२७ मे, २००६
"The very serious questions about the scope and legality of the N.S.A. domestic surveillance programs that he helped design, implement and defend..."
Senator Kennedy gave his reason for voting against General Hayden to head the CIA. But Kennedy was one of only 15 Senators who voted no. It's hard to take congressional attacks on the NSA surveillance program seriously when 78 Senators voted for him.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४९ टिप्पण्या:
Just because Congress is a bunch of lapdogs, doesn't mean they think the program is legal. It just means they are lapdogs.
Magic Bullet Arlen Spector voted against Hayden, after he rolled over for the whitehouse during Hayden's confirmation hearing.
They have literally made a career out of confirming those that they know, regardless of their suitability. Look at Ashcroft's confirmation.
Bloggers and pundits like you have made these pols scared of making any sort of statement that could be twisted by bloggers and pundits like yourself into seeming as though they are anti-national security. Didn't you just have the whole "Are democrats going to be universally anti-war?" smear post going? You get what you pay for, and what you like to pay for is a cowardly sniveling congress afraid to stand up for our rights and what is right.
It is you conservatives that demand (as in Alito, and Roberts) that the Congress support the President's choices. Now you want them to say no, and if they don't you will use that as evidence they think the NSA program was legal.
Instead of that sort of dubious deduction, why not drop a dime and call your buddy Orin Kerr and listen to what professors that have actually studied the issue have to say?
You're mad at me because they're pussies?
Well, I will admit that Orrin seems a bit opposed to the legality of the NSA programs. In those many discussion at volokh.com, the 4th Amdt. argument never got very far. That left FISA. The Administration made the argument that the AUMF essentially amended it. I am not sure if I buy that, but SCOTUS seemed somewhat expansive in their reading of it in Hamdi. In any case, I think the better argument is that FISA, as it might apply to the first NSA surveilance program is an unconstitutional usurptation of the President's plenary Article II powers to defend this country, foreign policy, and run the military. The argument against this always gets back to the 50+ year old one Justice concurrence in Youngstown, where Jackson categorized presidential actions into three categories, and suggested that his powers were at the weakest in Catagory III when Congress has spoken. But this is readily distinguishable, esp. since that was domestic, this is international. Plus, a one Justice concurrence is not precedential. Indeed, only two of the most liberal Justices cited this portion of Youngstown in the Hamdi decision - IMHO an indication of how much the majority think of it.
So, no, the NSA program that was so discussed by Kerr at Volokh.com is not clearly illegal.
It seems to me that the President has a legal argument (or two or three) -- and Hayden stated it. If Congress supports the program -- and I think it does -- and the argument against its legality is purely statutory -- and I think it is -- then the right thing to do is to amend the statutory law to explicity support it. Otherwise Congress needs to gather its force together and oppose the President. It cannot expect courts to do this work. Congress has shown that it is not going to take action against the President, and for me, this is the crucial answer to the problem. Therefore, it needs to amend the statute and be done with it. If it does not, it is politics and nothing more.
I am saddened with you because in one post you will reiterate bogus claims that they are anti-war and then in the post you will express surprise that they cannot stand up for themselves.
It is similar to the way you constantly pound on Hillary Clinton. I don't support Hillary, but your focus on any negative article about her while not paying any attention whatsoever to positive articles about or negative articles about her opponents says far more about your own level of intellectual honesty than it does about Hillary.
Look what happened in the past 24 hours that you chose not to blog about: Bush has made some sort of limited acknowledgement of mistakes, the NYTimes has confirmed Murtha's report that the Pentagon determined that we had fired indiscriminately on children last November, there are reports that Kissinger greenlighted the Communist takeover of Saigon, Gore is being smeared in the press again for his new movie, Bush Buddy Ken Lay is found guilty, Iran is found in 2003 to have made very serious steps toward peace with the US AND Israel, renouncing nuclear weapons and terrorism and the result is that our Swiss ambassador is castigated by Bush for bringing him the offer from Iran, and it goes on and on.
