Bush, 'state secrets,' and national security run amok
A federal court case involving Internet wiretapping has revealed the Bush administration at its worst.
I don't say this lightly. Senior attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice showed up before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last week and argued that the president should be able to violate federal law--and that judges can't do anything about it.
Excerpt from a Justice Department 'state secrets' brief
Their argument rests on something called the "state secret" privilege, which traditionally has been used to pull the plug on lawsuits that could, for instance, disclose national-security secrets such as a crashed military plane's true mission.
But now President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have expanded it to throw out a lawsuit (PDF) saying that AT&T illegally opened its network to the National Security Agency. Their arguments rest on the principle that even if the president is breaking the law, he can get away with it as long as he invokes national security. Courts would be demoted to a clerical role of noting that the "state secrets" privilege has been invoked and dismissing the case post-haste.
This would, if taken to its logical conclusion, allow the president to get away with murder.
Here, of course, we're talking about the Bush administration trying to derail a civil lawsuit against AT&T filed to right a wrong--there's no criminal prosecution--but the principle is the same. (Note that 50 USC 1809 makes it a federal felony to engage "in electronic surveillance under color of law, except as authorized by statute.")
No wonder the judges were skeptical. "The bottom line here is that once the executive declares that certain activity is a state secret, that's the end of it?" Judge Harry Pregerson asked. "No cases, no litigation, absolute immunity? The king can do no wrong?"
These are the kind of questions that journalists should be asking as well, and that's what I'm planning to do through this new blog here on CNET News.com. It's an independent, nonpartisan effort to report on the intersection of technology, law and policy in the areas that affect our lives and liberty.
And because I said it would be nonpartisan, I should acknowledge that the Department of Justice during the Clinton and Carter presidencies invoked the state secret privilege as well. And it's true that perhaps a Gore or Kerry presidency would have veered in the same expansive direction as Bush has. But that lies in the realm of speculation; the reality today is that we have the worrying prospect of a president who would place himself above the law.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan.
"This would, if taken to its logical conclusion, allow the president to get away with murder."
"And because I said it would be nonpartisan..."
"the reality today is that we have the worrying prospect of a president who would place himself above the law."
Welcome to yellow journalism.
The fact is that so-called "journalists" at the major news organizations have been working at little more than stenography for Bush since he took office. Claims about all sorts of things get dutifully reported without verification. You know, claims about foreign nations having weapons of mass destruction when they don't. Claims that Iran is the next incarnation of Hitler's Germany, when in fact the Iranian government sent a fax through Swiss diplomats to the U.S. State Department in an attempt to open full diplomatic discussion with us. That fact has barely been reported in the mainstream media.
We have gone far too long as a nation with debate over the current government's policies and practices being confined to a box in which everything they do is on the side of Good, and to oppose all manner of illegal and anti-American behavior is to stand on the side of, or at least obstruct the defeat of Evil.
It is high time that we begin seriously examining the nature and meaning of the Bush Administration's actions, the acceptability of their one-size-fits-all justification that their lawbreaking is only necessary to protect us from being killed by terrorists, and what effects all of this has had on our Constitution, our values as Americans, and our commitment to the rule of law. And I sincerely hope that Declan makes good on his promise to examine the policies of all recent adminstrations without regard to political party. I am a Democrat, but that doesn't mean that administrations run by Democrats are beyond scrutiny. For far too long, Republicans have acted as if this is true of the Bush Administration, and I can't imagine a more un-American worldview than that which holds that the president is above the law because he claims he's protecting us.
It was made explicitly clear by VP Cheney himself that the executive branch was weak and should be strengthened more..
Does this mean asking for more resources for FISA and then circumventing it when it gets in your way ? Does that mean approving torturing and destroying what was left of a good name of the USA? Does it mean at the end you just walk away?
I say that is absolutely pathetic. We should ALL be ashamed of ourselves for letting things get this far.
Do you actually have a logical refutation of the above statement? Because throwing around terms like "yellow journalism" doesn't really cut it as an argument.
