Cynthia McKinney To Be Arrested?

Via the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

Capitol Hill police are expected to seek an arrest warrant next week for Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, who was involved in a physical confrontation with a Capitol police officer Wednesday, police and legal authorities said Thursday.Officially, the investigation of the incident, in which the DeKalb County Democrat allegedly struck a police officer who tried to stop her from going around a security checkpoint, is ongoing, said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, spokeswoman for Capitol Hill police.However, police have notified the federal prosecutor’s office in Washington that they will be seeking an arrest warrant after the investigation is complete next week, said police and legal authorities, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because the investigation was not yet complete.

They should throw her in the loony bin, rather then in the pokey. For a long, long time.

Previously: Impeach Cynthia McKinney.

Hah! Checked the DUmmies. While some seem to be grounded in reality (that’s a scary thought!) and understand that Cynthia did wrong, a few are going a bit loopy:

  • This will just make the cops look like idiots. Both sides need to get over themselves and reconcile. (hiting a police officer is a felony, you moron!)
  • I couldn’t agree more. I just can’t believe that this can’t be settled without arresting her. (again, hitting a police officer is a felony)
  • What’s being “settled” is a Democratic congressman’s arrest.  The RW needs so very badly to have someone, anyone, under threat of going to the pokey to mitigate their horrorshow with Delay and god knows who else as Jack ‘mOff continues to sing.Was this a setup from the beginning? Probably not, but I don’t think it’s just good fortune for the Goopers that Cynthia’s actually facing charges over this.
  • Let me be the first to say “FREE CYNTHIA MCKINNEY!”  I prolly not the first but… FREE CYNTHIA anyway!

Let me be fair: here is a voice of “sanity” at the DU

  • She allegedly hit a police officer I know many here hate the cops, but you still don’t hit them when they are doing their job. She released a statement saying she regrets the incident occurred, which seems to me like she is admitting to hitting the cop.

Updated: Over at Decision ’08, they link to an article from USA Today:

A lawyer for Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the Georgia congresswoman who had an altercation with a Capitol Police officer, says she was “just a victim of being in Congress while black.”

I echo Decision ’08′s statement ”That’s a most offensive (and quite racist) attitude…”

Oh, and:

Actor, Danny Glover was expected to appear at an early-evening news conference Friday with McKinney at Howard University.

That gave Republicans material to keep the criticism flowing.

“Rep. McKinney appearing with the star of ‘Lethal Weapon’? Not exactly the message you want to be sending,” said Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

Guffaw!

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  • Michelle Malkin (March 31, 2006)
    MCKINNEY'S GOING TO JAIL... So says Pirate's Cove, quoting the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.......
  • Super Fun Power Hour (March 31, 2006)
    Free Cynthia!... Allah, covering for Michelle Malkin points to a Pirate's Cove catch detailing the possibility of an arrest warrant being sought against Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D - Dojo) for her assault of a police officer the other day. Coming soon to Cafe Press: ...
  • FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog (March 31, 2006)
    Representative Cynthia McKinney Watch: Going to Jail?... From the Pirates Cove (via Michelle Malkin): Cynthia McKinney To Be Arrested? Capitol Hill police are expected to seek an arrest warrant next week for Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, who was involved in a physical confrontation with a Capitol polic...
  • Sister Toldjah (March 31, 2006)
    Arrest warrant in the works for McKinney?... Via the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: WASHINGTON — Capitol Hill police are expected to seek an arrest warrant next week for Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, who was involved in a physical confrontation with a Capitol police officer Wednesday, poli...

43 Comments

Comment by t
2006-03-31 09:40:46

If he hadn’t grabbed her, she wouldn’t have hit him. They should be embarrassed that they keep stopping a member of Congress from doing her work because they can’t “recognize” her. I’m sure Bill Frist never gets hassled for coming to work.

 
Comment by Chief RZ
2006-03-31 09:44:23

It is about time that certain people found out that laws are for everyone. The Truth: In our state of SC, a similar-type person locked herself in her car after being stopped for 80 in a 55. She, at the time, was the D-highway commission chair(wo)man. We now have a Republican-controlled legislature.
Laws are for everyone.

 
Comment by C Diddy
2006-03-31 09:52:48

McKinney is such an embarrassment to the greater Atlanta metro area. ATL woke up and booted her out last time. Hopefully the district will come around again and at least elect a liberal who won’t assault an officer.