You get what you pay for Ann, and people work according to the incentives of the system.
Your blog rewards politicians and the media for acting badly and punishes politicians and the media for acting properly.
And that is why I am saddened with you.
Otherwise Congress needs to gather its force together and oppose the President.
And when and where are they to do that? Magic Bullet Spector the Republican heads the Judiciary committee and caved in the face of opposition.
A front-page article in this morning's The Hill reports that Sen. Specter has finally made enough concessions to secure the support of the more right-wing members of the Judiciary Committee for his legislation that (along with a bill from Sen. DeWine) would render legal the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program. As part of this negotiation, what were these Bush allies (Hatch, Sessions, Cornyn, Kyl) holding out for? The removal from Sen. Specter's bill of a clause that would mandate that the FISA court rule on the legality and constitutionality of the NSA program. As usual, the thing which Bush supporters fear most - and which they most desperately seek to avoid - is a judicial ruling on the legality of the administration's behavior. As The Hill reports:
So you expect the Republican led Senate to do what the Republican led Judiciary Committee wouldn't do, and if they don't you are going to say the program is legal and opposition was all just politics.
Opposition wasn't politics, caving was politics, the politics of good press and reelections.
Since you don't study this issue or read the links that people post here about this issue, how would you know?
Perhaps if you favored courageous politicians (Dean, Reid, Feingold) instead of castigating them you would get what you want.
You should reread "The Folly of Rewarding A while Expecting B".
It's a nice day, so I am going on a hike. You should consider something similar Slippery, lately you've had a one track mind.
Go out, grab a shiner, and consider the errors in how you construct your belief system.
Right, Jacques, the politicians are just quaking in their boots at the mighty pen of Ann Althouse.
But let's take your aguments and note the underlying premise:
"Democrats in the Senate think the NSA issue not important enough to take a stand against it if it might possibly cost them some votes."
Which leaves us with two possibilities. Either the NSA programs are acceptable, or the Democrats are selfish enough to sell out the peoples' privacy to win votes. If they first, the entire kerfuffle over the NSA can be dismissed as partisan noismaking; if the second, the Democrats in the Seante are corrupt traitors to the American people and should be ridden out on a rail.
Which is it, Jacques?
From a non-legal, non scholarly POV, I see it basically the same way as Ann. After all the huffing and puffing, it just seems to me that by not taking any action, it is revealed as politics.
What else can I conclude?
Ann, you rather miss the point that opposition to the program is centered primarily outside the Congress.
No, Andrew. In the separation of powers scheme of the Constitution, this is exactly how it works. The Executive has his powers and responsibilities, and Congress has its tools, given precisely for the purpose of checking the President. Congress has chosen not to use them. The Senate, for example, could voted against General Hayden, who designed and defended the program. Congress's failure to use the checks that it has means something. This post is about pointing out that meaning. Essentially, Congress has endorsed the program.
Jacques: "And when and where are they to do that?"
When they actually oppose the program! That's the point! They don't!
(Get a clue.)
According to the critics of the NSA program, General Hayden himself designed and implemented the surveillance program which they claim is of almost unprecedented unconstitutionality and a grave threat to our basic freedoms. If they really, truly believe that, then they believe he has violated the various oaths he has taken over the course of his career. This would make him, by definition, utterly unsuitable for confirmation to a new high office.
Each member of Congress who really believes that would have a moral obligation to vote against General Hayden's confirmation. Any Senator who voted in favor of Gen. Hayden's confirmation, therefore, either fundamentally supports the NSA program or is a posing, hypocritical politician. Or, as our hostess succinctly put it, a pussy.
Ann: As you probably know, I've been second to no one in complaining about Congress's capitulation and acquiescence in the Executive's lawbreaking, and the failure of individual legislators to respond in any meaningful way to the obvious, fundamental attacks upon Congress's constitutional role.