Accusing Declan of all people of "yellow journalism" for reporting about one of the many latest execesses of the worst president in US history is ridiculous.
what is in dispute. What is in question is what the Executive Branch
under the Bush Administration is doing. So Dude, go find your car.
It is very possible the lawyers in this case are pulling stuff out of thin air... and even more likely they will not win the case. Does this make the lawyers themselves or the Bush administration DANGEROUS or MURDERS? Of course not. It simply means that there is a valid argument to be made to limit the scope of this "state secret" defense.
Let's also wait until the judge makes a decision before we jump on the "guilty" bandwagon here.
pass a law/bill that would allow them to perform their duties if they
ever were indicted. From there, it has gone down hill.
Your idea that the federal lawyers were just doing their job, by
pulling things out of thin air, show a great amount of ignorance. I
am actually so appalled that you even think that, do you not
understand the word "contempt"?
The Bush administration has made a specific legal claim. First, it is worth evaluating it on its merits in the case at hand. Second, it is worth looking at the consequences of the claim being applied in other cases, which is what I aimed to do. Third, it is worth critiquing arguments that short-circuit the judicial process.
That, in fact, is what lawyers do: they look at the consequences of arguments and think critically about the law. You applaud the "adversarial process" of our justice system -- fair enough -- but fail to recognize that the state secrets claim as advocated by the Bush administration would guit it.
been convicted for.... well, let Paul Craig Roberts tell it:
"José Padilla?s conviction on terrorism charges on August 16 was
a victory, not for justice, but for the US Justice (sic) Department?s
theory that a US citizen can be convicted, not because he
committed a terrorist act but for allegedly harboring aspirations
to commit such an act...
"When Padilla was arrested five years ago in 2002, the US
government charged that he was about to set off a radioactive
"dirty bomb" in a US city that would kill tens or even hundreds of
thousands of Americans. The story was a total lie, a fabrication
designed to keep the fear level high after 9/11 in order to keep
support for the Bush regime?s wars and domestic police state.
None of the charges on which Padilla was illegally held, during
those years before the US Supreme Court intervened and
ordered the Bush regime to release Padilla or bring him to trial,
were part of the charges on which Padilla was tried."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts219.html
It is a mistake to attribute this solely to Bush. Congress laid the
foundation for and raised no objection (except for rare members
like Ron Paul) to the plundering of constitutional rights. And in
the end the American people are ready and willing to line up, for
"security" and the destruction of their own liberty.
Mr Putin has a job for you making people disappear. NO person,
President or otherwise IS ABOVE THE LAW!
Quit drinking the damn kool-aid and wake up already.
Just thought I'd clarify. :)
The fact is, much of the Bush Administration's attempts to expand the powers of the executive branch intersect with technology. Asserting the power to conduct wiretaps without obtaining the warrants mandated by the FISA law has both technical and legal aspects to it.
Just because you would apparently rather not see journalists covering these stories doesn't mean that it is inappropriate for them to do so, or that they are unqualified to cover these topics.
Some other blogs discussing this case in part:
Threat Level
Danger Room
Liberty Does Not March Abroad (my own blog)
It is specious to claim that technology journalists should be able to write about Internet wiretapping lawsuits but may not evaluate the legal claims made in them.
"perhaps" means? Do you have any idea what the phrase, "realm of
speculation" means? McCullagh was suggesting that Gore, had he
won, might have done the same thing.
Wake up dude! Stop drinking the Kool-Aid, dude! And learn to read
critically, dude!
even conceive of the difference between Democrat and Democratic?
Here's a hint: It's a grammatical difference that carries a
connotation of a lack of respect. And it tells the rest of us exactly
where you stand intellectually and politically.
Communism is used way to much and often very wrongly to describe so many things. A true communist state isn't all that bad, but the fact is that communism doesn't mesh with human nature ergo no one will ever reach a true communist state. What we often end up with is Socialism.