 
Comment by Chief RZ
2006-03-31 09:53:53

t– She should have stopped when asked. She should have displayed her issued pin. She should have produced ID when asked. When I go on and off base(es), sometimes after three months with the same guard, he, or she recognizes me by personal recognition. There is no requirement for this. There should be a 100% ID check at these secure places. Ever go to the pentagon, even for a visit? Laws, rules and regulations are for everyone.
The Truth: We visited a state prison this week. Even the guards who the screener recognized and has worked there for over 10 years had to take off his shoes, belt and go through the metal-detector. That is protocol. What is not to understand except some “prima-donna” trying to make an un-necessary smear on another person doing their job. Reminds me of Adam Clayton Powell and Rangel.
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/military-draft.html

 
Comment by CDB
2006-03-31 10:22:37

If she would just wipe her ass with the Constitution, you all would be defending her.

 
Comment by Chief RZ
2006-03-31 10:31:01

CDB — Don’t be so crass. Her electorate may mirror her behavior, just like Powell’s, Rangel’s, and Jenrette’s. If they re-elect her, she has the constitutional right to represent them. She must, however follow the rules and regulations that everyone else does.

 
Comment by D-Hoggs
2006-03-31 11:16:44

T-

That is an absolutely rediculous defense. NObody was stopping her from doing her work. It would have taken her the same amount of time to actually stop and show her ID when ASKED TO, as it did for her to try to argue her way around the metal detectors and guards. Have you ever been into the Capitol Building? I have, have worked there for years, and there are thousands of people going through those doors a day. You expect the guards there to recognize the face of every person that works there? That is ludicrous, and its not their job. It IS however McKinney’s job to wear her Congressional pin as is required, yet she refuses to do so. Bill Frist doesn’t get hassled because he abides by the rules of security at the Capitol building, and to be honest, because he isn’t a nobody like McKinney. I’m sure the fact that she has hassled the Capitol Police several times before doesn’t help her case at all.

 
Comment by Colin
2006-03-31 11:16:58

Perhaps CDB was too subtle?

George is under investigation right now for grossly violating the 4th Amendment by authorizing his illegal NSA wiretapping program. He is also apparently violating federal law.

I admit I haven’t searched your blog, but I’m going to guess that you’re looking the other way when Bush does not “follow the rules and regulations that everyone else does.”

 
Comment by William Teach
2006-03-31 12:16:07

Not sure what that has to do with the story at hand, Colin.

 
Comment by Colin
2006-03-31 12:28:33

Yes, my comment was off-topic. I was just wondering out loud if you are as eager to see Bush arrested for repeatedly violating FISA (and the 4th Amendment) as you are to see McKinney arrested for shoving a rent-a-cop.

Because someone 100% committed to the rule of law would surely feel it applies to the president as well as members of Congress.

 
Comment by William Teach
2006-03-31 12:56:03

Unfortunately, Colin, even FISA court judges say that the terrorist surveillence program was Constitutional, and, Congress cannot pass any laws that override the Presidents Constitutional authority. Besides, why would you assign AMerican Rights to foreign terrorists?

 
Comment by Steve
2006-03-31 13:06:45

Colon . . . Take a deep breath and go read the actual testimony of the federal judges to the Senate Judiciary Committee the other day. They all agreed that the President was within his constitutional authority — the words “necessary and proper” should sound familiar — to conduct the NSA wiretapping program. In other words, it is entirely lawful.

Now take another deep breath and point out the provision of the Constitution that permits a member of Congress to go bonkers, and even commit an assault and battery on a policeman acting in the course of his duty?

Here’s a hint. There is no “Speech and Debacle” clause.

 
Comment by Colin
2006-03-31 13:35:43

William Teach & Steve:

Perhaps one of you could provide a link where FISA judges said the “terrorist surveillance program” was constitutional. They said no such thing. In fact, from the testimony:
“we will not be testifying today with regard to the present program implemented by President Bush”
That seems pretty clear to me. Unless you have a link indicating otherwise, I’ll assume you’ve been misinformed.

The Constitution does not give the president the power to determine if a law is constitutional or not. If George felt FISA was unconstitutional he should have asked Congress to change it, or asked the Supreme Court to rule on its constitutionality. He does not get to simply ignore laws that he asserts are unconstitutional.

I didn’t say anything about “terrorists’” rights under the Constitution, because they have nothing to do with whether George broke the law or not. The administration has admitted that purely domestic communciations have been intercepted, and these types of communication are regulated by FISA. It doesn’t matter if George thinks it’s domestic “terrorist” communcation or not.

I have no idea what you mean by “Speech and Debacle.” clause, and I never suggested that assaulting the Capitol rent-a-cop was constitutional.

 
Comment by D-Hoggs
2006-03-31 13:36:58

Colin, you need to chaeck your facts concerning FISA and wiretapping. Though your comment comparing Capital Police to rent-a-cops exposes your total ignorance. You have no clue the level of training that Capital Police go through. It is way more than a cop in any city in the U.S. and akin to FBI, US Marshall training.

