Censure him??? Why not throw him in jail...why not throw all the democrats in jail...lets go door to door and using the intel we have through all those who our against the administration in jail...send them to camps....LOL...dude you've lost it.

This is like the 3rd grade playground debate. One little kid says hey lets censure that kid...the other kid replies NO I'm gonna censure you.....

Anyway Go Feingold lets censure this jerk who could well be impeached on as many as 5 different accounts. We could legitimately impeach all the way down to Hastert but then who's left? Probably yet another corrupt Republican.

This is a good move by Feingold. It's pretty clear that the president broke the 78 survellience act his vow to serve and protect the constitution by OKing this program.

What hasn't been shown is any abuse of power in this case. It certainly looks like he's done good intentions, but good intentions don't hide the fact that he broke the law.

What Feingold is proposing is a good solution. A censure is the equivelent of a strongly worded letter. It really doesn't have much actual impact. The importance that it holds in this case is that no one is above the law, not even the president. We are a country of laws. It's what holds our society in order.

If the president broke the law, there needs to be some repurcussion. A censure is a strong, but ultimately minor penalty.

More importantly, it will end the debate what the president did and move it towared fixing the law.

It's a good solution.

Mark, all this talk about aiding our enemies is just b*******. Get over yourself.

(Edited for obscenity)

Does anyone know what "censure" mean?

It is basically the Senate's way of saying "WE DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU'RE DOING...so here is a piece of paper saying so."

Feingold is just playing to the Dem base and he is very angry that no one in his party supported his effort to filibuster renewal of the Patriot Act. This is his last ditch effort to appear to be a major player. In so doing he is up against a program that is supported by the majority of Americans and has reinforced the idea that Democrats cannot be trusted on national defense. Just when the Ports issue gave them a little traction on that.

Mark,

You're absolutely right!

Republicans seem content to just sit back, savor, and enjoy their position as the majority party rather than using it! Unfortunately, that attitude won't keep them (us) as the majority party for long.

Republicans seem to have more fight and enthusiasm when they are the minority. Republicans appear content to sit on their wins and take a defensive and "safe" posture rather than taking the offensive. Democrats may be wrong, but at least they are out fighting for "their" positions and their liberal, left agenda! Where is the Republican's offense? Aren't there at least some Republicans who feel safe enough from their voters to speak out loudly and often? Where are the vocal Republican Ted Kennedy's, Nancy Pelosi's, Hillary Clinton's?

It's very irritating to watch and listen to the Democrats throw one body punch after another without corresponding responses from the Republicans. But, what's EVEN MORE IRRITATING than the Democratic propaganda is that Republicans won't stand up and fight! Eventually, all of those body punches mount up and are just as fatal as a know-out blow.

That's what's been happing with the Iraq war and the Republican agenda in general. Day after day, over and over, Americans hear Democrats spew forth the same lies, embellishments, Bush-bashing, anti-military, anti-American rhetoric, and propaganda. Repeat something long enough and often enough and eventually, the American people begin to believe it as facts.

I'm down here in the trenches and talk with people who have no idea what's happening, but who do believe what they hear over and over from the media. And why wouldn't they believe it, they don't hear Republicans doing much to effectively counter or stop the constantly repeated propaganda.

And to make it even worse, Republicans are hurting President Bush and his ability to get things done by not supporting him.

I feel that I get more and better facts and more fighting for America and Conservative values from Rush Limbaugh than I do from all of the Republican Congress combined!

If incumbent Republicans can't do more to fight for the cause, then we need to elect some Republicans or Conservatives who can and will!!!

AAR

The President, clearly, did not break any laws. Americans don't believe that known terrorists speaking with known terrorists outside the country have privacy rights and protected speech.

As you wrote, "Get over yourself."

LaMano,

This isn't about monitoring terrorists, it's about making sure there is the oversite in place to assure there is probable cause that those monitored ARE terrorists.

LaMano: I voted for George Bush, and I'm telling you he most certainly has been and is breaking the law. He is violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a duly enacted law of Congress passed in 1978, and amdended several times since. That statute requires that before a U.S. person may have their electronic communications intercepted (or within 72 hours of doing so), the NSA must secure a warrant from the FISA secret court. The whole purpose of FISA is to ensure judicial oversight of surveilling Americans, and Bush is blatantly flouting that law and its purpose.

This is not in dispute: Bush has admitted he has not been seeking warrants as required by FISA, and AG Alberto Gonzalez has hinted that this violation of the law extends beyond the one program revealed by the NYT last December. Many Republican, conservative lawyers, such as Con Law expert Bruce Fein, have denounced this law-breaking, and Fein has even suggested impeachment is in order. Conservative law professor at the U of Chicago, Richard Epstein, has also set forth the reasons why Bush is breaking the law. Former GA Congressman Bob Barr, a staunch Republican and conservative, has denounced Bush's law-breaking.

Feingold's censure resolution could not be more appropriate.

Mark,
I say we let Feingold run with this and shove it up the Brokeback side of his party.

Please dumbocrats put this up for a vote. It'll be just like the "Pull out of Iraq" vote and let America see the retreat and defeat democrat party in full blown wimp mode...AGAIN. The donks "Nominate a Less than Honorable Discharge candidate" plan in 04' was a sure a winner...got President Bush more votes than any President in history.

