers under Article II. But President Bush didn’t seek to have the law amended or stricken. The administration simply broke it, and asserts the authority to break any other law it deems in conflict with Article II.
if Mr. Taylor (or you) is saying that anyone has a right and expectation of privacy to carry on conversations with terrorists
That’s obnoxious (ironic, given your assessment of Taylor’s behavior) and hardly merits a response. But I’m game.
I claim no such right. I claim the right to be protected - through the authority invested in Congress under the Constitution and the rule of law - from excessive and arbitrary actions by the executive. The actions of rulers throughout history - and in this particular instance the actions of presidential use of surveillance programs for political purposes (FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and most of all Nixon) - give me good reason to fear such abuse.
This administration’s decision to ignore the rule of law by secretly and unilaterally shattering FISA gives me good reason to fear that it will also abuse it’s authority. That abuse may come in the form of overzealousness in pursuit of a suspected terrorist, or in the raw quest of some political goal. But it’s abuse, just the same, with the very high probability that it will be suffered by the innocent. Without the check of the warrant process provided by FISA there is nothing - NOTHING - preventing the administration from doing so.
You may have faith in the president to do the right thing. I don’t share that faith, in Mr. Bush or any other person who holds the power to take my liberty and/or my life.
By Randy Doak, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 11:22 am
Three cheers for Harry Taylor. His rant was no less substantive than the hours and hours of drivel we get from Bush. He speaks for a large and growing majority of Americans who wish this disease on the body politic named George W. Bush would just go away.
By Bob, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 11:27 am
Gauis,
It’s amusing to see you consider “most of the left-leaning argument is fact-free these days” but apparently it doesn’t upset you that we are a war in Iraq because the administration’s arguments for war were fact-free and that apparently Bush and Cheney are liars, leakers, or both (I’m thinking both).
As for facts, Ms. Sheehan was arrested and held with no legal justification when she tried to attend the State of the Union speech (which was also fact-free). That’s a fact and it’s free !
By DR, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 11:41 am
I am no fan of George Bush’s policies in general but I think that he handled this situation very well. It is nice to hear someone voicing the opinions of a large segment of the US population. You can disagree with Mr Taylor’s views but he does represent how many US citizens feel about the Bush administration. Bush did the right thing and allowed him to speak - kudos to GW. In these speaches the responses are always “talking points” and are items that we have all heard time and again. While Mr. Taylor didn’t back up anything with facts, these meetings are not the proper forum for such formalities. We all know Mr. Taylor’s arguments, why make him spell out each point.
The questions/comments posed by his usual audience are ridiculous “Thank god you are our president” “What can I do to support you” etc… The notion of Bush being “out of touch” with reality is only reinforced by his pre-screened audiences, frankly they make him seem like a coward.
I like Cian’s observation about politicians in the UK being challenged by the public - if only our politicians were held accountable by the public…
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 12:19 pm
Gee, I’m really honored that I apparently warrant a coordinated attack from the left.
Obscene comments were (and will continue to be) deleted. All comments are held for approval right now, even my regular commenters.
Bob, the capitol police also ejected the wife of one of the members of congress. They also apologized later to Sheehan.
I’m not sure why this mad leap to the defense of Taylor, either.
By Devil's Advocate, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 12:22 pm
Like the Fair and Balanced rightnutter that he is, our host has just deleted my responses to his posts, where I debunked at length his tripe about “fact-free comments coming from the left” …
Congratulations! Another right-wing coward who is too afraid to face the “facts” when they contradict his ideology.
Right-wing bloggers regularly delete posts that could possibly entice some of the readers to use their powers of reasoning. That is how insecure and afraid they are of the truth.
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 12:34 pm
Don’t flatter yourself, Dev, buddy. You probably got caught in the mass delete of a whole flock of stuff that is not fit to be on a blog that IS read by my 13 year old. Ok?
Keep it civil or take it elsewhere.
By Sven, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 12:44 pm
It’s an attack (knock it off, people - you’re proving the point about Taylor’s ranting) but it’s not coordinated. You were featured on the Daou Report, which is how I landed here.