 
Comment by Rhymes With Right
2006-03-31 13:39:15

I just wonder if Colin has reade the decisions in the Truong case and in I Re. Sealed Case (the latter decided under FISA by the FISA Court of Review) which indicate that the President has constitutional authority to conduct foreign intelligence surveilance against Americans — and that Congress therefore cannot pass a statutory limitation on that Constitutional power.

 
Comment by Colin
2006-03-31 14:19:56

Rhymes w/ Right,

The Truong case was decided before FISA was passed, so I question its relevance to the current situation re: spying on Americans w/o a warrant. If Truong invalidated the FISA surely someone would have pointed it out when FISA was being debated and signed into law.

In re: Sealed Case mentions that courts have determined that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless surveillance. But it does not say the president retains that power once Congress passes a law (FISA) that explicitly states a warrant is required.

“Inherent authority” means that the president does not need Congress to pass a law granting him a power. It does not mean that Congress cannot pass a law restricting that power. That is exactly what they did when they passed FISA: required that all domestic surveillance requires a warrant.

If Bush felt that FISA was unconstitutional he should have asked Congress to amend it, or asked the Supreme Court to review it. He’d be the first to think so, tho, since it has been unchallenged for almost 30 years.

 
Comment by Colin
2006-03-31 14:23:12

D-Hoggs,

My opinion of the Capitol Police really has no bearing on my understanding of the FISA law and how the president has violated it.

If they are so well trained them I’m sure they had no problem defending themselves from the crazy, deranged, Rep. McKinney.

 
Comment by D-Hoggs
2006-03-31 14:36:31

Colin, you are correct, your opinion of the Capitol Police does not have a bearing on your understanding of FISA law, it does however have a very large corellation to your unwillingnes to engage HONESTLY in this conversation.

 
Comment by Colin
2006-03-31 15:01:19

D-Hoggs,

You shouldn’t call me a liar without pointing out what I’ve said that is false. That would be like me calling you a “dumbass” without providing any evidence.

 
Comment by Steve
2006-03-31 15:21:35

Colon,

Folks like you seem to want to believe that the NSA program was somehow unlawful, which then impels you to ignore the obvious to bolster your partisan desires, so “devoutly to be wished.” Facts should not be unworthy of your consideration. So, let’s take one more try.

Here is a portion of a colloquy on the general issue of the President’s authority vis-a-vis the claim by some that FISA preempts the area, quoted by John Hindraker in a Powerline post looking at the actual testimony of the federal judges.

“Judge Stafford: Everyone is bound by the law, but I do not believe, with all due respect, that even an act of Congress can limit the President’s power under the Necessary and Proper Clause under the Constitution.

***

Chairman Specter: I think the thrust of what you are saying is the President is bound by statute like everyone else unless it impinges on his constitutional authority, and a statute cannot take away the President’s constitutional authority. Anybody disagree with that?

[No response.]

Chairman Specter: Everybody agrees with that.”

And here is a further statement with citations from the testimony, this time pointed out by Scott, also on Powerline:

“Following Senator Dubin’s questions, Senator Hatch then pursued a series of hypothetical questions that he posed to Judge Kornblum regarding the admissibility in criminal trials of evidence obtained indirectly from the NSA surveillance program:

Judge Kornblum: To be admissible, the evidence would have had to have been lawfully seized or lawfully obtained and the standard that the district judge would use is that, depending upon where this is, is the law in his circuit. In most of the circuits, the law is clear that the President has the authority to do warrantless surveillance if it is to collect foreign intelligence and it is targeting foreign powers or agents. If the facts support that, then the district judge could make that finding and admit the evidence, just as they did in Truong-Humphrey.

(Emphasis added.) Judge Kornblum’s reference to Truong-Humphrey is to the federal appellate cases that acknowledge president’s inherent authority to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance . . .”

Go to Powerline and read the full posts. And while you’re at it, Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters has posted a pretty thorough analysis based on what those judges testified as well.

I think you will acknowledge that Cynthia McKinney inexcusably assaulted a capitol guard performing his sworn duty, no?

George Bush utilized his inherent Presidential authority under the Constitution to conduct an intelligence gathering operation to protect the nation from terrorists.

My question to you is, do you realize how ridiculous you sound suggesting that these things are similar?

Regarding your comments, my phrase “Speech and Debacle” Clause was sarcasm, a play on the “Speech & Debate” clause. My point was that she has no constitutional defense to going postal and physically attacking the guard — she would to making patently outrageous comments, of which in her case, the record is replete.

And by the way, In Re Sealed Case was decided by the appeals level FISA court.

And finally, your comment that the President “should have asked the Supreme Court to review it,” shows your lack of knowledge of the scope of jurisdiction of the Court under Article III. The federal courts, including the Supreme Court, only resolve issues where there is a “case in contorversy.” They do not render advisory opinions.