Well at least the progressive liberal dimmocrat moonbats have finally come up with a plan for 06'...protectiong the rights of terrorist. It's a sure winner for the crazy Sheehan leftist crowd.

Run with it moonbats.

It's sure fire plan...to give Republicans 60 in 06'. Karl Rove you are a genius.

I just love it when the Dems shoot themselves in the feet, over and over and over again. Which is why the Right now controls everything and the left can only say "Get over yourself"

"all this talk about aiding our enemies is just bullshit. Get over yourself.
"

ah, that ain't what our enemies are saying. They quote Democrats per word, to rile up their populations to attack and kill Americans. I am sure you drool over that, since Democrats support our troops shooting each other and celebrate American's getting killed in Iraq.

Tom you have never actually heard the arguments about the constitutionality or the legality of this program have you?

I strongly urge you to read this transcript of a debate between civil rights attorney Glenn Greenwald and constitutional law professor Robert Turner.

It is quite clear that this program was constitutional and legal. As you will see professor Turner cites case law, precedent, and qoutes the founding fathers. Glenn Greenwald on the other hand cites nothing. I have found no one who argues this program was illegal to cite any case law or precedent to prove their case. If you can find some I would love to see it.

President Clinton’s Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick felt that the President of the United States, in order to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States has the authority to conduct warrant-less searches without the permission of the FISA Courts. She stated: “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the President has inherent authority to conduct warrant-less searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General”. The Deputy Attorney General testified to this declaration before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994 and they concurred.
Not only did Jamie Gorelick state that the President could use, at his discretion, warrant-less wiretaps and physical searches, he in fact exercised this option against an American citizen on American soil. This was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames’s home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants (didn’t the Fourth Amendment mean anything in this case?).
Also in 1978 Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrant-less searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.
I say “bring it on Russy Baby” it would certainly be fun to retroactively censure Presidents Clinton and Carter!! But I’m sure the Dumb O’ Crats would somehow find these faux pas (or out-and-out lies) honorable!!

I believe the Demorats stepped back into this NSA issue again. They will again get beat up over this by the Bush admin. and its allies. 70% of the public support what the President did, it is constituional, and several Courts have supported this.

The port issue is now gone, and the Demos were outflanked by the House Republicans. The NSA issue is a big loser for the Demorats, even the Minorority Leader has backed away from the Feingold on this one. It just exposes the Demorats as being weak on Defense/Security.

Ugly American: I voted for George Bush, and I'm a lawyer. Let me assure you in the strongest possible terms, that Robert Turner is miserably wrong, and Glenn Greenwald's legal arguments are entirely accurate. There is no case law from the SCOTUS justifying Bush's illegalities (quite the opposite), and nobody -- nobody -- argues agaist the "inherent authority" the President has in national security searches and surveillance, which is all the cases Turner cites stand for. It may very well be that if the SCOTUS considered the issue, it would decide that for Fourth Amendment purposes, a president does not need to secure warrants in the national security context -- that law is unsettled, and is what Turner is discussing.

We all agree a President has Article II inherent authority, and that it might not be impeded by the 4th. Got that?

But the cases Turner cites, and the 4th AM, are not at issue here. It is a federal criminal statute -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- which requires that a President secure warrants from the secret FISA court when intercepting the electronic communications of U.S. persons. When a President has inherent authority, but Congress has passed a law, the President must obey that law. That is the holding of the Truman-era Youngstown case in Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion, which is the analysis that has been ratified and adopted by the SCOTUS. Most recently in the Hamdi case, including by Clarence Thomas who said in his dissent that Congress shares authority with the President in national security matters. And thus, when Cogress passes a law regarding domestic surveillance in the national security context -- which it did in enacting FISA -- it binds the President.

Orin Kerr over at Volokh Conspiracy is no raging lefty, and he surmises that Bush's pathetic legal arguments would lose in the SCOTUS by 8-1. I think it would be 9-0.

Feingold's censure resolution is entirely justified, because the President is committing illegal acts. The "Compendium of NSA Arguments" at Greenwald's sidebar sets forth in ample and accurate detail why what Bush is doing is illegal.

"Feingold's censure resolution is entirely justified, because the President is committing illegal acts. The "Compendium of NSA Arguments" at Greenwald's sidebar sets forth in ample and accurate detail why what Bush is doing is illegal."

Thank you, Mona.

Go ahead Noonan, Ugly, Nebraska - spin that argument all you want. PS - try to use actual logic & law, not just: uhh, Democrats hate America!!!

"Feingold's censure resolution is entirely justified, because the President is committing illegal acts. The "Compendium of NSA Arguments" at Greenwald's sidebar sets forth in ample and accurate detail why what Bush is doing is illegal."

The guys over at Power Line are really lawyers and back it up by stating where they work. They basically say you are full of it and that the President is right and that SCOTUS will vote to allow the President to do what he has to do to protect this country.

I will take their word over an unkown

Mona,
Your wrong. FISA is not in play when listening to terrorist overseas calling the US.

Additionally, President Bush is entitled to the same protections in the Constitution as you and I. He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law or impeached in Congress and convicted in the Senate. Until that happens you are just another lip flapping Loyaa' spewing opinions and not facts in evidence.