Unfortunately, authoritarian leaders never seem to have a lack of supporters - or enablers, in another word.
It's ironic that in the self-proclaimed Land of the Free, there are so many who actually hold steadfast views that run counter to the founding principles of the country. Such patriots they are!
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism
one is going to take this issue very seriously, but will choose
instead to try and level the real and imagined partisan playing
field.
In reality this is a very concerning issue that has been and is
being perpetuated by both of the major parties in this country
[http://U.S.A.|http://U.S.A.] The really scary thing is that I'm not sure the intentions
are all bad, in fact I don't believe that, right now, the intent is
evil at all.
And please spare me the verbal abuse the last time I made this
statement responding to a CNET article along these lines. If it
matters, the honest truth is that I consider myself to be an
independent with a liberal leaning, but what I really am is a tax
paying citizen who refuses to sign away my freedom to choose
by becoming locked down to a singular political cause - I want
answers and solutions that are never going to come from more
political and moral polarization.
But assuming that our current political leadership is mostly
devoid of any real ill will, and can be trusted with this kind of
power, the real issue is the precedent that is being set, and has
been being set by several presidents before this one, from both
parties. One thing history has unarguablly taught us is that
power ALWAYS corrupts. My question is, what makes anyone
think that this universal realization has in any way changed? If
we hand over this kind of power to a person or group, then we
are doomed, a lot more doomed than the occasional domestic
terrorist attack, which by the way are going to happen no matter
how many freedoms are usurped from the citizenary. I will state
again that my believe is that we had plenty of "departments" in
place prior to 9/11, they needed to be refurbished, but we didn't
need yet another layer of secretive domestic policing - period.
Articles like this unintentionally leave us witht he impression
that something bad might happen depending on a singular
decision made in a legal ruling, but I wonder if the public
understand how many "smaller" freedoms have already been
taken that we're never going to get back.
Even if I trust the current president there's no way I want these
kinds of powers being handed down to other presidents.
Sadly, American people are being constantly bombarded with FEAR FEAR FEAR in all avenues of Media, Television, Internet and Major Newspapers. By this constant venue of fear, our minds are being taught that if we do not question and do what our government wants (like small children) we wil be safe from all sorts of harm. We are lambasted if we dare to question policy or tactics used, when it is our right as Americans under our constitution to do so. Do not ridicule others if they do not agree with issues or question their legitimacy. Debate, not by name call-ing or labeling but with what your viewpoint is. Try to look at issues affecting us, from a true objective standpoint. If you are a staunch Democrat or Republican, Indenpendent, or whatever party, try even harder to be objective. Yes it will make us humble to see that our views are not always "right" but maybe that's what we need sometimes to make us better individuals.
As Americans, we should never submit to or blindly follow what is told, or shown to us because anything today can be so manipulated by whatever means.
Keep questioning and seeking answers. That is our right as Americans.
That, being said, there are other issues at work here; one being that of being FAIR & IMPARTIAL when thinking about these matters. Having a command of ALL THE INFORMATION IN THE WORLD, of course is impossible, but we can pay attention to what we hear.
Think of ourselves as standing on Mars and hearing whatever you hear about 9/11, faulty elections, presidential manoevering, and the various wars in the Mid-East. What are you going to believe???
The Bushies say Bin Laden attacked America for one reason, and Al Jezera shows a translated video of Osama saying another (It's all on YouTube). What are you going to think - be impartial, here. Who's getting manipulated? are you?
Keep pursuing your instincts. You may be wrong, but you may be right after all. Your opinion counts with me. I'll regard it - or disregard as the fact become aparant.
'Nuff said !!!
What you're proposing - that the president be allowed to decide when and if the "state secrets" doctrine applies without any oversight - effectively allows the president veto over any case involving the government.
A CIA officer summarily kills an innocent witness in a case? All the government needs to do is claim that bringing the officer to court could "expose state secrets" and there's no trial. Is that the kind of america you want? Because it's certainly not the kind that the framers of the constitution wanted.