 
Comment by nocoen
2006-03-31 15:32:14

For you idiots who are attacking the cops for not recognizing her…Cyndi refuses to wear a pin that most others in Congress wear that identifies them as Congresscritters. I personally think that she refuses to where this ID so that she can increase the chances of having an incident occur like what has just happened.

She deserves all of the negative publicity that this will deliver to her doorstep. It is her freedom to choose. With every choice, there comes consequences…oh, I forgot, libs can’t deal with that paradigm.

 
Comment by Chief RZ
2006-03-31 16:10:08

nocoen– Excellent observation. For every action, there is a reaction. Some may be planned, some not. I have learned that many people are very deceptive and dishonest.

 
Comment by Colin
2006-03-31 16:20:48

Steve,

From your post:
Judge Kornblum: To be admissible, the evidence would have had to have been lawfully seized or lawfully obtained and the standard that the district judge would use is that, depending upon where this is, is the law in his circuit. In most of the circuits, the law is clear that the President has the authority to do warrantless surveillance if it is to collect foreign intelligence and it is targeting foreign powers or agents. If the facts support that, then the district judge could make that finding and admit the evidence, just as they did in Truong-Humphrey.

The administration has admitted that it has performed purely domestic surveillance of American citizens. In this quote Kornblum is quite clearly discussing the president’s inherent authority to perform warrantless surveillance when targetting “foreign powers or agents.” The surveillance of American citizens in America is covered by the 4th Amendment, and as clearly stated in the FISA statute, requires a warrant.

Let me repeat myself: “inherent authority” means that the president has the right to exercise a power without Congress first passing a law permitting it. It does not mean that Congress CANNOT pass a law restricting this authority. FISA explicitly limits the president’s authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant. In fact, it criminalizes this behavior.

Why has Specter proposed amending FISA to accomodate George’s spying program if he already has the legal authority to do it? Wouldn’t that be a waste Congress’s time?

If the president’s authority to break the FISA law is so clear cut, why not allow an investigation into the program? The GOP has prevented every effort to do that. Why not let the Democrats embarass themselves with an investigation that would prove George can spy on whomever he pleases? Another chance to show that “Democrat == Terrorist” wasted!

You’re right, the administration cannot simply ask the Supreme Court to review FISA’s constitutionality. Given that, George should have asked Congress to amend it to make his warrantless surveillance legal, instead of simply breaking the law.

You are assuming that McKinney broke the law and Bush did not. However neither investigation is complete, so either or both of them might yet be convicted. My original post simply pointed out that Teach seemed very excited that McKinney might be arrested, but did not seem that interested that the president could be arrested, too. I’m not equating the two. In fact, if you’ve been paying attention, I obviously think the president’s lawbreaking is much more important.

Finally, you’ve misspelled my name again, Steve. Are you incompetent, or are you trying to be funny? I gave you the benefit of the doubt the first time (incompetence), but now I believe you think it’s clever. I’m sure every second-grader who reads this blog will find it hilarious.

 
Comment by William Teach
2006-03-31 17:18:07

FYI, Colin. Spam Karma is automatically catching some of your posts, whcih go in to a moderation que, which I can only check every so often. I am not doing anything to them. A little proactive 411.

 
Comment by Tim Burton
2006-03-31 18:23:39

Colin,

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the tapping of terrorist phone lines in the US does not violate the 4th Amendment.

1. The key word in the 4th Amendment is “unreasonable”, it is 100% reasonable to search a terrorist’s phone line.

2. Washington was 100% supportive of domestic spying with regards to the enemy. Case in point: Culpepper Ring

3. Domestic spying in war time is the norm, for both Democratic and Republican Presidents. Case in point:

A. W. Wilson read every telegraph message going in and out of country during WWI.

B. FDR did domestic spying on numerous people including Germans, Italians and Japanese (in fact more whites were imprisoned than Japanese).

 
Comment by Colin
2006-03-31 19:14:55

Tim,

I believe that the president should be eavesdropping on terrorists. But I also believe the president is obligated to obey the law, just like the rest of us. The point I’m trying to make it that, to me and many others (including conservatives such as Bob Barr), it’s pretty clear that the president has violated FISA, repeatedly, by authorizing warrantless surveillance of American citizens in the United States.

Woodrow Wilson and FDR’s wiretapping is irrelevant to this discussion, as it occurred prior to the passage of FISA. I’ve never heard of the Culpepper Ring so I won’t comment on that.

wmteach,

Yes I thought it was the spam filter. I can understand why you have one, but it’s killing the conversation!

 
Comment by William Teach
2006-03-31 20:14:32

Why would the President need a warrant to preform electronic surveillence on people who are not even US citizens?