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 12:48 pm
Yes, Sven I just posted a little something on the phenomenon. And, by the way, it’s more coordinated than you realize judging from some of the URL and ISP data.
But hey, I can handle it. I will continue to nuke the obscene ones and may yet block some URLs - consider yourself warned. Keep it clean.
By Craig, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 12:50 pm
So, what happened to my post debunking the author’s original article?
Was it intentionally censored, or a technical problem?
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 12:59 pm
I don’t have anything on hold. It may have been nuked in the mass dump of the obscene ones, but I can’t retrieve any of those.
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 1:01 pm
Rob,
Read the post I did on that article and see if you see the problem.
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 1:03 pm
Itsthe….,
Leaking information is business as usual. I did a post on that, too.
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 1:09 pm
Sven, it gets a bit hard to try to answer every one of these. No adminstration, Democrat or Republican has ever acknowledged any law passed by congress that seeks to limit presidential power.
I do not have sufficient facts to argue the legality - and neither do you. All there is is a lot of media reports and spin. I have said before, the matter is before the courts, let it be decided where it ought to be.
You say my last point was obnoxious, I don’t see it that way, but fine. Everything I have heard of the NSA program is that it was directed at terror suspects. If you have proof otherwise, I’d be willing to look.
By John Gillnitz, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 1:59 pm
Although I agree with Mr. Taylor I think the President did a good job in response. Those who think the wiretaping issue has been blown out of proportion might want to see this:
EFF’s Class-Action Lawsuit Against AT&T for Collaboration with Illegal Domestic Spying Program
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/
They aren’t just tapping Mr. Taylor’s neighbor’s phone, but everyone’s. If this technology was misused how would we know? Any evidence that it ever happened is called a mistake and any official record of it is destroyed as standard operating procedure.
By KEN YTUARTE, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 2:00 pm
WHAT IS NEWS IS THE RARITY OF THE PRESIDENT BEING EXPOSED TO AN AUDIENCE MEMBER WHO WAS NOT VETTED. WHAT OTHER PRESIDENT HAS TRAVELLED AROUND LIKE A DELICATE POODLE WHO CAN’T FACE THE OTHER DOGS. EMBARRASSING.
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 2:11 pm
Ken, please learn how to use the shift key. All caps is considered rude.
John, I had not heard of this lawsuit, but fine. Let the matter go to court and let facts come out. Allegations in a lawsuit are not necessarily facts, as I’m sure you are aware.
By Sven, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 2:29 pm
No adminstration, Democrat or Republican has ever acknowledged any law passed by congress that seeks to limit presidential power
There have been many attempts to buck congressional authority, but until now no administration has flatly refused to abide by the separation of powers when called into account.
It’s really not that complicated. Don’t forfeit your duty as a citizen to understand the debate to “the experts.” Lawyers are trained to argue anything in support of their interests. That’s their job, after all. The administration has thrown up a bunch of meaningless legal flak (like the claim that the program was authorized by the AUMF, which has been unceremoniously dropped because it was utter tripe) to distract from the core issue. Here’s the PowerPoint version of the debate:
- The administration believes its “inherent authority” to prosecute war under Article II trumps Congress’ authority Article I to regulate such prosecution.
- This contention is not new. Truman tried to push the envelope by seizing steel mills to settle labor disputes during the Korean War. The Supreme Court, in Youngstown v. Sawyer, found that when the executive’s inherent authority comes into conflict with Congress’ exclusive authority, the executive must yield.
In other words, the president has the inherent authority to act in a given area until Congress makes its intentions known. Justice Jackson, in one of the most widely known and enduring passages in the history of constitutional law, stated it thusly:
When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter.
This matter has been settled by Congress and the Court, and has been accepted as given since Justice Jackson wrote those famous words. It’s subject to revision, of course. But the administration knows it has a weak case and therefore chose to avoid the debate and the constitutional process and break the law - in all senses of the phrase.
Until it was exposed, that is. Now all the administration can do is throw epithets and use scare tactics. It lost even the weak legal argument it had when it decided to chuck the law out the window.
