GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: NSA program broader than previously described

• 15696
  

  Okay, Disgusted W. Media. I did as you instructed, and broke out my U.S. Constitution. Here are a few of the commander in chief's duties that you've conveniently forgotten:

  Article II, Section 3: "He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed ... "

  Now, how do you reconcile ignoring FISA with that duty?

  Article II, Section 1: "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will ... to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'"

  Amendment IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation ..."

  Yet this president has been listening in on people (and if that's not a search, what is?) without a warrant or probable cause. If there were probable cause, if there were actual evidence, any reasonable person would present it to a judge, in accordance with the law. This president did not. Draw from that what conclusion you will. There are several possibilities, none good.

  And finally, from Amendment V: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."

  There's a clear prohibition against torture. It also requires due process of law. And requires an indictment for anyone accused of a capital or infamous crime. Terrorism is without question an infamous crime.

  Note that it says "any person." The only exception is for cases arising in the land or naval forces, which opens the door for courts martial in the military. And that exception does not apply to due process or self-incrimination.

  Yet this president is eager to hold people without trial or charges, deny them due process, and force them to incriminate themselves. How, I ask you, can these actions be reconciled with his oath and duty to defend the Constitution?

  Disgusted With Cultists Posted March 28, 2006 10:51 AM
• 15665
  

  Okay, "Disgusted" and company, I'll bite. Here's your chance to convince me. Here are a few questions you can answer to help make up my mind for me:

  Where should we draw the line between freedom and safety? Which has precedence? Which is more important?

  Perhaps the Russians can tell us. Not to be facetious, but it's similar to the question they asked themselves constantly since they started moving from a controlled market economy (please read their old ways) to the relative free-fall of a market-based economy (please read our ways).

  Old-time hardliners say that the bread lines were shorter before. You knew where your next meal was coming from.

  The new millionaires said the market will sort it all out, these shortages are temporary, and the final result will be better.

  Honestly? Neither system is without its flaws, but what type of economy would you rather live in?

  I know that the economics of the United States versus Russia is not the same as our current national and international problems, but and still, the BLUF (bottom line up front) question to be settled is:

  Where do we draw the line between freedom and safety?

  Personally, I am still unsure how I would answer that question. I do worry that the answer will be all too apparent in hindsight.

  Tip off.

  Tip Posted March 27, 2006 9:26 AM
• 15634
  

  Eric, you poor, little misguided left-winger -- the president was following the law -- no assumption on my part. Break out your U.S. Constitution and read the Commander-in-Chief's responsibilities. Then go read the legislation passed by our Congress giving him certain authorities to fight the bad guys that want to kill you. And look at past court decisions upholding this view. I am afraid you have been blindly led by your sorry buddies in the media who also hate Bush and America. Face it -- you are way out of your league. That is why such bile and hate spews from you instead of reasoned, intelligent comments.

  Disgusted W. Media Posted March 24, 2006 6:44 AM
• 15579
  

  "Disgustedwithmedia's" assumption is that the President shouldn't have to follow the law in his "war against terrorists." People like him should be expelled from America, or at least their right to vote should be withdrawn, because each time they enter an American voting booth, they do so as deadly enemies of this country -- they're just as bad as Al Qaeda, and even worse than that because they can vote in our elections and thus possess the power to transform America into a fascist nation -- something that even Al Qaeda can't do to us.

  Eric Posted March 21, 2006 8:05 PM
• 15551
  

  The Rethuglicans are great at spinning everything said against their methods as being anti-American, or emboldening the terrorists. What's more un-American than circumventing the Constitution of the United States? What's more un-American than turning this nation into a fascist state? A terrorist's bill of rights? Come on. That's beyond ridiculous. What this is about is slowing or eroding our rights under the Constitution. Considering how many mistakes this administration has made and how often they've been wrong, what makes you think they are spying on the right people? Personally, I don't see a lot of credibility in anything they've done in the five years they've been in power. They continue to live in a fantasy world of denial -- the same insurgency that was in its last throes a year ago is now "desperately trying to foment a civil war" according to Dead Eye Dick. Sorry, but Bush's claim that he is using a strategy to ensure complete victory in Iraq is less than convincing. A slogan (stay the course) isn't a strategy, it's a sound bite. And, he has yet to define "complete victory." Or even "victory." Sorry, Pollyanna, the glad game just isn't going to work this time.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 20, 2006 1:40 PM
• 15539
  

  I have no issue with constructing transactional trails. Phone X called phone Y. Phone Y called phone Z. Similar to email. No one is listening in. But, I wonder who checks on the checkers?

  They have a lot of power and temptation: neighbors, spouses, business rivals, famous people etc. This is my worry. The little brothers in the bowels of the building. Lots of power and temptation.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 20, 2006 10:20 AM
• 15524
  

  I see the National Journal and GovExec.com have decided to drop any pretense of professional journalism and join the left wing effort to create a terrorists' Bill of Rights. All in the name of their hate-filled get George Bush campaign. I have never seen a more scandalous, one-sided and twisted "news article" than Shane Harris's breathless garbage. From his fantastic mind-reading ability and his biased use of adjectives depending upon who's actions he is describing - Gonzales "batted away inquiries" ..."Democrat's determined questioning." Harris clearly has an axe to grind. Pay attention New York Times! Look how this kid can masterfully quote un-named sources. He may be ready to be called up to the major leagues for Bush-bashers and expose-all- U.S. national security-secrets at any cost liberals. I sure will sleep better at night knowing that great patriotic Americans like Shane Harris are out there protecting civil rights. I just wish they were mine instead of the terrorists'.

  Disgusted W. Media Posted March 20, 2006 6:59 AM