 
Comment by Marvin
2006-03-31 20:34:32

McKinney does not wear her ‘Member of Congress’ pin because it is an American Flag. You see this pin on the label of every other Member of Congress.
McKinney should have stopped when the officer first requested her to stop. Her total lack of respect for the police officer, whose job it is to protect her, is sickening.
McKinney use of the ‘race card’ shows how little defense she has. Her desparate use of the “i’m the victim, here” meme, is disgusting.
I don’t know if the incident warrants a felony charge – but the House should take action against her – she has shamed Congress.

PS. I sleep better at night knowing that President Bush is using his full Constitutional authority to protect this nation.

 
Comment by tubino
2006-03-31 22:52:06

I don’t see where anyone excuses Bush’s lying, when he claimed that warrants were sought and obtained for all wire-tapping.

At the time he said it, he knew that was false. He didn’t need to lie.

I know we’re only talking about violating a serious law, nothing so earth-shattering as a private sexual matter, but still.

After last week’s revelations on the Blair-Bush discussion of ways to provoke a war, and their subsequent lies, I don’t know why anyone trusts Bush.

And if you’re sleeping well because you think Bush is protecting the nation, … we saw how he did with exact advance intelligence about a threat to a major city — New Orleans — including the time of the disaster.

 
Comment by matt
2006-04-01 11:15:20

Tim-

There’s no outside oversight on the eavesdropping program, so you are just making things up when you suggest that the program is limited to one class of people, terrorists. While I admire your complete and utter credulity on this matter, you will have to pardon me if I do not follow you down your path of hopeless naivete about the motives of politicians.

 
Comment by matt
2006-04-01 11:18:05

There will be no charges brought against McKinney. Capitol Police are being used to embarrass McKinney and attempt to hurt her politically. She probably has good grounds for a lawsuit against them if charges are brought; all she’d have to do is find some past instances of self-important Congresspeople behaving similarly, which would not be hard to find.

 
Comment by Svejk
2006-04-01 11:38:56

Good grounds for a lawsuit, Matt? Uhhhh… why can’t you just admit she pulled a ‘Gingrich’ (remember how he shut down the govt because he didn’t get a front seat on the plane with Bill?) and move on?

 
Comment by Tincan Sailor
2006-04-01 11:57:46

There is littile to be said for Colin and Cynthia McKinney as its
a fact you can’t fix stupid!!!

 
Comment by Steve
2006-04-01 14:30:12

Colin [Sp?],

I have no idea where you got this notion that inherent Presidential authority is somehow so easily trumped by Congressional action. The whole point is that the President cannot cede certain powers contained in Article II. And he has an absolute obligation to exercise those powers to protect the American people during a time of war. What we don’t need newspapers violating the law by telegraphing to the enemy what specific steps and procedures we are taking to find out what their plans are.

Wake up! Our citizens were subjected to a deadly, unprovoked surprise attack, one intended to maximize civilian deaths and other casualties, undertaken by an unconventional, vicious, ruthless and loosely inter-connected world-wide band of terrorists, who have made their ongoing intentions plain.

We need to know who they are and who they are talking to in this country, because they want to try it again. And the President’s job is to continue doing what he can to stop that from happening.

This President has gone after them, including, as provided in both the 9/11 authorization of force, by acting “in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

The resolution also specifically stated that, “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.” Please read what the Congress said again: “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.”

Don’t you get it? Actions taken in prevention and deterrence include intelligence gathering.

If you would like an idea as to how the founders viewed the scope of constitutional authority of the President in intelligence gathering, take a look at Federalist # 64, as was clearly pointed out by Professor Robert Turner back in December in the Wall Street Journal. Even where specific concomitant powers in foreign affairs are shared with the Legislative branch (i.e., Senatorial concurrence on treaty making), the founders recognized exclusive intelligence gathering authority resided with the Executive.

Every President since FISA was adopted, along with their attorneys general, have taken some variant of the position regarding executive authority, that it cannot be undone by Congressional action, with the possible exception now of Carter, a man who had no idea then or now how to conduct foreign policy– or domestic policy, for that matter.

John Schmidt, a high Justice Department official under President Clinton, has testified to Specter’s committee that the President’s authorization of the NSA program is consistent with court decisions and with the position of the Justice Department in prior presidential administrations. He also reminded the Committee of the position of former Attorney General Edward Levi under President Ford, taken during the Church Committee deliberations, that the Congress cannot trump the President’s authority simply by setting up a statutory procedure. Levi was an extremely highly respected scholar, I believe out of the University of Chicago, who understood first hand the need for preservation of Presidential authority.

As to the Church Committee, history, including of 9/11 and Iraq, has amply demonstrated the folly of disemboweling your intelligence capacity, yet that is exactly what they did.