However, it has not been obvious to me what those in Congress who think the Administration is violating the law *can* do as a practical matter in this situation, especially when both houses are controlled by the President's party.
More importantly, I don't understand your argument at all, which appears to be (correct me if I'm wrong about this) that it's *ok* for the President to violate statutes if Congress can't get up the collective gumption to do anything about it.
You seem to agree that the Executive's conduct violates statutes, such as the torture act and FISA. Indeed, absolutely *no one* in Congress, not a single legislator, has publicly endorsed the Administration's view that the NSA program is not violative of FISA. In other words, there is *no* support for the ridiculous "AUMF authorized it" argument. I assume (but don't know sure) that you also think the Article II argument -- that FISA and the torture statute, and the McCain Amendment, etc., are unconstitutional -- is wrongheaded.
Well, ok then, in that case the President *is* violating his constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws. Congress already did everything the Constitution prescribes: Over a long period of time, it engaged in serious review of the problem, and after extensive debate, compromise and deliberation, enacted FISA, with the President's signature.
Our system does not contemplate that the Executive can then go ahead and violate that law as long as the votes in Congress are not there to -- what? -- reenact the same exact law over a presidential veto? Take other steps to complain about the law violation (e.g., refuse to confirm a nominee that it otherwise thinks should be confirmed)?
As you correctly note, if Congress truly thought the NSA program was a good thing, the *proper* response would be to amend FISA to authorize it. But it hasn't done so. And the fact that Congress hasn't protected its own prerogatives, either, does not mean that the Executive is absolved from responsibility for violating the law or that Congress has "endorsed" the NSA program. The Executive branch has often violated the law in our nation's history, and only on rare occasion has Congress taken it upon itself to remedy the problem. That doesn't mean the lawbreaking is no big deal, and it doesn't mean that a later Congress's silence is an "endorsement" of something that an earlier Congress prohibited.
As I've been arguing on Balkinization, the only way for these questions to be resolved in the current setting is by judicial decree. That's why I favor enactment of the Schumer bill. That obviously is not going to happen as long as Congress is under Republican control. In the meantime, the proper response, IMHO, is to condemn *both* of the political branches -- not to shrug one's shoulders and say "no big whoop."
Yeah, its all the bloggers' fault. Congress is afraid of the bloggers. That's the ticket.
A simpler explanation is that many legislators, like those they represent, still fear another spectacular attack by the minions of al queda. These legislators do not want to be second guessed for not doing everything they can to prevent such an attack.
That seems like a legitimate concern to me, but I suspect that jaqqx thinks that those fears are groundless.
Mr. Lederman,
Actually, our system contemplates it plenty. Congress has lots of clubs to hit a President with -- including, yes, not confirming appointments. The whole point of dividing powers is to provide practical clubs to beat down overreaching.
And the big one is the power Congress has over the Presidency -- "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of Approprations made by Law[.]"
Congress can specifically deny funds to the monitoring programs of the NSA in the bill that does NSA appropriations. At that point, nobody has to debate the meaning of the AUMF or whether Congress has the power to make the Presidential power to conduct foreign intelligence surveilance dependent on the approval of the judiciary. The activity has to end, full stop.
It's bigger than impeachment and removal from office, because that just removes one man. Denial of funding shuts down anything, for as long as Congress denies it funds.
It's a nice day, so I am going on a hike.
If only jcqx WOULD "take a hike," that would be a grand day, indeed.
Hope springs eternal, and all that.
I'm no lawyer, but I can read. It seems that the legality of the NSA program in question is not clear. I've seen compelling arguments on both sides.
Ties go to the Executive.
The program is relatively popular.
So our beloved legislators realize that not only might they not be able to make the legal case, they will shoot themselves in the foot politically.
