Actually, this post isn’t about the most interesting non-story in The Australian yesterday, that Bonnie Prince Charlie is contemplating taking the regal name George VII on his (eventual) accession, but a follow up to the misadventures of the American King George and his trashing of US law by issuing illegal spy warrants. Readers of comments on cs’ thread and Tim Dunlop’s might recall the faithful reproduction of the talking points of His Georgeness himself by his antipodean minions – the whole thing was a non-story (followed in quick succession by “Clinton was impeached” and “we’re at war”). It seems that the story still has a while to run, and rightly so. The Imperial President defended his actions by suggesting that these “authorisations” were for intercepting communications between individuals located in the US with known links to Al-Qaeda and international contacts. It seems that this is at best misleading. It’s now been revealed that a vast data-mining operation was being conducted, with all sorts of telephonic and internet communication of individuals with each other being monitored in an attempt to establish “patterns”. Similar programmes had previously been scrapped because of political and public outcry about privacy rights and civil liberties. It’ll be interesting to see how George II defends this one. As Hilzoy observes, his previous rhetoric has all been about accepting his word of honour.
It’s clear now why the Bushies didn’t go to the FISA Court for prospective or even retrospective validation of warrants. They weren’t spying on known terrorists, they were potentially spying on everyone.
Elsewhere: Andrew Bartlett examines what’s happening with telecoms intercepts here in Australia.
They weren’t spying on known terrorists, they were potentially spying on everyone.
Not anyone – just the folks borrowing Mao’s Little Red Book.
Ha ha, C.L. Of course mentioning that evil tract on a US blog would probably bring you to their attention!
what are you two odd bods doing still awake?
well 3 counting mark
They *are* spying on everyone though you all realize that the Little Red Book story turned out to be a hoax right?
George Dubya would actually be George III, if Washington is taken into account. IIRC it was against George III that the American revolutionaries fought for their liberty.
Minor factoid… A lot of Americans gloomily said in the time shortly after their independence that they had replaced George III with George I. Apparently Washington wasn’t nearly so popular among his contemporaries as he is now.
Hello Splat Guy,
No offense intended and not to come off as the typical “ugly American” but this is largely incorrect. Any of his contemporaries that would have worried about this neither knew the man nor his stances on things.
Do you know why we revere George Washington? Because he initially refused to serve as President. They begged him – he said no. They begged him some more – he acquiesced. When his first term was set to expire they asked him to be President once again. He said no. They begged some more – he again acquiesced but made it plain that regardless of what they said that would be his final term in office.
He is loved and respected now, at least in part, precisely because he was only interested serving his country and did not want to become a king, the very idea of which he personally despised.
There has never been a more true statement than the following: George Bush is no George Washington.
The whole world knows George Bush’s stances on things and “serving the American public” is the least of his concerns.
If any of you are interested and have not read about them our “founding fathers” are an interesting lot. I recommend the book “Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation” by Joseph J. Ellis
Any good books on the founders of the great nation of Australia?
You are right Mark, it is still a non story.
Massive surveillance of ordinary citizens doesn’t worry you, then, rog? Or sanctioned illegality?
And… The Washington Post, NY Times, oh and just about every US media outlet still think it’s a story, rog.
There seems no question he broke the law, and the defence is relying on implicit war overides, which will be subject to congressional adjudication in the hands of GOP majorities. Who knows where or where not the thing might go. The lockjaw discovery, the ‘smoking gun’ if you will, it seems to me, is whether legal wiretaps have been applied for using evidence gained through illegal wiretaps – implicitly a confession of ‘rigging’ that would make the court, or the president, untenable, in theory at least.
Which law CS?
Under the constitution the President has ultimate authority, this authority has been tested and upheld in courts and FISA has said that could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power.
Still a non-story.
Section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that during a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance “without a court order.”
Such macho fantasies!
Back to Gor with you, Rog.
”Under the constitution the President has ultimate authority, this authority has been tested and upheld in courts and FISA has said that could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power.”
Bit of revisionism again there Rog. If the president has ‘ultimate authority’ why do they need a FISA court at all?
“the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance “without a court order.”
He does indeed, 72 hours in fact to do an emergency tap and then must get that court order retrospectively.
Problem is, they decided to bypass the Court altogether, so in which other Court case and where exactly does it say in the Constitution that the president can ride roughshod over law created by the legislature?
The president does not need a court order to conduct surveillance during a period of authorised war.
The “Use of Force” resolution authorises the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks etc…..