So, you can repeat it from now until the votes come in again, but it isn’t going to change the fact that the American people are not stupid. They will simply not give any serious consideration to your truncated version of the duties and responsibilities of the executive branch of the federal government. Repeat it on, and on, and on – it won’t make it so. Like those of your apparent Senatorial hero, Russ Feingold, your protestations will continue to fall on deaf ears.

I say, lets have a vote on that moronic censure resolution of his, let him make his appeal the unhinged lefty loons, and when it goes down in flames, we can say, “move over, move on.” But if you still insist on changing things for the worst, go promote a constitutional amendment.

However – back to the original subject, which you have tried so hard to change — we do have a considerable body of American law and precedent regarding the crime of assault and battery.

I also suspect the law regarding assault on an officer protecting the nation’s capitol is pretty tough.

Hitting an officer exercising his duty to perform security tasks in the chest with a cell phone is a violation of the law. Congresswoman McKinney should have a legal problem. Many of us believe she should be criminally charged, and then, that she should receive a fair trial. It is in no small measure a reflection of the seriousness of what she did, that she is already flinging vile, baseless charges of racism around the Hill.

Gee, only two days after the Democrats solemnly announce their “brandy new” security policy for the nation, one of their unhinged members bashes a security officer with her phone, simply because he asked for her identification! And that happened, because she herself refused to comply with the rules. But their “leader” – Nancy Pelosi – implies that it was the guard’s “mistake.” How pathetic!

 
Comment by Tim Burton
2006-04-01 18:39:49

>>>I believe that the president should be eavesdropping on terrorists. But I also believe the president is obligated to obey the law, just like the rest of us. The point I’m trying to make it that, to me and many others (including conservatives such as Bob Barr), it’s pretty clear that the president has violated FISA, repeatedly, by authorizing warrantless surveillance of American citizens in the United States.>>>There’s no outside oversight on the eavesdropping program, so you are just making things up when you suggest that the program is limited to one class of people, terrorists.

 
Comment by Tim Burton
2006-04-01 18:53:45

I’ll try it again…

****There’s no outside oversight on the eavesdropping program, so you are just making things up when you suggest that the program is limited to one class of people, terrorists.*****

Not true, not that facts will ever get in the way of your worldview, but the fact is that a number of Congressmen were briefed on the topic. If there was anything fishy going on, it would have been leaked. The fact is that Congress has more leaks than the Bismark had holes before going down.

Until there is any proof (and there is none) that more than terrorists were spied on, then you are not basing your thoughts on facts, but only on assumptions.

Also, you still haven’t disputed the fact (and it was never questioned) of the domestic spying that W. Wilson and FDR did in both World Wars.

Finally, so far 5 (read that FIVE) FISA judges have said the tapping is legal:

*** The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president’s constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.***

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm

 
Comment by KC
2006-04-01 19:45:07

The dispute here is whether Bush violated the FISA requirements. WWII examples are irrelevant since FISA, which was passed explicity to limit Presidential powers regarding surveillance of foreign communications especially when it pertains to American citizens, was not yet passed. Still unanswered here is why Bush, if he really felt he had a valid Constitutional case for his program, lied about it. Then there is the subject of the document endorsed by several prominent Constitutional scholars regarding the un-Constitutionality of the program. If they felt FISA instituted extra-Constitutional limits on the President’s inherent Constitutional powers, why didn’t they seek specific amendments to FISA or explicity address FISA’s requirements in the Patriot Act or the “authorization to use force”, which I feel Bush violated. There were specific criteria which had to have been met prior to the execution of any military action. Another subject altogether.It’s obvious from direction this thread has taken that there are certain individuals here who are pro-any-Bush policy already have an opinion on the matter, and are simply going to find enabling commentary to support their points.If McKinney is indeed guilty of assault, fine – let her be tried by a jury in a manner befitting her alleged crimes. I wonder how many other Congressmen don’t wear their IDs, and what the actual details of th e “case” are. She IS a Demoncrat though, so arrest her ass!

 
Comment by Colin
2006-04-02 01:18:56

Steve,

You seem quite certain that FISA unconstitutionally prevents the president from fulfilling his duties re: Article II. I find it interesting that apparently no one else felt that way in the last 30 years since FISA was passed, at least until George decided he was going to violate it. Since its passage in 1978 all presidents have
obeyed this law, including the holy Reagan and the previous Bush. Note: Reagan was president during the height of the cold war, when a real enemy had thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at us. Yet he managed to bring down the “Evil Empire” while obeying FISA.