This ones DOA even if the Dems capture both houses. Hence, Hillary's nay. She's got a pander vote that she can spin with the middle. The Dem's don't want to fight this fight.
It's hard to take congressional attacks on the NSA surveillance program seriously when 78 Senators voted for him.
Being supported by even a wide majority of Congress or the Senate does not mean that this program is good, or right.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 had wide support throughout the Senate despite the fact that it extended slavery farther north than it ever had been before. And it only delayed the inevitable by forty years, and made it much more bloody when it did come.
Other examples of votes which had widespread support in the Senate include Prohibition, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and the October 2002 Iraq war vote (yes, some people still support the war, but I suspect that if the Senators knew we'd still be fighting there in 2006, there would have been significantly more than the 23 'no' votes, maybe even enough to defeat it-- well, perhaps not; it was an election year ploy, the public had been stampeded and we well know that the U.S. Senate is a place with very plush seating because they need a place to rest their weak backbones.)
The Hayden nomination doesn't rise to the significance of any of these votes, but your assertion that because something has the support of 78 Senators, that therefore any opposition to it should not be taken seriously or may not even perhaps be visionary, is flawed.
old dad:
The Dem's don't want to fight this fight.
That is why a lot of us Democrats out here are disappointed.
I realize that the Democrats are the minority party in the Senate, meaning they have to pick their fights carefully, but even when it really mattered and even had the support of a couple of Republicans and might have gotten more if they'd hung together (Alito) they wimped out.
That's one reason why I have more respect for Ted Kennedy than I do for Hillary Clinton. Say what you will about Ted Kennedy (and yes, the worst thing you can say about him is that he got drunk and killed a woman) but at least he isn't afraid to stand up and be counted for what he believes is right regardless of what the polls say.
Is Ted Kennedy really acting against his own political self-interest? He keeps getting elected while taking the left-wing position on every issue.
Ann, I'm not sure that the separation of powers that the public envisioned when the Constitution was ratified included Congress refusing to confirm a Presidential appointee who used to work in the White House as a way to gain recognition for the illegality of a White House program. That situation is so rare that it can't be an integral part of the separation of powers. If the Article II argument for FISA being unconstitutional as applied to this program is valid, then that could be tested in the courts. If not, then the President's actions are almost certainly illegal, as they almost certainly violate the statute. If not answering questions about the legality of certain actions and the meaning of important constitutional provisions, then what is the purpose of the federal courts?
It's not illegal if the statute is unconstitutional as applied. Maybe that's what the FISA judges meant. For a discussion of FISA's constitutionality as applied, see Posner's debate with Heynmann in The New Republic. Here's an excerpt from Posner's side:
"As Cass Sunstein has argued, if there is any significant doubt about the statute's constitutionality, that is a reason for interpreting the Act as not outlawing the NSA program. The Act does not forbid electronic surveillance outside the framework of the Act itself if it is authorized by another statute, and the argument of course is that the Authorization for Use of Military Force--Congress's September 14, 2001 "declaration of war" against Al Qaeda--is such a statute."
So, if you read the statute in a way that makes it constitutional so as to avoid offending the President's war powers, then the action is illegal. But if the statute existed in a constitution-free world, the program would definitely violate it. There's really no difference in this case between saying that the statute doesn't apply to the program bec. such a reading of the statute would make it unconstitutional and saying that the statute is invalid with respect to the program.
Marty Lederman said..."... I don't understand your argument at all, which appears to be (correct me if I'm wrong about this) that it's *ok* for the President to violate statutes if Congress can't get up the collective gumption to do anything about it."
I'm not saying that. The President is obligated to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." To do that, he must interpret the law, and here he's got his interpretation. He's got three arguments, is seems, that he's within the law. Of course, his interpretations take a strong position on the scope of presidential power. If Congress thinks he's wrong, it must use its powers to push back. The very strong vote for Hayden is evidence of agreement with the President.