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html
Total nonsense, rog. That’s the resolution justifying the attack on Afghanistan. It was Johnson and Nixon’s attempts to use such resolutions as open ended power grabs that led to the enactment of the War Powers Act in the first place. It’s not even an act of Congress, just a joint Congressional resolution. No possible jurisprudence would understand a narrowly framed resolution made under the War Powers Act to extend to anything the President says it should, or to overturn other acts of Congress.
But I guess your repetition of the Bushies’ defence proves it is a story after all!
I thought maybe some of you might be interested in this opinion piece concerning the topic of the current state of the USA.
Take care all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/the-republicans-winners-_b_13007.html
Under the US constitution the congress declares war and the President has full power of the services to engage in that war.
The bipartisan “use of force” resolution authorises the President to use any force against anyone who he determines are enemies.
End of non-story
Use of force means military force, and the Congress circumscribed the President’s powers in wartime through the War Powers Act – under which the resolution was authorised. You have your talking points mixed up, rog! The Bushies are looking at precedents including FDR for emergency powers, but basically the inhouse lawyers are putting out any old nonsense they think might fly in the media to try and quash the story. If you’d been following the “non-story”, even constitutional law experts who testified against Clinton are saying this is illegal and an impeachable offence.
Rog wrote:
“Under the US constitution the congress declares war and the President has full power of the services to engage in that war.”
“The president does not need a court order to conduct surveillance during a period of authorised war.”
Rog -
The President DOES INDEED need a court order to spy on American citizens – just as any law enforcement agency needs one. Without one he is breaking the law. Period. Speaking of “authorized war” since Congress has never actually declared war on Iraq or the “War on Terrorism” for that matter are you implying that King George’s executive orders are the sole authorization needed to subvert the Constitution and the FISA courts? He is accountable to no one and nothing? Not Congress? Not the Judiciary? Not the Constitution? Not the American people? Isn’t that convenient for him.
“Section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that during a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance “without a court order.”
Irrelevant due to the fact that the only war that has been authorised has since been declared over by the President last year.
read the law first.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml
The President has the power to do anything to anyone to protect the people during a period of war. That includes monitoring Islamics in the US who are involved with money laundering and other activities of AQ. The “use of force” resolution (which you have obviously not read) does not specifically state any country or war it says “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States”
Whilst there may be some friction with Congress they will uphold the renewal of the Patriot Act.
U.S. Constitution – Amendment 4
Amendment 4 – Search and seizure
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, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Rog defend it all you like. Site any law you like that you think leans your way. The bottom line is nothing supersedes an American Citizens freedom from unlawful search and seizure granted by the 4th amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Nothing supersedes it. Nothing.
Need I point out once again that the thing you think you are so sure about deals with foreign persons or entities? They tried to give the office of the President more power to spy on Americans by creating FISA under which a President may spy or otherwise eavesdrop as long as they then apply for a WARRANT retroactively within 72 hours. Bush didn’t seem to think this applied to him. He believes he is above the law, nay he believes he IS the law – and apparently so do you. We will see who is above the law. I can not for the life of me understand people like you who would give up basic liberty afforded by the Constitution for some political endgame. People like you scare me.
Further to what Yank has just posted, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act states that it is “illegal to spy on US citizens in the USA without court approval”. http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/
Yank, sorry if I frightened you. You need to read up on the Patriot Act, it covers all the points that you have raised esp the 4th amendement of the Constitution.
I guess you wouldn’t object if a left-wing government denied you civil rights or placed you under surveillance under the guise of emergency war powers, rog? Or you think that interning Japanese Americans en masse in WW2 was justified because the President made a judgement that it was necessary for defence?
Your faith in the authorities is touching.
There are risks in all these events Kim and you need to assess the risk with regards to the circumstances. I’m sure socialist governments need no introduction to the States’ denial of the individual’s rights.
Some may compare the Patriot Act to the Reichstag Act that Hitler used to gain absolute power. After 4 years no sane person could support that the US is now like Nazi Germany with the Patriot Act being openly and freely debated by all sides in the US.
It will be interesting to see the Dem vote on the reauthorisation of the Act – its extension was voted in by an almost empty chamber.
Rog you said ‘read the law’ but if you had proceeded further down the link you provided, it says:
However, you stated:
I can only suggest, that your powers of interpretation could be welcomed by the purveyors of demagoguery at Fox News.
Firstly there is no declared war. The War Powers Resolution is based on a Joint Congressional Resolution ie Representatives Senate.