I don’t know what you mean by “variant of the position”. As far as I can tell, since 1978 the only variant position is George’s belief that he can simply violate federal law if he thinks terrorists are after us. And he seems to think terrorists are always after us.

re: AUMF are you seriously suggesting that when Congress passed this resolution, they intended to allow the president to take *any* action, including actions that violate federal law, against US citizens inside the United States? To use your phrase, “do you realize how ridiculous you sound suggesting” that that is what Congres intended? Since you cannot be bothered to provide links to your sources, I won’t either. But there are plenty of quotes from Congressmen that refute this pathetic attempt to claim that Congress gave Bush carte-blanche authority to violate federal law when they passed the AUMF re: afghanistan.

I do want to thank you, Steve, for pointing out my ignorance regarding how the administration could prove that FISA unconstitutionally infringes on the president’s obligations in Article II. The correct way for them to prove this would be to introduce evidence acquired from George’s warrantless surveillance program in court. At that point the court would have to address the legality of the evidence.

If George’s “inherent authority” overrules FISA, then the evidence would be admissible, the horrible terrorist would go to prison, and we could end this discussion once and for all.

Why hasn’t the administration done this yet? I can think of two reasons:
1. The program has not produced any evidence useful in a court of law.
2. They’re afraid that their legal standing is weak, and that a court would rule that George actually doesn’t have King-like powers.

This US News report tends to support #2:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060327/27fbi_3.htm

from the article:
“White House lawyers, in particular, Vice President Cheney’s counsel David Addington (who is now Cheney’s chief of staff), pressed Mueller to use information from the NSA program in court cases, without disclosing the origin of the information, and told Mueller to be prepared to drop prosecutions if judges demanded to know the sourcing, according to several government officials.”

Addington is encouraging the FBI to use information from the illegal wiretapping program until a judge asks to know where the information came from. At that point he suggests they simply drop the case, instead of risking a court challenge.

If they were confident that George had the “inherent authority” to authorize these wiretaps, this seems like very strange advice. What good is a “terrorist surveillance program” if they can’t use it to prosecute terrorists?

Obligatory disclaimers:
- I know we were attacked on 9/11
- I know terrorists are bad and want to attack us again
- I know the president has the right and obligation to gather intelligence
- I know the Feingold censure resolution will not pass
- Finally, I really don’t care what McKinney did.. OK!! I said earlier I deliberately tried to change the subject. I wasn’t being subtle — I even said it was off-topic. It appears McKinney broke the law by hitting the cop. I consider that far less important than George apparently breaking the law by spying on us and violating FISA and the 4th Amendment.

 
Comment by SteveG
2006-04-02 14:13:05

Here’s a question: how many white, male members of Congress would be grabbed by a cop without showing ID or having their pin?

Yeah.

See, in my experience, police do things to black women, they don’t do to other people.

I seriously doubt any black adult would ignore a police officer. It is just too dangerous to do that. And according to ABC News, she showed her ID.

The reason Condi Rice quit the first Bush administration was because the Secret Service prevented her from joining the President on Air Force One.

So I think McKinney, who isn’t a wackjob or a nutter, and who won reelection after two years of Denise Majette, who was a much quieter person, might have a case here.

As far as I know, McKinney isn’t a bomb thrower and doesn’t have a record of flamboyant behavior. And if it’s true she’s had continuing problems with the Capitol police, then this might be an issue with other people as well, including staff.

I can’t make a judgment either way, but I don’t find McKinney to be prone to antics. However, the racism coming from the right about this is absolutely vile

 
Comment by Steve
2006-04-02 17:35:20

Colin [Sp?]

One other comment said, “The dispute here is whether Bush violated the FISA requirements.”

No, the dispute is, whether a few members of Congress, and others, are unwisely giving, or attempting to give exposure to a vital national security intelligence gathering program during wartime by making a petty stink over Presidential powers. The answer is “yes,” some of them are. The other question is whether criminal acts were committed in exposing that classified program to the public – and thereby to the terrorists. Another “yes.”

Once again, you are attempting to reframe the discussion by making assertions you know nothing about. The President is not violating federal law, as you and your hero Senator Feingold wrongly assert. There is no persuasive foundation for such a claim, either on a legal basis, or on the basis of common sense. The President is acting within his constitutional authority to protect the American people, in spite of those of you claiming otherwise. Thank heavens for all of us that he is! And thank heavens that a humorous and thoughtless dolt like Feingold does not now, nor will not ever occupy the White House. He’d be spending his time arguing with his staff about all the things he can’t do! The last time we had such a fool in place, was for four agonizing years in the late ‘70s. We learned our lesson! Go read about it. It’s in the history books.

In fact, the Democrats in Congress just tried and failed to kill the NSA program in budget deliberations. You can read about it in the L.A. Times, in a March 31st story.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-intel31mar31,1,2791875.story?track=rss

Boy, they sure had a great week demonstrating their national security credentials, didn’t they though? That, and then McKinney goes postal and slugs a security guard merely trying to protect the Capitol. Think she was trying to shore up the support of the average working person?