Which is why I called your last point obnoxious. You perfectly free to argue that the program is necessary and legal (for that matter, you’re free to say anything you like as far as I’m concerned). But the way you phrased it is of a piece with the spin that this is a debate about “protecting terrorists.” It goes to show how badly this administration and its unprincipled critics have degraded the discourse. Would you have dared accuse a fellow American of harboring that motivation five years ago?
I laid out the basic issue (I can go into greater detail and provide a cite for everything if you like). The Constitution is beautifully clear on this matter (I urge you to read Jackson’s opinion - it’s a masterpiece), so there’s no need to throw up your hands and avoid the discussion.
By Devil's Advocate, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 2:56 pm
What Bush did was not illegal.
It was sleazy, amoral, and unethical. What else is new?
As far as sleaze, amorality, and lack of ethics are concerned, the Republican pols are the gift that keeps on giving.
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 3:02 pm
Sven,
Long comments are so damned hard to answer. Look, you are citing case law. While that may (or may not) stand when this issue goes to court, you cannot judge it with the facts you have. You can argue all you want, but it really comes down to opinion. I have read other, equally well written opinions that come to the opposite conclusion. Let the court decide.
Devil, I don’t much care for any politicians of either party, so what’s your point?
By Devil's Advocate, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 3:03 pm
By the way, Craig! Gauis does delete the posts that debunk his tripe.
Since he asserts that most left-leaning arguments are factless, it must be the case that he believes the following (not necessarily in that order):
The fiscal deficit is a myth, Brownie did a heck of a job, BushCo does not torture, does not deprive prisoners of due process, does not engage in extraordinary renditions, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo do not exist, DHS Doyle is not a pedophile, DeLay is a saint, Haliburton has not been defrauding the U.S. taxpayer for the past three years, Rummy was right go to war on a shoestring budget, Condi’s mushroom cloud is hanging over my windows, WMDs have been discovered everywhere, our troops cannot deal with all the flowers and candies they are getting everyday…
Facts are very easy to ignore. just label them “left-leaning”, and they disappear. It’s the miracle of Kool-Aid!
I am sure I m going to be “purged” again. For contradicting and mocking Gauis the Great One. That’s what he calls “obscene”.
By John Gillnitz, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 3:11 pm
Gauis Arbo Says:
“John, I had not heard of this lawsuit, but fine. Let the matter go to court and let facts come out.”
I would love for the facts to come out in court. At present it is the court that is keeping the facts hidden. I can’t help but suspect that the Administration is abusing its national security authority to cover up mistakes. That seems to be what happened in the Sibel Edmonds case.
http://www.justacitizen.com/
By simon, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 3:12 pm
No adminstration, Democrat or Republican has ever acknowledged any law passed by congress that seeks to limit presidential power.
That speaks directly to a President’s wartime authority, which is a very murky area. But its quite clear that in the constitution that the president does not hold all the keys during times of war. He has broad power during war, but there is no doubt a limit to that power. And I think everybody in the country would agree that a president has limits on his power during war.
I do not have sufficient facts to argue the legality - and neither do you. All there is is a lot of media reports and spin. I have said before, the matter is before the courts, let it be decided where it ought to be.
To the contrary, there are plenty of reasons why the the program is illegal. You have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. And FISA provides restraints for which the government may tap your phone. The existence of the law is of fundamental importance - it defines the limits the federal government may use to “search you” in constitutional terms.
Now the key here is that the president is the executive branch. In other words, he is the executor, the implementor of that law. If he goes beyond the boundaries of that law, then he has usurped power that he does not have (which is expressly delegated to the legislative branch) by expanding the law beyond what legislature gave him. Thus, he has violated the balance of powers, one of the core fundamentals of the constitution.
His wartime arguments might have some merits, but the problem is the existence of a statute directly on point makes his arguments very, very weak. This is why most constitutional scholars agree that the program is most likely illegal.
So I pose this hypothetical, assume Bill Clinton was president at the time of 9/11 and he created the program. Would you want Bill/Hillary saying they have power to circumvent the legislation and also they have the power to eavesdrop on your phone calls and read your email, especially during campaign season when they might accidentally tap the phone of the competition?