"... In the meantime, the proper response, IMHO, is to condemn *both* of the political branches -- not to shrug one's shoulders and say "no big whoop.""
Well, that's not what I'm doing. I think Congress supports the President, and, as you indicate, it should now enact clear legislation and say so. But I don't think the President can decline to live up to his obligations to protect national security while Congress cowers and dithers. If the issue comes up in a properly presented court case, the courts could become involved, but I don't think the courts are the primary constitutional safeguard for this. It's a struggle between Congress and the President, and Congress as an institution has not taken a position against the President's interpretation. It has consistently supported him! Thus, at this point, the President should be doing things as he sees fit within his constitutional obligations.
You rely heavily on the view that the President's legal interpretations are just ridiculous. But the members of Congress who were advised about the program, who really know what it is, accepted it. That means a lot.
Let me push back just a little.
Most of the opposition that has been heard over the program has not been from Congress. That is, I think it is utterly untenable to suggest that there has, at any point, been an outcry from Congress over the NSA, and that this vote puts that outcry to rest.
The outcry has been from less lofty folk. Initial polls may have shown pluralities in favor of the programs, but polls since have shown consistently, if slowly, growing opposition, such that opposing the reported programs is now a majority opinion in this country .
For the record I work in nuclear port security and therefore have a natural sympathy for not waiting while Congress dithers. But here that is really irrelevant.
Those who have been briefed are basically prohibited from saying much about it. That means a lot.
When people say that this vote was based solely on support or nonsupport of the surveillance program and of the President's initiatives in that area, they are attributing a single-minded shallowness to Congress that just is not there. There were "many" reasons why Hayden was confirmed, and reductionist reasoning fails to see the high regard in which he is held on Capitol Hill. In fact "his" approval ratings (comparable to the love affair that Admiral Bobby Inman had with Congress years ago) are much higher than the President's. Ultimately, this was a vote about Mike Hayden, although it is apparent that some of you would (simplistically) like to make this about Bush. I'm often not a fan of the legislative branch, but let's give them (the rare) credit where credit is due. It was a good vote, and the right result.
such that opposing the reported programs is now a majority opinion in this country
One has to wonder if these people really understand what is being done or if they are under the impression that the NSA is listening to all calls rather than looking for patterns in calls.
As for the legality - one of my senators, Dick Durbin, said something that the program was legal but the law should be amended to specifically allow the program.
Let me agree with atmx. The USA questions were not as clear as the WAPO poll the previous day, there 63 percent thought the program was acceptable. Here was the question:
45. It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
Yes, the President is taking terrorist threats seriously, and is stretching the envelope farther than was done in the last 30 years, but nobody has come forth with credible claims that the NSA is involved in "domestic spying against political enemies".
Think back 30 years to the Carter presidency, when we had state sponsored terrorists holding hostage for 300+ days. This was the same time that Congress (AKA The Church Report) gutted our human intelligence capabilities around the world in order to depend on satellites. Would you rather that Bush had reacted to 9/11 like Carter did to the Embassy?
Our Army has a nice saying for times when the excrement hits the impeller:
"Lead, Follow, or Get the Hell out of the way!"
A good decision made in time, is better than hand wringing trying to make the perfect decision too late
I came in late. I'm assuming Sippican found himself drawn into an icky fight with Jacques/Quxxo and has decided it was a bad move and to delete all the evidence. It happens to the best of us. In fact I guess it just did.
As for "It's hard to take congressional attacks on the NSA surveillance program seriously when 78 Senators voted for him" -
Yep. Irrefutable logic. (I love that kind of logic.)
My "pussies" comment should be taken not as partisan taunting, but as the same idea expressed by Justice Jackson in Youngstown here:
... I have no illusion that any decision by this Court can keep power in the hands of Congress if it is not wise and timely in meeting its problems. A crisis that challenges the President equally, or perhaps primarily, challenges Congress. If not good law, there was worldly wisdom in the maxim attributed to Napoleon that "The tools belong to the man who can use them." 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.
Walt, for what it's worth, my views on this issue have less to do with whether or not the program itself is in the end a good idea than with the seriousness and intellectual honesty of the original Congressional Democratic outrage at it (which also was the topic of the post here originally).
It might be kind of a subtle distinction. But the reality for Democrats is that they were as informed about it as Congressional Republicans, via the Gang of 8 process.
Democrats say that review shouldn't have been limited to the Gang of 8, which is a defensible proposition - but again, the decision to keep it there was decision made by 4 Democrats as well as 4 Republicans, and subject to review by them, and no major disagreement was ever made within the context of that Gang. The Democrats on the Gang make a lame case that somehow they were constrained from objecting or doing anything about it, but seriously, I think that's nonsense.
Their secrecy obligations would not have kept them from doing some small legal research if they really suspected the process should be reviewed by a larger group. And most definitely, their secrecy obligations wouldn't have kept them from objecting within the Gang and insisting on more details, or a larger review, IF they honestly thought it was necessary.
So either they were okay with it; or they took part in a major Constitutional problem.
(Sen. Rockefeller's odd letter is the only hint of serious objection. At this point it really strikes me as a CYA device, or a political device to trot out later. If he had problems, why not bring them up in the Gang? Did he ask for mroe details, or a larger review, and was turned down? I haven't heard anyone claim that.)
Paul, regarding Sip's deletions, you need to go read comments section attached to the post about the kids who accidentally killed another kids. In it, Sip explains why he will be deleting any comment he makes if it's in proximity to a Quxxo/Jacques Cuze/etc., regardless of topic.
I'd say Kennedy's opposition to the wind farm on Cape Cod pretty much disproves the whole "well, at least Kennedy is a man of principle" argument. Not to mention that the Kennedys are drowning in oil money.
(and yes, the worst thing you can say about him is that he got drunk and killed a woman)
..and its kind of gross to try to, like, minimalize this incident. I mean, it's not really appropriate to sort of bracket it as an "aside" is it?
It seems that if you say "this is a dispute between Congress and the President, so courts should not get involved" then you're saying that federal courts should never get involved when the President violates statutory law. But then what did Roberts and Alito mean when they said "the President is not above the law"? Were they just referring to constitutional law? And if so, then doesn't that make nonsense out of Jackson's argument in Youngstown that presidential power is at its lowest point when it is in violation of a statute?
Maybe this is not a good case to test the bounds of the President's war powers, since Congress seems to recognize the need to change FISA. But that's a separate question. Hypothetically if Congress stood behind the law it had passed, wouldn't the correct remedy for the President violating that law be in court rather than congressional censure/impeachment?
Jonathan: Courts decide cases, that is, disputes between parties with concrete claims. Who's the plaintiff? The courts don't spring into action just to verify that the President's interpretations of law are correct. In fact, that would violate the law.
Here, the President has interpreted the law as it was needed in carrying out his duties. That stands as the legal answer until there is a case. Congress could also take action, if it has a different interpretation of the law and wants to use its political tools, but it has not done that.
We can argue that the President's interpretation is wrong, just as we can argue that Supreme Court opinions are wrong. But the fact is that his interpretation is the one that prevails unless some further step is taken either in Congress or in the courts. No one is saying the President is above the law!
I only meant that, if someone could get standing (which seems unlikely since we don't know whose communications the NSA monitored), a court should not decline to hear the case on some prudential ground like the political questions doctrine. A decision in such a case would at least provide an answer to the war powers question in the sense that it would guide future court cases, even though the President could theoretically continue to act according to a different understanding of the clause.
Seven - I don't totally agree with your political realism. Theoretically, Congresspeople all take an oath to uphold the Constitution, including the restriction on impeachment that it only be used for high crimes and misdemeanors. This theory affects practice in that it provides a neutral-seeming justification for Congress's actions, which is important to whether Congresspeople's constituents will support their actions. Why, after all, does Congress rigorously follow the constitutional provisions regarding the procedure for impeachment? If theorists make a convincing argument that, for example, the original meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" did not include perjury, then that could affect the public's perception of Congress's action.
My main point wasn't that theorists affect elections, but that the Constitution places real restraints on the acts of Congresspeople, whose political self-interest often requires them to come up with persuasive arguments that what they're doing is constitutional.
Edmund Burke said that representative democracy is better than direct democracy because the representatives will serve as trustees who know better than the public what the public needs. But our Constitution generally rejects such elitist ideas. So maybe when politicians act according to political self-interest, i.e. governing by the polls, then the system is working as the Constitution-ratifying public meant for it to work. If that is true, then what Congresspeople should do is generally what they do in fact do - namely governing a way that gets them re-elected.
Dave, I'm not sure who the "you" is in your post.
My point was not that the NSA program is a bad idea as a policy matter. I agree with Posner that changing FISA to allow the surveillance would be desirable if Congress restricted the use of obtained information to national security-related purposes. Congress, however, has not done that, so the NSA program violates a currently existing statute - and whether the statute as applied is unconstitutional is an interesting and important question that I think the courts can appropriately address if the opportunity arises (which, of course, is unlikely due to the individuated injury req.). That was my point.
Sorry - I meant to address my comment to Dick.
Seems to me that IF Congress wanted to take action (and I think that the NSA stuff is reasonable and that Congress are wimps) they could do the following:
1. Impeach
2. Censure
3. Sequester NSA FY06 funds
4. Cut the FY07 budget
5. go to court (seems they wpuld have standing)
Drill Sgt: What are you even talking about, suggesting "Congress" would bring a lawsuit? It has not taken a position as a body. Individual members of Congress would not have standing, as Raines v. Byrd makes clear.
Ann,
My point exactly. All of those things on the list are collective Congressional actions.
I think all of those NSA programs we know about are legal and perhaps productive. In the GWOT, we have very few advantages. One of our few is technology. We need to use it.
My point is that IF folks think that what the Bush NSA is doing is illegal or otherwise violates our rights, there are lots of options. The barrier to effective action seems to be, that the complainers need to convince a clear majority of the People or a clear majority of at least 1 house of Congress. We all know that neither of those things is going to happen, so all the democratic or media elite outrage is just useless whining and political demagoguery.
I guess my other point hidden within the list is that folks forget that Congress holds the power of the purse. The Anti-Deficiency Act is an important restraint on your average bureaucrat
Andrew,
"Initial polls may have shown pluralities in favor of the programs, but polls since have shown consistently, if slowly, growing opposition, such that opposing the reported programs is now a majority opinion in this country."
A prevous commenter already raised theprimary rejoinder to such a point, which is "what was the question asked," but one alsohas to add: who was asked? This poll did not show that there "is now a majority opinion in this country" opposing the program, it shows that of "809 adults [reached] Friday and Saturday," about 412 disapprove. Opinion polls necessarily generalize from their sample, but one has to ask: in order to say, as you do, that this poll reflects the country, where was this sample taken? Because it seems to me that if this was simply 809 randomly-selected residents of Boston, MA, who happen to be home on a Friday night, I'm not convinced that it represents "the country." I'm increasingly of the opinion that ALL such polls should basically be considered null and void unless they include the question asked, the geographical catchment area wherein respondents were drawn and the party affiliation of respondents.
Dick:
"All the yelling and screaming is from the extreme left and the media (but then I repeat myself)"
To borrow from Lord Tebbit: "the word 'conservative' is used by the [media] as a portmanteau word of abuse for anyone whose views differ from the insufferable, smug, sanctimonious, naive, guilt-ridden, wet, pinko orthodoxy of that sunset home of the third-rate minds of that third-rate decade, the 1960s."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा