John

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

****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

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!