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 3:28 pm
Dev,
Just Gaius will do nicely, thanks for the promotion, though. If your comment got nuked it a) contained an obscenity or b) got caught in the mass purge of the obscene ones accidently.
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 3:32 pm
simon,
Key word is unreasonable. The constitution is not a suicide pact. If you’re plotting acts of terror do you reasonably have an expectation of privacy?
Let the courts rule on these things.
John, I have no opinion on that case as I have not heard of it. I’ll try to take a look when I have time, but it’s kind of off topic, isn’t it?
By Sven, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 3:42 pm
Ok, short and sour. The question of what Bush’s warrantless wiretap program portends and how it figures into the separation of powers is complicated. This will indeed be settled in court. Thank God for the New York Times.
The question of whether the separation of powers exists at all is not complicated. Bush & Co. don’t believe it does, because unlike all past administrations they attempted to secretly aggregate all power to themselves.
The latter is not a matter of opinion, if you believe in the American system of government. Do you?
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 3:56 pm
Sven,
You have reached a conclusion, I don’t agree with it. I do not see it the same way you do. And I think I can see why. You believe the NYT and accept them as gospel.
I don’t. I don’t believe a lot of what the media puts out. If you’ve looked at this blog there are numerous posts catching distortions, misleading reporting and outright lies coming from the NYT and media in general.
I submit that you would not get the NYT articles admitted into court.
By Robert, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 4:04 pm
This may be a bit off subject, but i’ve heard people say the NYT article on NSA puts the US in jeopardy.
I can’t see it. Are these people saying that someone in the Justice Dept. is leaking to our enemies those that the Justice Dept. has warrants on?
If that’s the case, the NYT article is the least of our problems.
I’d love for someone to help clarify this.
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 4:09 pm
Robert,
Some people have pointed out that leaking information on what NSA is capable of doing may make terrorists switch to other means of communication.
By Robert, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 4:13 pm
Thanks Gauis.
I can’t believe they didn’t think we were tapping their calls.
Who knows, maybe they’re not as smart as I thought they were.
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 4:21 pm
Well, the story is that Osama was using a satellite phone until the media published that we could intercept them. So there is a point at which people don’t understand the technology enough to know what to be afraid of.
By Sven, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 4:37 pm
You believe the NYT and accept them as gospel.
I’m sorry, but that assertion is incredibly witless. The only relevance of the NYT to my last comment is that the secret attempt to subvert the rule of law was revealed. The fact that the program was kept secret and that it was revealed by the NYT - which is the only reason the courts will be involved - is incontrovertible. I didn’t say anything about the content of the NYT’s reporting for you to conclude that I hold it as “gospel.”
I do not see it the same way you do.
That’s a rather ironic understatement. You haven’t even attempted to justify your statement that the administration did not break the law, or made any kind of argument at all. You claim to have read “other, equally well written opinions,” yet you refuse to say which and how they relate to this one-sided “discussion.”
I’ve attempted to engage you on every level about this issue, and all you’ve responded with are evasions, shrugs and, yes, talking points. “The constitution is not a suicide pact.” How quaint.
Less than impressive, indeed.
By Jimmy, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 4:38 pm
Just clap louder … all is well .. GOD SAVE THE KING!!!
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 4:48 pm
Sven,
It’s less than impressive to keep trying to argue a point I told you I did not have the facts to argue.
Saying I stated that the adminsitration did not break the law is atributing to me something I did not say. I said I did not have the facts. Nor do you.
You are getting the points you are arguing from media sources, that’s obvious. You also seem willing to ignore the fact that the gang of eight was briefed and did not object.
Indeed.
By Sven, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 5:00 pm
This is what you said: “I will give the benefit of the doubt to the constitutional experts who have said it likely is legal.” How does that square with your new claim that you can’t reach a conclusion without benefit of the facts.
the gang of eight was briefed and did not object
Another talking point. But I’ll take what I can get. Are you certain they didn’t object? What form would that objection have taken?
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 5:04 pm
Sven,
Benefit of the doubt is not the same as saying it is legal, is it? I have said - ever since I started this blog, that I would reserve judgement until the courts have ruled. I have not changed that position.