By the way, the quotes I included, which you now are questioning with a gimlet eye, were of language directly taken from the use of force resolution – go read it. You obviously haven’t as yet, or you would have recognized the phrases. Or, perhaps you read it and forgot — sometimes people do forget things that make them uncomfortable. And while you’re at it, go back and read the Constitution. And read Federalist 64, and 72. And also go back and read In Re Sealed Case.

Then, if you’re still in denial, go question those members of Congress that voted “Yes” on that resolution when it was placed on their desks – there were lots and lots of them. Maybe, given your odd and childish position on what it takes to protect this nation, you could ask them, “Why did you vote for this? Why? Why?”

Also, I’m also sure glad to find out that you’re so smug in your belief that some reporter from U.S. News & World Report was given the inside skinny on the exact content of discussions that have supposedly taken place between the Vice-President’s Chief of Staff and the head of the FBI. That proves only one thing to me. “Hey, I’ve got this bridge . . .You interested?”

What you still don’t seem to get is that this is a war that is being prosecuted here, not a court case. The Administration is gathering intelligence. The program was not put in place predominantly to prosecute court cases, and FISA is still in place for matters they traditionally covered. If a federal prosecution permits the introduction of evidence without the need to expose the exact details of the program to the defense, great.

What we do know is that terror organizations have studied our free and open society very carefully, and in planning their civilian-oriented terror attacks, have systematically sought to identify and exploit every vulnerable interface, every individual safeguard, and every indicia of unrestricted access in our transportation, communications, legal and other infrastructures, that they could identify. And they did so in order to penetrate those systems and evade detection until it was too late. Their agents and enablers wander freely in open societies, such as ours. And make no mistake — they want to do it again, and again. Timing is everything, not just in humor.

Because of the tragic success of the 9/11 attacks – and in the light of prior attacks, including on the World Trade Center, the Cole, and on our embassies, the Administration obviously sought a way to pierce that terror veil, without unnecessarily restricting those systems that we cherish. So, they developed a highly classified system for quick identification and penetration of terror-related communications so that they could be singled out. And they regularly updated key members of the Congress on a bipartisan basis of the results of the program.

The only people who should have any real concern about that program are the terrorists, and those they are communicating with here. I take it you are not one of those two – though you did say that you considered that George was “spying on us.” If you are not one of those two, you could begin by thanking your lucky stars we have a President who is protecting us, so that the society can operate freely. And, as a side benefit, the society will continue to allow people like you to mindlessly rant and rave on about some vague and paranoid notion regarding the President.

But if you are one of them – a terrorist or one of those they are communicating with here — I hope you get caught. I suspect you’re not – you’re just an unwitting enabler.

Hey, and thanks for the admission on McKinney. You think she’ll be arrested?

 
Comment by Condi4Prez
2006-04-03 17:32:51

As far as I know, McKinney isn’t a bomb thrower and doesn’t have a record of flamboyant behavior

This says all you need to hear about Steve G’s credibility. Unless, of course, being so far left, he thinks this is normal behavior and temperment.

 
Comment by Steve
2006-04-03 18:54:14

Exactly, Condi4Prez.

And how about this one from “Steve G”?

“I can’t make a judgment either way, but I don’t find McKinney to be prone to antics. However, the racism coming from the right about this is absolutely vile”

Uhhh . . . Find? Steve G, “you don’t FIND McKinney to be prone to antics?”

Did you actually watch her press conference — in fact, did you ever watch any of her silly performances when the lights went on — ever?

Don’t fib now! Come on! Tell the truth.

Stevie G, the truth is that if you can’t FIND McKinney being prone to antics, then you probably believe, with Tommy Smothers, that you “have seen a chicken with lips.”

Here the denouement, Stevie G . . . we’re not buying it any more, and we’re going to confront it!

No one is biting on the tired old shibboleths heaved from the left, Stevie G! It’s over.

 
Comment by John
2006-04-03 22:07:08

Cynthia McKinney has done more wrong than just this one incident. Tonight on the news we found out that she used tax payer money to bring in Isaac Hayes to one of her functions. This is a clear violation of her budget that all of congress is given to run there office. She paid for his flight, motel room. She has absolutely embarrased her district and this whole state. That hair is absolutely horrible. She looks like a spaced out individual, who has no idea who, or where she is. Every time she gets in the corner, she throws out the race card. I am so tired of this from her. She needs to be put in her place and have charges of battery at a minimum put on her. She absolutely shamed everyone in the state of Georgia. She should be discharged from her post and a responsible person put in her place with at least a shred of class and dignity.

John

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9459 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE