Iowa Presidential Watch
Holding the Democrats accountable

Q U O T A B L E S

December 20, 2005

 

 

J U S T   P O L I T I C S

 

Dean's screaming again

The following is an e-mail from Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean to his supporters:

This is not an easy letter to write, and I'm afraid it may be a hard one to believe.

By now you have probably heard the news that George Bush is using the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance on American citizens without the consent of any court. After initially refusing to confirm the story, the President has admitted to personally overseeing this domestic spying program for years and he says he intends to continue the program.

These actions explicitly violate a law designed to protect US citizens. But the administration says that other laws somehow allow for this unprecedented use of a foreign intelligence agency to spy on Americans right here in the United States. According to reports, political appointees in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote still-classified legal opinions laying out the supposed justification for this program.

I have asked our General Counsel to draft a Freedom of Information Act request for the relevant legal opinions and memos written by that office. Since the program's existence is no longer a secret, these memos should be released -- Americans deserve to know exactly what authority this administration believes it has.

You can help pressure the administration to release these documents by signing on to our Freedom of Information Act request in the next 48 hours:

www.democrats.org/foia

This extra-legal activity is even more disturbing because it is unnecessary -- the administration already has access to a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. That court was created precisely to provide speedy, secure judicial review to the actions of our intelligence agencies.

To allow authorities act as quickly as possible, officials can even apply for a retroactive warrant days after the surveillance has already begun. Secret warrants have been approved over 19,000 times -- only five applications were rejected in nearly thirty years. The court, which regularly acts within hours, is hardly a roadblock, but it prevents abuse by providing the oversight required by our system of checks and balances.

This administration must demonstrate clearly what legal authority allows it to disregard criminal prohibitions on unilateral domestic spying. Sign on to the request now -- it will be delivered on Thursday:

www.democrats.org/foia

In an interview on Monday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez admitted that the administration asked certain Members of Congress about getting a new law to allow spying on Americans without a warrant. Realizing that even a Republican-controlled Congress wouldn't authorize such a measure, they decided to manipulate current law and proceed with the program anyway.

Manipulation of a law like this is dangerous. The same Office of Legal Counsel used vague assertions of sweeping authority in the infamous torture memos. The victim of this reasoning is the rule of law itself -- when this administration asserts sweeping authority to step over any line of legality, it asserts that there are no lines at all.

Does this administration believe there are any lines it can't cross? Americans deserve to know. Join our Freedom of Information Act request now:

www.democrats.org/foia

Some Republicans will try to pretend that this is just another political fight. But Americans of every political viewpoint are rightfully disturbed by this extra-legal activity. The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, shocked by the report of this activity, promised to convene hearings in January.

Even Bob Barr, who was one of the most conservative members of Congress and the first member to file articles of impeachment against President Clinton, said:

"What's wrong with it is several-fold. One, it's bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order."

We need to know whether George Bush went beyond the limits of the law -- and whether he and his administration believe that there are any limits at all…

…Even after the press found out about these actions, the administration tried to cover up its existence. According to Newsweek, George Bush summoned the publisher and executive editor of the New York Times to the Oval Office to try to stop them from running the story of these illegal activities.

We have seen this kind of arrogance of power before.

Richard Nixon once said in an interview that, "if the president does it, it can't be illegal."

He found out that wasn't true. This administration may need a reminder.

Thank you.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

 

Spying

Editorial by: Roger Wm. Hughes

 Advance knowledge cannot be gained from ghosts and spirits,
inferred from phenomena, or projected from the measures of Heaven,
 but must be gained from men for it is the knowledge of the enemy’s true situation.

Sun-tzu –The Art of War

 President Bush, with the revelation that the National Security Agency has listened to communications between al Qaeda and American citizens, has created a conflagration of angst among liberals and libertarians. The conflict resides around the basic question of how our government works.

One of the central characters in this drama is Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) who is quickly positioning himself as the Howard Dean of the 2008 presidential race. Feingold takes the position that Congress in passing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) wrote the law in stone as to what can and cannot happen.

However, the law is more complicated than that. When establishing the right to detect communications between known al Qaeda operatives and Americans, the administration had to take into account not only the FISA act but the fact that Congress has provided the President with war powers.

This leads us to the Constitution: What does the Constitution say about this situation? It is true, as Feingold has stated, that the Bill of Rights is the defense of American citizens’ “Civil Liberties”. However, the Constitution also states that the President is the “Commander in Chief” and that only Congress can declare war.

The Supreme Court has ruled that military actions by the President are not limited to the granting of war powers to the President. There are many recent incidents in our history exampling this -- including Grenada. The Supreme Court has long granted the President the ability to act in broad scopes in order to protect the nation.

This is a question that may well eventually reside with the Supreme Court to decide. The question almost certainly resides around: a new technological ability to detect communications among hundreds of millions of other communications; the fact that the President is authorized to spy on America’s enemies; whether FISA offered the President an adequate avenue to utilize new technology that could protect the nation; whether FISA really didn’t matter given the granting of war powers to the president; and whether the protection of the nation is trumped by the Bill of Rights.

In the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that the protection of the nation has frequently trumped the Bill of Rights.

The political significance of this conflict pales in comparison to the long-term nature of what America is. Political parties reside against the framework of what the citizens’ government is. Parties tend to represent various factions that provide the tension to the opposition as to where the lines are drawn in the nature of what government does. National protection and individual civil rights may be the most important governmental conflict. This conflict has the ability to influence the basic nature of all other governmental conflicts. Therefore, this conflict has the possibility of affecting the dynamic of the nature of American politics and the nature of its political parties.

Those who whimsically claim mantle to one side or other in this conflict are not likely to be the champions of their side in the long run. There is no doubt that some may find short-term political gain, but real truth always beats lies in the long run. This is a simple truth that many have not yet come to own, as is this truth: We are in a clash of civilizations, and there are individuals that want to kill you and me just because of who and what we are.

In a time of unprecedented partisan politics, let's not lose sight of the truth.

 

 

 

click here  to read past Daily Reports

 

 

paid for by the Iowa Presidential Watch PAC

P.O. Box 171, Webster City, IA 50595

about us  /    /  homepage