Not a talking point. They are still not saying anything. Other pols are but not them. Why?
By Sven, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 5:40 pm
Benefit of the doubt is not the same as saying it is legal, is it?
That’s a pretty, um, liberal definition of “benefit of the doubt.” If I say, “I don’t need to read the contract before I sign it; I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt,” I’m drawing a conclusion that the contract is acceptable to me. Likewise, you said you read constitutional experts who conclude the program is “likely legal.” Yes, there’s a weak qualifier in there, but that is an affirmative statement.
They are still not saying anything.
Really? Anything?
Let’s take Pat Roberts - the most craven of this gang of eight and the most sympathetic to the administration? Why did call for a new legislation governing the program after it was revealed? If the program is legal under FISA, what need is there for new legislation?
Why?
Perhaps because politicians are afraid they won’t get re-elected with the president, “journalists” on the right and people like you calling them terrorist symps 24/7?
More seriously, this question was answered at length by Justice Jackson. An excerpt:
“Executive power has the advantage of concentration in a single head in whose choice the whole Nation has a part, making him the focus of public hopes and expectations. In drama, magnitude and finality his decisions so far overshadow any others that almost alone he fills the public eye and ear. No other personality in public life can begin to compete with him in access to the public mind through modern methods of communications. By his prestige as head of state and his influence upon public opinion he exerts a leverage upon those who are supposed to check and balance his power which often cancels their effectiveness.
Moreover, rise of the party system has made a significant extraconstitutional supplement to real executive power. No appraisal of his necessities is realistic which overlooks that he heads a political system as well as a legal system. Party loyalties and interests, sometimes more binding than law, extend his effective control into branches of government other than his own and he often may win, as a political leader, what he cannot command under the Constitution.
Indeed, Woodrow Wilson, commenting on the President as leader both of his party and of the Nation, observed, ‘If he rightly interpret the national thought and boldly insist upon it, he is irresistible . . . . His office is anything he has the sagacity and force to make it.’ I cannot be brought to believe that this country will suffer if the Court refuses further to aggrandize the presidential office, already so potent and so relatively immune from judicial review, at the expense of Congress…
…We may say that power to legislate for emergencies belongs in the hands of Congress, but only Congress itself can prevent power from slipping through its fingers.”
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 5:49 pm
Lawyer, Sven?
Maybe in the legal profession you have a set definition of benefit of the doubt. In other places it can mean “I don’t have enough facts to contradict this.”
I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
Let’s drop this, shall we? You are arguing points I have told you I could not, then getting upset when I don’t argue. It’s going in circles.
By Sven, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 6:27 pm
I get upset because, as demonstrated by the excerpt I just posted, the only real and effective defense against tyranny - from this and/or future administrations - is an informed citizenry. No, I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve made the effort to acquaint myself with the fundamentals of law so I can at least recognize when its foundation is under threat. You refuse to learn enough to even make an argument. That doesn’t make me angry; it makes me deeply sad.
You obviously believe this surveillance program is somehow very important to national security, yet you defer any judgement about its legitimacy and effectiveness to others. Obviously, you don’t have to agree with me about anything. But you should at least understand why you disagree.
For my part, I’ve failed to get across the fundamental point that the concerns I’ve outlined don’t just relate to wiretapping. They relate to everything the government does.
Note that the Youngstown check on executive power was made in the midst of a war and existential fears about the Soviet threat. At the risk of violating Godwin’s Law, I’ll leave you with this last excerpt:
“The President of the Republic, without concurrence of the Reichstag, was empowered temporarily to suspend any or all individual rights if public safety and order were seriously disturbed or endangered. This proved a temptation to every government, whatever its shade of opinion, and in 13 years suspension of rights was invoked on more than 250 occasions.”
You know what happened next, don’t you?
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 7 April , 2006 @ 7:00 pm
Look, Sven. I appreciate that you have kept it fairly civil (at least fairly low snark level). You’re still seeing my failure to argue this with you and address each of your points as my failing somehow. But I reiterate, I do not have the facts to argue with.