Secondly, you seem to have great difficulty with the hierachy of statutes, ie legislation versus a Constitution, hence 8(d)(1) as above. Trust me on this, Constitutional law, as pointed out by Yank above, trump statutes. (That Japanese citizens were interned in WW2 was most probably due to the situation that no lawyer wanted to take their cases to the highest court in the land, I have no time to research this.)
Thirdly, note ”existing treaties” ie no torture of prisoners of war as the US is a signatory party to the treaties/conventions.
In Australia also, Constitutional law trumps statutes, try looking at the Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1 on austlii.edu.au.
Conclusion: ”power to do anything” = unmitigated BS.
Trust me, one last time for the visually impaired
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
force |fôrs|
noun 1 strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement : he was thrown backward by the force of the explosion. • Physics an influence tending to change the motion of a body or produce motion or stress in a stationary body. The magnitude of such an influence is often calculated by multiplying the mass of the body by its acceleration. • a person or thing regarded as exerting power or influence : he might still be a force for peace and unity. • [in combination ] used with a number as a measure of wind strength on the Beaufort scale : a force-nine gale.
2 coercion or compulsion, esp. with the use or threat of violence : they ruled by law and not by force.
3 mental or moral strength or power : the force of popular opinion. • the state of being in effect or valid : the law came into force in January. • the powerful effect of something : the force of her writing is undiminished.
4 an organized body of military personnel or police : a soldier in a UN peacekeeping force. • ( forces) troops and weaponry : concealment from enemy forces | figurative a battle between the forces of good and evil. • a group of people brought together and organized for a particular activity : a sales force. • ( the force) informal a police department.
(For the wilfully—-& dictionarily impeded)
It’s useless Peter. Rog and others of his mindset have blinded themselves. They see nothing wrong with changing the very nature of the USA’s governmental power distribution. In fact, it seems they are all for it.
It doesn’t matter in how many different ways we try to explain to them that no law or “act”, such as the Patriot Act, allows the President to spy on American citizens without a warrant. They simply will not see it even though there were more than a few Congresspersons, including some very influential Republicans, that came out before the holiday break and said that 1) there would be an investigation, 2) that they believed laws had been broken and 3) that they never authorized the President to do any such thing. It is the Presidents erroneous interpretation of these laws, in a blatant attempt to grab as much power for himself as is possible which, in turn, usurps the power of the balancing branches of government, that will ultimately be his downfall.
I guess Rog thinks that the Congress, regardless of party affiliation, is simply going to lay down and allow the President to UNCHECK the “checks and balances” of power we have had since the inception of our government. And what about the Judiciary? There has already been one judge on the FISA court that has resigned in protest. The rest of the FISA court has held closed session meetings to determine what stance they will take. Recently the President was blistered by perhaps the most conservative judge in the country over the Padilla case and Padilla’s lawyers now want the issue brought before the US Supreme court. I would imagine both of these issues will indeed make it to the supreme court and it will be the end of Bush. Not even Scalia will allow the President to run rough shod over the balancing branches of our govt.
The bottom line is that President Bush has written checks his corrupt administration can not cash. These checks are bouncing as we speak. The Congress and the Judiciary will soon be sending these bad checks back labeled “returned due to insufficient power”. They will hold him accountable. They will or the USA will no longer be the USA – plain and simple.
Heartily agree Y, but two more cans of worms have been opened as well.
1) Successful past prosecutions, whether under criminal codes/patriot act etc; if found to have been based on illegal taps can be overturned on appeal.
2) Attempts to prosecute the NYT for leaking the story will backfire big time as it will magnify the illegality committed by the government. I could best express this in the law of equity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxims_of_equity
The most relevant being:
A person who comes to equity must come with clean hands.
More practically, given that the US laws do not include a UK style ”Official Secrets Act” applying (in extremis) to media, the judicial common law heritage of public policy could well see US courts throw out such a criminal charge.
It’s analogous to a criminal who has stolen a car suing the owner and his mechanic for shonky maintenance when a wheel fell off.
Not sure if any of you have seen this or not but here is a view on this issue expressed by one of Nixon’s “men”. I think he sums it up quite nicely.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-John-Dean.wmv
Sorry I thought I was linking to the video interview directly.
Click the link and then scroll down till you see the heading: “John Dean on Olbermann”
Then simply click the video link if you are so inclined.
Legal based op-ed for lefty psychics
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/12/30/the_case_for_surveillance/
Back to the Whitlam files
A former US Congressman’s take.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,179777,00.html
Not to beat a dead horse but Rog you might want to read this…
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/breaking-daou-cycle-conservative.html