As for the NSA, it has broken it's charter (please go to nsa.gov to read). Basically the NSA does not have the authority to conduct domestic surveillance.
As for your point of surveillance keeping us safe, nothing that the 9-11 hijackers did would be caught today, even with the added security.
Physical safety is not the ultimate ideal this country was founded upon. In fact, we frequently hear about how American soldiers since the Revolutionary War up to the present day died to protect our freedoms. They didn't die so that a megalomaniac President can break the law at will and try to excuse that by claiming that he's protecting us from the terrorists; they died so that the values we hold dear as Americans continue to thrive.
I'm really tired of being told I'm unpatriotic because I don't believe this President should have the powers of a king. I'm tired of being told I'm unpatriotic because I oppose giving the President the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without charges and without redress.
I'm tired of being told that I have nothing to fear from the increasing invasiveness of so-called anti-terrorist surveillance programs unless I'm up to no good. How would that argument have been received during the Constitutional Conventions? How do you think John Adams or Thomas Jefferson would have responded to the argument that we have to sacrifice privacy and liberty for the sake of safety? They would have howled in protest, because these were not men to hide under their beds and squeal for the government to protect them from the "REAL bad guys." They would have argued that the rule of law and adherence to the principle of restricting executive power was of paramount importance.
According to your definition, then I and many others reading this aren't patriots. But to be perfectly honest, I'm not that worried about that, coming from someone who obviously doesn't understand that one's patriotism has nothing to do with how much one supports George W. Bush, his lawbreaking, his insatiable desire for more and greater powers, or his encroachments on personal liberty. Why should I be insulted by the rantings of someone who doesn't get it in the first place?
Theodore Roosevelt (1858 - 1919)
This has nothing to to with legitimate spying. This is about spying
on all Americans and laying the groundwork for political
persecution.
You people just want to cast Bush as a criminal, even at the expense of the lives of our fighting men and women overseas. YOU PEOPLE have shown the enemies of this country their path to victory. It's the oldest military tactic in the world; Divide and conquer. YOU PEOPLE are doing more to harm the brave men and women overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan than anything else because you have the same objective. You want us out, you want our people to come home where life is all warm and fuzzy. Well our enemies want us out too. If we go away, they are free to murder and oppress at will. THEY want to get back to the time when they strapped a bombs on mentally retarded children and told them to go stand in the crowd. Anyone who thinks they won't bring their hatred to our shores is kidding themselves. What are you going to say when they strap a bomb on your kid?
consider all out countries problems to be caused by the lowely
inept people and all the solutions to come from our revered God
George Bush.
You couldn't be more wrong.
The "CONVICTED FELON" Bill Clinton was convicted for lying
under oath about whether or not he was having an extramarital
affair. Hardly an issue that caused anyone's deaths.
The illegal Bush regime has dodged the law repeatedly by
refusing to testify about anything under oath or even on record.
Can you guess why? Hint: it's hard to convict someone of lying
under oath when they were never under oath to begin with and
even harder when they completely refuse to testify at all.
The harm to this country is coming from a BS president who's
incompetence and ineptitude at running a war which he started
without cause has turned a world who supported us into a world
that hates us.
But if you're truly too blind to see that, I can't think of what else
to say to you ... except this is all YOUR fault for supporting this
regime.
Thanks to the "War on Terrorism"... Our brave young men and women in uniform, in IRAQ, have DIED FOR NOTHING... NOTHING.
America is now in as much risk from "Terrorists" as ever before (possibly more). Iraq is in a state of COMPLETE CIVIL-WAR. The "Middle-East" is on the verge of SELF-DESTRUCTING, thanks directly to U.S. actions. The "U.S. Constitution" is effectively GONE. American-Freedom is a JOKE. And, MOST of the world now ABSOLUTELY-REVILES (what used to be), "...the greatest-nation on the Earth".
I know some of the parents of these DEAD "fighting men"... and they arent consoled, in the slightest (by the LIES, supporters of this treasonous-crime against the American-people, keep spewing). All many of them feel is their terrible, and completely-unwarranted, loss... and a firm sense of BETRAYAL, by an ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, UNETHICAL, UN-AMERICAN pack of LYING-TRAITORS (in our "highest-offices").
So, please pay attention...
The CORPSES of thousands of patriotic, young, Americans are now ROTTING in the ground... because of complete, intentional LIES, made by one of the most corrupt administrations in U.S. history (and, now, also by a "Congress" who has REFUSED to "...DEFEND The Constitution", or obey "...the American-People".
...Not to mention the TENS OF THOUSANDS of INNOCENT PEOPLE (Iraqi men, women, children, and infants) MURDERED in the name of this ABSOLUTE-SHAM.
...And, these INNOCENT-PEOPLE are STILL DYING, DAILY, ...FOR NOTHING.
There was NO CONNECTION between Saddam Hussein, and "9/11", whatsoever, and this administration knew it. And, Saddam Husseins Iraq posed NO CREDIBLE-THREAT to the U.S.
Additionally, Saddam, was HUNG for killing FAR FEWER innocent Iraqi-people than this, illegal-attack by the U.S., has now exacted.
Another fact is that this administrations ILLEGAL-WAR (under both U.S. Federal, and International, Law) has now KILLED as many innocent Americans, as the "9/11-attacks" did.
Furthermore, "The Constitution", "The Rule of Law", and ANY culpability for actions committed by "the Government"... (or ANYBODY that knowingly commits ILLEGAL-ACTS, at the behest of "the Government") have been, or are being, BURIED... as quickly as possible.
Therefore, as an older patriotic-American (who still thoroughly believes in the principle of, "...protecting and defending the U.S. Constitution, against ALL threats...", even unto my own death), I believe that... those FOOLS that support these ongoing criminal-acts (because they, honestly, are too stupid to see what is going-on, right in front of their faces) should be LOCKED-UP... for their own (and societys) protection. And, those that actually know the TRUTH, and yet still support these TREASONOUS-ABUSES, should be the ones that find themselves dangling at the end of a rope.
I am NOT being cavalier here...
America, IS at "WAR". It started when a group of powerful, CORRUPT, ELITIST-TOTALITARIANS, decided to ENSLAVE the American-People, by ELIMINATING the U.S. Constitution... and any semblance of TRUE-FREEDOM... through the use of FEAR, and the IMPOSITION of TYRANNY.
He seems to be putting the safety of all of us above some fallible human written law.
The most interesting thing about this article, however, is the indication that people are finally catching on to what has been happening right in front of our eyes.
The "yellow journalism" reply is a screaming demonstration of the methods that have allowed this administration to completely corrupt the concept of national pride.
UltraNationalism and militarism produce predictable results.
When I was first learning history and read about Germany in World War II, I was confounded how a "Christian nation" could allow what happened to occur within their borders and in their name as a people. The Bush administration has answered those questions. I would say that it may now be possible for us to save ourselves from having the same questions asked about us, but we've already gone too far for history to be kind to us.
But there still may be time - before we are completely marginalized or dismissed by the rest of the world for us to act righteously, rather than acting with contempt for others and calling ourselves righteous.
For anybody who has not seen it, I most strongly recommend a British documentary from the 1990s called "The Nazis: A Warning from History" and another called "Paragraph 175" - both available from Netflix. These should be required viewing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, D.C.
Wake up, America.
- oh, i get it... if you disagree with the president, you're a DEMOCRAT.
-
by tzantatzanta
August 21, 2007 9:35 AM PDT
- heaven forbid.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
- Not really
-
by Troll Hard
August 21, 2007 11:44 AM PDT
- if you disagree with the President, then you agree with the terrorists and support terrorism and terrorists' rights to invade our nation and plan out attacks on people like you.
-
View
all 2 replies
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (145 Comments)By opposing the President, you are threatening your own safety and the safety of others.
What good is liberty when you die from a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by a warrantless wiretap?