We likely come from different starting points on this issue. It makes it hard to connect sometimes.
Let me try to put it another way.
If you were to write about a private citizen (not the president) and charge that he had definitely broken the law with the proof you have offered you could be dragged into court. You would very likely (actually almost certainly) lose, because you have no proof, really, only opinion.
Some of the less civil people to comment today have basically made my original point - repeating things you have read somewhere else is not challenging, it’s just echoing. You have tried to engage a bit differently, yet you will not accept that I do not have enough fact to argue the points this way. I am waiting on the court cases because I frankly don’t believe the media gets it right even a small percentage of the time these days.
Have you looked around here at all, or just stuck to this comment thread? National Journal linked one of my posts and concluded I was a lefty. People here decided I was a right winger.
ANd you did hit Godwin’s law! (oblique references count).
But I don’t think you did it spitefully.
By John Gillnitz, Saturday, 8 April , 2006 @ 12:39 am
“John, I have no opinion on that case as I have not heard of it. I’ll try to take a look when I have time, but it’s kind of off topic, isn’t it?”
Yes, I’m guilty of topic drift. My apologies.
To get back on topic I suspect Taylor was a plant just like all the others. If I had the chance to ask GWB a question it would be “What did you and Jim Bath do to lose your flight status while you were in the national guard?” For some reason the Rev. Horton Heat song “Bails of Cocain” comes to mind.
“I hope your are ashamed,” is not a question any serious person would ask. We know he isn’t.
By Ron A. Zajac, Saturday, 8 April , 2006 @ 3:03 am
One measure of the “nebulosity” of Taylor’s comments is the ease with which Bush retorts.
How easy? Frankly, his response should be seen as a little too easy for the comfort of Bush supporters, as in; lying is easy and telling the truth is hard. The point is that FISA provided for legal review of an effective surveilance program, which Bush and his cohorts admit he skirted (is still skirting as we speak?). So Bush’s retort that his program is “reviewed” is a lie. Perhaps there is some kind of internal reviewing mechanism to which Bush is alluding, but it’s not within legitimate constitutional constraints; in this case, via FISA.
My point is that Bush’s answer includes references to the Constitution and “review,” and as such is a lame attempt to whitewash over a story the contours of which are becoming more apparent to average Americans. I say, check and mate. Of course, this could say more about Bush’s intellectual capacity than Taylor’s trenchancy; but the end product indicates that someone said something substantive. No blog-driven snowjob can drown that out.
By Tim O., Saturday, 8 April , 2006 @ 10:15 am
I didn’t read all of the responses so I don’t know if anyone brought it up, but Cindy Sheehan was arrested when she was invited to the State of the Union Address.
Three people in Colorado were arrested before a Bush Campaign stop, because they had no blood for oil bumperstickers.
By Gauis Arbo, Saturday, 8 April , 2006 @ 10:17 am
It was brought up, as was the later apology.
By matt, Saturday, 8 April , 2006 @ 9:38 pm
Vague talking points, LOL. Bush is incapable of anything else himself.
By Gauis Arbo, Saturday, 8 April , 2006 @ 10:00 pm
No, Matt, he actually isn’t bad speaking off the cuff. Instead of reading about it, watch a video of him.
By Jim O'Hara, Sunday, 9 April , 2006 @ 7:39 am
Gauis, why did US District Judge James Robertson resign from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court?
Why in the spring of 2004 did then Attorney General John Ashcroft refuse to give the OK to warrantless wiretapping? Did the Administration begin wiretapping without the Attorney General’s consent? What is your judgement on that action?
Why during the Gonzales confirmation hearings did Gonzales dismiss as an impossible hypothetical the legality of the administration being able to wiretap without a warrant? Did he say that should anything like that occur that he would let congress know?
What are your thoughts on the recent EFF lawsuit that charges that AT&T is redirecting all of its internet traffic to the NSA so it can be scrubbed? If the charges are true, do you think that violates the spirit of the fourth amendment? If not, what does “probable cause” mean to you Gauis?
Jim
By Gauis Arbo, Sunday, 9 April , 2006 @ 8:18 am
You’d have to ask the judge, he hasn’t told me.
If I read the report properly, Ashcroft wanted changes made. They were and he did sign off.
I am not familiar with what Gonzales said during the confirmation hearings, so I can’t answer that.
What I have read of the EFF lawsuit so far is a lot of speculative legalese. But, let’s just see how it does in court.
By Greengiant, Sunday, 9 April , 2006 @ 9:53 am
I’d like to add a small but important point to the Gauis/Sven debate:
The president “broke” the FISA law secretly. Noone who knew of the program had any authority to inform ANYONE of its existance. We were never supposed to find out about this. Acccording to many reports the Justice Department is actively pursuing a leak case on the issue.(Irony..yes..but beside the point)
Which askes the question, what OTHER laws does the president have the right to secretly “break”?
Particularly distressing was AG Gonzales refusal to preclude laws preventing the CIA, FBI, NSA from influencing American elections from being secretly “broken”
Put another way,
What guarantee do we have that a president CANNOT order the subversion of american elections, by way of secretly declaring congressional laws prohibiting such activity unconstitutional?
AG Gonzalez was asked this VERY question before congress. We’re still awaiting an answer.
By Gauis Arbo, Sunday, 9 April , 2006 @ 10:25 am
Well, you’re convinced a law was broken, I am not yet. So we’re kind of far apart on this issue.
Assume a law was not broken for a moment. Then the leaker divulged national intelligence gathering technology secrets. That would be a bad thing, yes?
I’m not sure why you’ve brought elections into this, so let’snot veer off onto a tangent.
By Jim O'Hara, Sunday, 9 April , 2006 @ 1:05 pm
Is running a meth lab unpatriotic? A terrorist activity? If no, then what is your opinion of the “Patriot Act” restricting how much over the counter cough medicine you can purchase? How does this commerce restriction aid the war on terror? I’m trying to feel out if you will acknowledge civil liberties infringements by this administration, or just defend the indefensible ala “Thank You for Smoking.”
Jim
By Gauis Arbo, Sunday, 9 April , 2006 @ 4:49 pm
I don’t agree with the habit Congress has of stuffing bits and pieces of things together into whatever bill happens to be handy. The meth lab stuff should not have been pushed in to the legislation. Out of curiousity, anyone know who inserted it there?
By Greengiant, Sunday, 9 April , 2006 @ 6:18 pm
WARNING!
–This post has been deleted because the server does not allow dissenting views.–
By Gauis Arbo, Sunday, 9 April , 2006 @ 6:22 pm
Geen, me lad, I did a mass delete - which I explained. Everyone, pro or con got nuked.
By Greengiant, Monday, 10 April , 2006 @ 11:37 am
Yes you explained all about your mass delete on April 7th.
Which doesn’t explain away the deletion of my April 9th post.
Unless you are making a habit off mass-deleting your comments that is.
By Gauis Arbo, Monday, 10 April , 2006 @ 11:43 am
No, I explained it here
http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/04/09/washington-post-gets-it-right/
Everything got cleaned out. Pro or con.
But why in the world would you assume I have to publish your comment?
By Greengiant, Tuesday, 11 April , 2006 @ 3:07 pm
Fair enough.
I suppose I am just used to being deleted and/or banned for leaving comments at various places. Not for being obsene, name-calling, or acts or trolling, but for posting well-reasoned factual posts that express the wrong viewpoint.
If that is not the case, I sincerely apoligize for insinuating otherwise.
As far as HAVING to allow a comment, you certainly don’t. Many, many political sites allow no dissenting viewpints, of this I can assure you. Once you respond to a comment, however, you do have an obligation to not disallow a response. Which apparently isn’t the case here.
By Gauis Arbo, Tuesday, 11 April , 2006 @ 3:12 pm
Well, I don’t necessarily agree that I have to allow further comments if I allow one, but let that pass.
There were some people who were unbelievable the other day. I mean really bad. The blanket purge was the easiest thing to do, since I tried to do it selectively the first time and apparently nuked some people’s comments that they felt I shouldn’t have. And I’ll do it again if people hit me with that kind of stuff.