Also, if President Bush committed "illegal acts" as you opine, the proper course of action would be impeachment...right? When pigs fly or a Loyaa' gets angel wings that'll happen.

Case dismissed

You right-wingers always have to be whinihg about something. I say you should be censured as well Mr. Noonan. What would you guys have done if he had initiated impeachment? The bottom line is that GWB undoubtedly broke the law when he implemented the NSA spying. That is a fact. Something like this is long overdue, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some Republican names join Russ in calling for a censure.

Also, judging by the 72%+ of U.S. troops that want out of Iraq in six months, I'm sure that our troops wouldn't mind if the "anti-war left" were running the show.

www.lcoliberal.blogspot.com

Nebraska,
See... you say that the President is entitled to the same protections of innocent until proven guilty.
However if it were up to you, we would never know if the President is proven guilty because there would NEVER be any hearings.
You can't have it both ways.

Look... maybe it was legal and maybe it wasn't legal. One thing you have GOT to admit is that it is borderline enough to cause some kind of hearing to look into it. And no... Gonzalez talking to the Senators while NOT under oath does not constitute a hearing.
Again, if it all comes out to be perfectly legal, then fantastic, good for the President, good for the GOP and good for America.
If it all comes out to be illegal, well... let things fall where they fall.

Either way, there is enough concern on both sides of the isles for there to be some kind of legit hearing.

As for all the foolish calls for censuring Feingold... that is just bitterness.

Nebraska Militia asserts: Mona,
Your wrong. FISA is not in play when listening to terrorist overseas calling the US.

No, I'm not wrong. Someone above is quoting Jamie Goerlick for the proposition that in the mid-90s the Clinton Administration conducted warrantless physical searches that she defended -- and that is absolutely true. It is further true that there was and is substantial merit to her argument that President Clinton had inherent authority to conduct such searches without warrants, and that doing so does not violate the 4th Amendment. But what is most true, is that that state of affairs is no defense to Bush's illegal violations of FISA, which is a separate legal issue from 4th Am doctrines.

You see, subsequent to Goerlick's remarks, in approximately 1995, Congress amended FISA to require warrants for physical searches such as Clinton was conducting, and when it did that, Clinton obeyed the law and began obtaining FISA warrants for such searches. By contrast, Geoge Bush has been violating FISA on an ongoing basis, and has declared he will continue to do so. The Youngstown case I discuss above leaves no room for what Bush is doing.

George Will has condemned Bush's behavior. So have conservative legal scholars such as Bruce Fein, and former, Reagan-appointed FBI Director William Sessions, who have said in the press and in correspondence to the Senate Judiciary Committee, that Bush is breaking the law with no respectable legal defense.

And to reiterate, Orin Kerr is not a man of the left, and he has parsed the arguments and concludes Bush would lose 8-1 in the SCOTUS -- and he includes Sam Alito in that 8. I concur, except I believe Thomas would join and make it unanimous.

What Bush is doing is illegal. I voted for him, but I did not vote for trashing the rule of law.

The 'illegalities' about the NSA program are all in the minds of the Left. There hasn't been one case brought before the Federal judiciary regarding this NSA program, or any similar national security issue which has come down against the President.

All the screams about 'illegalities' are strictly opinions by primarily left of center politicians and academics (the same ones who got their hands slapped by the SCOTUS regarding military recruiters on campuses).

Unfortunately, I live in Illinois, so any emails would go to Dick ('Soldiers are Nazis') Durbin and Barak ('Plantation? That's fine by me Hillary.') Obama.

Mona,

If you think what President Bush is doing is "trashing the rule of law", then remind me never to retain your legal services...back to school for you.

SOL,
I'm all for letting you libs run with the "protect a terrorist rights" platform in public. Have hearings, it will be very enlightening to America.

After the hearings we can start calling you libs the "Retreat, Defeat, and Protect Terrorist" party...ah what the hell, we can call ya'll that now.

As for your comment

that is just bitterness

Your not bitter that your progressive liberal party controls nothing in the federal government and your "War Hero" candidate led to President Bush getting 63,000,000 votes in 04'?...an historical record I remind you AGAIN.

Bitterness comes in only one flavor SOL, and thy name is...Progressive Liberal Democrat Moonbat.

FISA does not apply. It only applies for a domestic (not overseas) action.

Over-sight. Over-see. If you undereducated simpletons are going to spend the rest of your days whining about terrorists having to wait for a dial tone then at least learn to spell. And while you're at it, find us one person who has been inconvenienced, let alone prosecuted because the government likes knowing who the bad guys are talking to.

One. Just one. Then maybe we'll talk about an "oversite" commission, and even let you spell it any way your craven little hearts desire.

Now get off the line before the black helicopters get a lock on the signal.

Tom,

Feingold probably believes he is doing it with good intention - like all liberals, he's self-absorbed and totally amazed with what a brilliant and caring person he is.

In the reality, however, it is pertty bad.

He has entered a motion which stands no chance whatsoever of being passed by the United States Senate. There is, at the least, a great deal of dispute as to whether or not what the President did constitutes a violation (I believe it doesn't), so there is no consensus to censure over what can only be an uncertainty - additionally, the Senate is controlled by the GOP so only clear proof of criminality would move the Senate to do any such thing...you on the left don't have that, no matter how many times you repeat to yourselves that you do.

So, what Feingold has done is entirely worthless as a thing, and thus entirely symbolic...to you on the left it is symbolic against Chimpy McSmirk Bushitler....but to the troops in the field it means that part of the government doesn't support their fight for victory, and for our terrorist enemies it is proof that the American President is about to be brought down, and this aids and comforts them.

Feingold doesn't intend aid and comfort to the enemy - and only a tiny minorty of the left is actually on the side of terrorist victory - but these sorts of actions do aid and comfort the enemy and thus make the war longer and bloodier than it had to be...censure of Feingold is a way to redress the balance - to restore reality to the debates over the war, to demonstrate the unimportance of so-called anti-war opinion in the United States.

Tina,

Its like talking to a brick wall, isn't it? These lefties are so convinced that Bush is Satan that they just don't take into consideration troublesome things like facts and logic.

FISA is generally involved if a US citizen makes or receives a call within the US. It doesn't matter where the other party is--if one party is in the US and is a US citizen, FISA generally applies

Hey Mark, you made the comment section in Balloon Juice:
SeesThroughIt Says:
What was really vile was Sen. Frist’s response. As expected, he pulled the old chestnut of claiming that a censure resolution would embolden our enemies.
S***, Mark Noonan at my favorite right-wing nuthouse, blogsforbush, is proving that he can’t rise above the level of a taunted fourth-grader and is calling for a censure of Russ Feingold. Sadly, I’m not making that up. Oh, and best believe the phrase “aid and comfort” is all over the place in it.

pb Says:
SeesThroughIt,
Yep… apparently free speech is sedition over at “Blogs for Bush”—I guess they really are “The White House Of The Blogosphere”!

(Edited for obscenity)

Barney,

I'm supposed to be impressed that a leftwing nuthouse made mention of this?

Nebraska, Bush also got the most votes AGAINST for a winning President in history. Did you forget that?
Why is it that so many righties just start calling names instead of using common sense. Ok.. woo-hoo... call us whatever the hell you want. That doesn't make questionable acts legal or illegal.

I didn't see any response to you about admitting that the wiretapping was at best questionable. Maybe legal, maybe not, but at least questionable.
I'm not asking you to say it is illegal, just admit it is questionable.

If not, then you are obviously just another of the mindless sheep blindly following your fearless leader.

John:

It doesn't apply with regards to conducting military intelligence activities. Also, FISA's primary concernsis in regards to criminal prosecutions. The object of the NSA program is to protect, find and eventually neutralize our wartime enemies; not to serve them a warrant and bring them to court.

AlwaysLies writes: "See... you say that the President is entitled to the same protections of innocent until proven guilty.
However if it were up to you, we would never know if the President is proven guilty because there would NEVER be any hearings.
You can't have it both ways."

Actually, the way we can have it is for the Defeatocrats to provide some actual, tangible proof that laws were broken. Feelings do not count, nor does seething partisan rhetoric.

And, like I wrote yesterday, and wrote on my spot today, I have yet to see any of the Defeatocrats actually provide any sort of coherent and cogent plan for National Security other then "blame Bush."

Oh, and don't forget, the program was started under Clinton, as provided by Surrender Monkey Truth Out (see the associated PDF) http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml

Woops!!!!!!

After reviewing the comments, I totally agree with Tom S. The Republicans have three choices:
1) The current position is to sweep it under the rug and proceed as usual.
2) Launch a full investigation.
3) Vote for censure.

The problems with options 1 and 2, is that more and more information will come out on this and the MSM will never let it die. Someone will leak that domestic to domestic surveillance has occurred, or that some peace organization or reporter was tapped.

Option 3 gives the President a slap on the wrist, and than we can proceed with revising FISA and moving forward.

Mona,
Your case was dismissed and you come back with this

George Will has condemned Bush's behavior...Orin Kerr is not a man of the left, and he has parsed the arguments and concludes Bush would lose 8-1 in the SCOTUS

OOOHHH, WWOOWW

Come back when you have some new evidence to place in the record...not peoples opinions...I want facts counselor, FACTS!!!!!

Mona, please cite one American citizen who's rights were violated by the NSA's foriegn intelligence gathering program.

Regardless how many times the liberal media repeats this as "domestic spying" it is not.

President Bush does NOT need FISA court approval to gather foriegn intelligence coming into or leaving the Unites States.

And Mona, on behalf of conservatives everywhere I thank you for being one of the record 63,000,000 Americans,/b> who voted for President George W. Bush in 04'.

muirgeo..
Listen guy, I'm telling you, if you don't start on some meds, that bile is going to destroy your esophagus..it's nasty stuff!!!!

"George Will has condemned Bush's behavior...Orin Kerr is not a man of the left, and he has parsed the arguments and concludes Bush would lose 8-1 in the SCOTUS"

When both George Will and Orin Kerr are on the SCOTUS, then I will treat their opinions with some value.

Until then, please provide a case which states that the NSA program is illegal.

So really the argument are two-fold:

1)We are helping the terrorists by questioning if this is legal or not. Somehow, they had no idea that we were trying to secretly get information from them. I'm sure they were completely shocked to find out that these wiretaps were going on!
2)Questioning if this is legal or not is hurting the moral of the troops. Huh? You righties keep saying that they are fighting for Democracy. Democracy means having a dissenting voice. Democracy is being able to say what you want. Democracy is holding eveyone accountable from the bum on the street to the bum in the White House.

Again, member of BOTH parties have at minimum had questions about this. Isn't that enough in this country to at least look into the legality? Yet again, not one of you sheep can even admit that it is questionable. You can say it was legal all you want, but for cryin out loud at least admit it was borderline!
A Censure resolution is the best solution... even if it doesn't pass with the Republican majority. That is just a slap on the wrist and we can all move on to other pressing issues.

Sorry Mark, I thought you might need a laugh.

SOL,
What Hermie said.

and

Bush also got the most votes AGAINST for a winning President in history.

I bet you hang out in Koz land. What is Koz? 0-18 now? I can hear you clowns now...we almost won, we almost won. Losers. R,D,& PT ain't gonna win it for you libs. Hey, but don't let us stop you from running over the cliff.

Mona, please cite one American citizen who's rights were violated by the NSA's foriegn intelligence gathering program.

By definition, the statutory rights of some Americans have been violated by Bush's illegal surveillance. That is true whether they are terrorist supporters or not. In the criminal law (as opposed to national security) context, even child molesters have 4th Am rights which the police are bound to respect. Absent certain exigent circumstances and a few other narrow exceptions, even the worst criminals are protected by the 4th and their persons and effects may not be searched without a warrant, else their rights are violated. So too, since Bush admits he has spied on U.S. persons on American soil, contrary to FISA, he has violated the rights of each such U.S. person whose communications he has intercepted, even if their identities are unknown.

I just posted a long comment, but for some reason my typekey registration did not kick in and the comment is apparently in "being moderated" status." So I repeat a link.

Many conservative voices and legal scholars have described how Bush is breaking the law, and you can see some of those analyses, and Greenewald's own in depth legal analysis that rebuts all of the vacuous legal defenses of Bush's illegal program, here.

A slap on the wrist for something that has yet to have a shred of evidence shown that it was illegal. Interesting, the Defeatocrat point of view.

You can question all you want. But, before you throw around accusations, you might want to consider having some friggin' proof. For once. Your feelings do not count.

Any Americans have their Rights violated? Can you name a specific person? No? Crap. Thought the Defeatocrats were on to something. Guess not.

"Find someone that has had their rights violated"

THAT is your new defense to this?
THAT is why you say it is ok?

Well then... since I personally can't name anyone, I guess it must be legal. What was I thinking???

William, than you support a full investigation into the legality of the domestic spying program? There should be full discloser of all US persons who were tapped. It is the only way to find out.

Still waiting for your evidence, other then hearsay and seething, that it was illegal. Was it illegal when Clinton started the program in 1998? Shall we retroactively censure Bill?

Y'all lefties would rather condemn Bush out of your seething hatred, rather then worry about the people who would be happy to slit your throats. Too bad that all of the lefties who said they would leave the country if Bush won were liars.

What happened to the old style Dems, who had cajones? Folks like JFK and FDR. FDR may have been a major socialist, but, at least he had the balls do do what needed to been done to protect our country.

"William, than you support a full investigation into the legality of the domestic spying program? There should be full discloser of all US persons who were tapped. It is the only way to find out."

If someone would provide actual proof that it was in violation, sure. Until then, there is still that great American saying "Innocent till proven guilty." Feelings and partisan inuendo are not proof.

Far be it for me to say we're straying off topic .. but the original point of this post was about censuring Feingold.

So, William - do you support the a censure for Feingold, or not?

FISA is an acronym for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. To say it doesn’t apply to collecting foreign intelligence -- and to Bush's NSA programs -- is like saying the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act doesn’t apply to abortion.

Section 1811 of FISA happens to be entitled "Authorization during time of war;"; FISA even covers spying on U.S. persons during time of war. All these strained arguments to say Bush isn't controlled by FISA are simply inane, and more to the point, the Bush adminstration concedes that what it is doing is prohibited by FISA. It is simply arguing that it is not obliged to obey that law. Read more here.

Yes, I do support the censure of Feingold. He is playing petty party politics with our National Security. And, he isn't even honest in his moonbattery, like the "impeach Bush" nuts.

William Teach asserts: Yes, I do support the censure of Feingold. He is playing petty party politics with our National Security. And, he isn't even honest in his moonbattery, like the "impeach Bush" nuts.

Russ Feingold is standing up for the rule of law. He is not advocating anything that would harm national security; nobody -- NOBODY -- wants the NSA to stop surveillance on suspected terrorists or their domestic supporters. But there is this little thing called the rule of law, and it kicks in when Congres has passed legislation setting forth the procedural mechanisms whereby such surveillance shall take place.

FISA applies if both parties are within the United States. This does not apply where one party who is outside the United States. The President's powers to conduct military operations applies here, and you still cannot cite case law where the NSA program has been declared illegal.

Mona writes: "Russ Feingold is standing up for the rule of law."

No, Mona, Russ is trying to bolster himself among the far Left base in a potential run for the White House, at the expense of security. He is being irresponsible and overtly partisan. You want to take shots at Bush for his, and, i will admit it, disasterous immigration (both illegal and legal) policies, go for it. You want to take him to task for the crazy domestic spending and never vetoing a bill, go for it.

You want to play petty politics for personal gain at the expense of protecting the country, and LYING ABOUT WHAT THE PROGRAM IS REALLY DOING, problem.

You lefties are drinking the daily Kosbat/MoveOn/Michael Moore Kool Aid, and fail to understand what the actual program is doing. I fail to see why you want to assign Rights to people not protected by our constitution.

"...and you still cannot cite case law where the NSA program has been declared illegal."

Hermie,
The NSA program has never been thru a trial, so there are no case laws where it was declared illegal. Show me one where it WAS declared legal. That is why we are saying a hearing SHOULD take place.

I've said it before... both parties have said it is at least a questionable program. Why shouldn't we have hearings. If it is legal, then good for everybody. If it is illegal, then it is a good thing the hearings took place.

OK, so reading through these entries, I find two points:
1. President Bush has the inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to intercept communications between our enemies, whether in or out of the country, without seeking a warrant; and
2. Doing so violates FISA.

Doesn't this mean FISA is an unconstitutional statute because it violates the seperation of powers doctrine?

The Intelligence Committees of both the House and Senate have had nearly 5 years to have raosed questions over the legality of the NSA program. For 5 years there was silence, until the NYT illegallrevealed this program. Then Rockefeller pulled an unsent letter out of his rear stating he had 'reservations' about the program. Funny how he never for five years mentioned a single 'reservation' on the record.

Vero writes: The guys over at Power Line are really lawyers and back it up by stating where they work. They basically say you are full of it and that the President is right and that SCOTUS will vote to allow the President to do what he has to do to protect this country.

I will take their word over an unkown

The guys at Powerline are, to my disappointment and disgust, shilling for Bush. The case that controls here -- and which is fatal to Bush's legal arguments -- is Youngstown, and Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion therein. Jackson's analyis has been adopted by the SCOTUS, most recently in the Hamdi case determining what procedures apply when Bush detains citizens who are captured enemy combatants. Congress has not legislated in that area, but as Thomas wrote in his Hamdi dissent, and with discussion of Youngstown, if Congress were to do so, he might have voted with the majority and against Bush.

John Hinderaker knows Youngstown and Jackson's opinion therein are fatal to Bush. So what does this brilliant legal analyst say about it? He has twice called Jackson's opinion "sloppy thinking," and once, merely "silly."

Tell that to the Supremes, including Clarence Thomas; they didn't get the Powerline memo.

And if you require knowing the actual identity of those engaging in legal arguments, go read Greenwald's "Compendium of NSA Arguments" -- I've linked to it at least three times here.

patrick63 asks:Doesn't this mean FISA is an unconstitutional statute because it violates the seperation of powers doctrine?

No. Congress and the President both share authiority in national security areas. Please see the Youngstown discussion at Greenwald's blog. As Clarence Thomas just wrote in the Hamdi case, Congress may legislate in areas that cabin the President's inherent authority. Thomas discussed Youngstown.

Finally, for all those railing that objection to Bush's illegal program is just moonbat BS, I'm no moonbat. Further, if you read what Greenwald actually writes, as opposed to what others say about him, you will see he is no moonbat, either. He has passionately argued that Bush is deviating from conservatism as that has historically been understood.

Standing up for the rule of law does not a moonbat make. I was outraged at Clinton's breaches of law and violations of civil liberties, such as the Waco debacle. But I don't suspend my adherence to law just because this time the president is one I voted for. Dismissing people who argue against Bush's illegal activites as all a bunch of lefty moonbats is intellectually lazy and dishonest. And it also ignores the scores of conservatives who have denounced Bush; Bruce Fein, who wants Bush to pack the S. Ct. with Scalia's and Thomases, has suggested Bush should be impeached. Prof Bainbridge, when the news of this illegal program broke, said he was almost prompted to send a check to the ACLU.

"The NSA program has never been thru a trial, so there are no case laws where it was declared illegal. Show me one where it WAS declared legal. That is why we are saying a hearing SHOULD take place."

Umm, sorry Lies, but that is the way it worked in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and other totalitarian regimes. Here in the US, it is (again, for the Constitutional understanding deficient)"innocent till proven guilty." The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. It is up to YOU and you ilk to provide said evidence. Period.

The only reason you want a hearing is so that it can hurt Bush. Why not admit your seething and get it over with?

Mona, you just stated that Clinton broke the law. Should there be a retroactive impeachment of him?

A couple of points: First, how do you wiretap a Cell Phone? Ask John Boehner and Newt Gingrich! John and Alice Martin were fined $500. Jim McDermott got off scott free. Could you imagine the outrage if the same had happened to Nancy Pelosi? The Libs would still be bleeding out of their ears.
Second, All of this “flap” about warrant-less “wire-tapping” coincidently (wink, wink) was released simultaneously by the New York Times with the renewal date of the Patriot Act and the release of a book by James Risen (Times reporter) "STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration” even though these specific wiretaps actually occurred in the months following 9/11. Why, if this was so important, didn’t Mr. Risen and the New York Times release the story then? Because it wouldn’t have the political impact that they perceive it to have presently and Risen’s book wasn’t yet complete. Personally, I don’t appreciate you Liberals and the New York Times playing games with National Security. In just another impotent effort to discredit this Administration all you Liberals have succeeded in accomplishing is the loss of an effective means of preventing terrorist attacks on American soil.

William Teach: I was appalled at the Waco carnage, but I don't think there is such a thing as a "retroactive impeachment."

Geroge Bush has said the Amendments to FISA, contained in The Patriot Act, were sufficient to his needs; he misled all Americans into believing he was abiding by that law, my emphasis:

“Finally, we need to renew the critical provisions of the Patriot Act that protect our civil liberties. The Patriot Act was written with clear safeguards to ensure the law is applied fairly. The judicial branch has a strong oversight role. Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S.”
--President George Bush, June 9, 2005, in Columbus, Ohio

“Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”
--President George Bush, April 20, 2004, in Buffalo, New York

But all that time, he was, in fact, not procuring the required court orders.

Nice ducking, Mona.

We are getting way off the subject. Censure Feingold or not? If not, why?

PS: Mona, did you catch the part about "law enforcement officers?" The NSA is not law enforcement.

I beg to differ. It is not way off subject. The reason you want to censure Feingold is because he is saying what we are saying about the President. That sure seems pretty well connected.

No, you do not censure Feingold. What has he done either illegally or that has harmed the country?

And if you say he harmed the country because he is disagreeing with the president, then we are right back to where we started!

He should be censured for undercutting the ability of the United States of America's ability to defend itself during a time of war. In effect, he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, as well as adhering to them. You're right, he shouldn't be censured. He should be charged with Treason, as defined by the US Constitution, per Article III, Section 3.

This is a loser issue for the Demorats, no doubt about it. They lost the end of last week when they got outflanked on the Ports Issue and the booming job numbers. Now, this week is lost for them.

I saw Gallups new poll and nearly 60% of the American public rate the economy as very good/good. This is the highest number since April of 2002 im their poll.

Even Senator Spectator of PA is against Frankengold.

Senator Spectator just said that the President has this power under Article II of the Constitution. A Congress can not take this power away from the President, whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent. Senator Spectator has just blasted Frankegold. He just said doesn't the Constitution trump a statute. This is getting very interesting - another victory putting a "moderate to liberal senator" against a far leftist. I think a vote on the Censure resolution is scheduled tonite.

William Teach, of more interest than my opinion of Clinton vis-a-vis impeachment, might be the harsh indictment of him by...Russ Feingold. You know, the partisan hack you want tried for treason for having the nerve to stand for the rule of law, and who in 1999 about a Democratic president said on the Senate floor:

What would we be telling Americans--and those worldwide who see in America what they can only hope for in their own countries--if the Senate of the United States were to conclude: The President lied under oath as an element of a scheme to obstruct the due process of law, but we chose to look the other way?
I cannot make that choice. I cannot look away. I vote 'Guilty' on Article I, Perjury. I vote 'Guilty' on Article II, Obstruction of Justice.
I ask unanimous consent an analysis of the Articles of Impeachment be printed in the Record.

And you call US moonbats??????
So you are saying that anybody that disagrees with the President should be held for Treason?

Great post Mona.
Thanks.

Again, you both have missread what I wrote, adding your own little BDS into the mix.

Go read the part of the Constitution that I cited. Then get back to me.

Oh, and, not to get off the subject (again :D) Mona, but, would it surprise you to learn that I voted for Clinton's second term and for Al Gore? Would it shock you to learn that I thought that the Impeachment was too much, that a Censure and move along would have been better, rather then wasting an enormous amount of time and money, not mention that it sure seemed like, and still does, that much of the evidence was gained from illegal wiretaps by Linda Tripp?

I might be giving Mark apoplexy. Then again, probably not. Conservatives know how to disagree from standard party lines.

William Teach,

If you think Feingold is giving aid or comfort to the enemy, then you must also think Republicans who accussed Clinton of launching missles against Iraq in an attempt to distract from the lewisnksy affair were guilty of the same charge.

Why would I? I thought that it was cute timing, but, I had absolutely no problem with Clinton launching missles. Just wish he had done it more.

"What has he [Feingold] done either illegally or that has harmed the country?"

Like all of the liberal left's anti-American, Bush-bashing hate speeches and propaganda -- we will likely never know! Unfortunately, that's part of the problem... in most cases, we can't tie their actions directly to tangible events either now or in the future. However, based on knowledge of history, human nature, and other factors, one can speculate... and it isn't good!

If we could identify the damage in years to come and add it all up, American's might have a real eye opening... a real significant emotional event!

AAR

Mr Teach: Bush did not address merely law enforcement; you ignore my second Bush quote, where he misled the nation, if he did not outright lie:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.

And you wrote: [Feingold] should be censured for undercutting the ability of the United States of America's ability to defend itself during a time of war. In effect, he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, as well as adhering to them. You're right, he shouldn't be censured. He should be charged with Treason, as defined by the US Constitution, per Article III, Section 3.

I truly cannot get over this; in the land of Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, people are seriously advocating that a member of the U.S. Senate should be tried for freakin' treason because he proposes to censure an Executive who is violating the law. You and they invoke a war, which is actually a state of affairs that is going to go on for decades; Bush himself has made clear that gutting Muslim terrorism is a very long-term project. So, for the foreseeable decades, only meek agreement to, or at least silent acquiescence in, every actiontaken by a "war" president -- certainly any action that falls within the national security realm -- is permitted in the land in which suspicion of govt and an insistence on accountability had always reigned.

No sir. On 9/11, Al Qaeda did not induce us to change our very national character, not if I have anything to say about it. Russ Feingold is a true patriot and is fiercely dedicated to his vision of ethical government -- a consistent vision that caused him to be the *only* Democrat to vote against dismissal of impeachment charges brought against a President from his own party.

And you would try for treason, a principled man such as that. Russ Feingold is too liberal for me in some respects (I'm a libertarian), but I recognize a rare elected official of character when I see one. And I also recognize, when I encounter them, horrifying, unAmerican endorsements of silencing political speech and every person's right to criticize their govt and its elected officials.

Russ Feingold is more of a patriot than those calling for his silence, or for punishing his speech and censure resolution.

William, I didn't ask your opinion of Clinton's launching the missles, I asked if you thought those who criticized him for attacking Iraq were aiding and comforting the enemy. And if you feel they should have been tried for treason?

Tina said...FISA does not apply. It only applies for a domestic (not overseas) action.
Posted by: Tina at March 13, 2006 01:38 PM

Then Mark Noonan Said...Its like talking to a brick wall, isn't it? These lefties are so convinced that Bush is Satan that they just don't take into consideration troublesome things like facts and logic.

Mark, that's not the legal basis for this program, is it? The whole reason to censure, and impeach, President Bush is after three months he hasn't come up with a serious legal basis for this program. The only reason this is news, is because American citizens, inside the US, are being tapped without warrant. If the President had a legit basis for listening to US citizens phone calls, then this would not be an issue; though, if he had a legit legal basis, he would've gone to the courts, or had the law change. He has no legal ground to stand on, and the political argument that the survival of the US depends on removing judicial oversight is laughable.

Lefties and Dems. PLEASE keep insisting on protecting "rights" for terrorists. PLEASE insist they, too, have the "right" to free speech, privacy, assembly, etc. PLEASE insist that the President is breaking the law when he listens in on conversations between known terrorists, one of which is outside the U.S. PLEASE act as this is some sort of criminal action and not a terror war.

American voters just LOVE it when you are looking out for this new protected class; the terrorist. Perhaps, a "freedom fighter" in your world.

Just don't stop; don't let up.

American voters just LOVE it when you are looking out for this new protected class; the terrorist. Perhaps, a "freedom fighter" in your world.

You don't even attempt to defend warrantless wiretapping from a legal standpoint. It's all about marketing for you guys, isn't it?

Constitutional Law scholars on the NSA spying

Thad,

If it were wireless wiretapping, then you might have something - but this is signalsintelligence. To say that this violates someone's rights is to say that a US spy in China is violating the rights of the Chinese...

If it were wireless wiretapping, then you might have something - but this is signalsintelligence. To say that this violates someone's rights is to say that a US spy in China is violating the rights of the Chinese...

Mark, they are US phone calls made by US citizens on US soil. They should be protected!

My trackback did not make it (MT does not like Haloscan trackbacks) but my response is here

Thad Anderson. FISA does not amend the CONSTITUTION. It is a STATUTE. Bush has the Constitution behind him.

But, PLEASE continue insisting that Al Qaeda has the abolute right to communicate with their operatives in the U.S without any interference from the government. PLEASE call Bush a liar and insist that he is breaking the law with his insistence that Al Qaida should NOT be able to communicate with their U.S. operatives.

BTW, you may recall the U.S. INTERRED a lot of Japanese during WWII. Now, do you think THAT would be a problem with the 4th amendment? And you have a problem with terrorist phone calls.

PLEASE keep telling everyone your position. Make FEINGOLD your '08 candidate and have him run on THAT.

RE: "Mark, they are US phone calls made by US citizens on US soil. They should be protected!"

I'm sure Osama Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, terrorists, spies, and America's sworn enemies would agree wholeheartedly!

After all, we gotta' protect the rights of those criminals and terrorists... even if means thousands (maybe many more) Americans may die because of the liberal's demands that we protect terrorist's rights. It ties right in to liberal demands that we jail terrorists on American soil so they can get a good ACLU lawyer; make sure they keep their mouths shut; and make sure they don't provide information about any future attacks!

If liberals think the law is being broken in an effort to protect Americans from being blown to bits right here in America, then change the law. After all, we wouldn't want to "illegally" protect our citizens.

If liberals are worried about the rights of criminals and afraid some killer might unknowingly incriminate himself, just write the law so that the judges throw out any evidence not related to terrorism. Judges should have no problem with that since it's done all the time to protect criminal's rights!

As to where the calls originate, from what I read "... these are not phone calls within the United States ... this is a phone call of an al Qaeda, known al Qaeda suspect, making a phone call into the United States." If this the case, it sounds to me like at least one of the callers (initially anyway) may not have been on US soil, and probably not a US citizen... unless of course they are phoning home from an overseas al-Qaeda terrorist training camp!

Sounds like the proper thing to do is hang up the phone if al-Qaeda, Bin Laden, or a terrorist calls. I believe that's what a reasonable, pro-American citizen would do... and the NSA "terrorist monitors" would go on to the next al-Qaeda call!

Personally, I'm not worried about NSA catching me talking to al-Qaeda. I am worried though and angered about those cameras liberals want to install all around America to catch someone running a stop sign, speeding, or something equally minor! Where's the outcry over that from the liberals?

AAR