Two things that don’t look great for the president:
Bush Had More Prewar Intelligence Than Congress
and
Julia Rietmulder-Stone's blog | ramblings about poetry, politics, & Harrisburg
Two things that don’t look great for the president:
Bush Had More Prewar Intelligence Than Congress
and
what does look great for the preseident
why so cyncical governemetn_agent?
ok so here’s my counter-argument government_agent:
desolation can’t stop life
Bush had more intelligence than Congress? That’s nothing to brag about, but it sure makes Congress sound stupid.
I think both of these are a case of “it looks worse than it is.”
As far as the intelligence, based on the article, the CRS report criticizes the Bush administration for the degree to which information was withheld from Congress. According to the article, “the Bush administration has been more restrictive than its predecessors in sharing intelligence with Congress.” This indicates that the practice is common, rather than exclusive to the Bush administration. Also, the fact that the report provides no examples weakens its case and makes me question how the authors could assess the degree to which the Bush administration withheld intelligence. I’m not saying that the conclusions in the report are not valid, but I’m not sold on them either at this point.
As far as the spying, based on what I’ve read, it appears legal, regardless of my opinion of the practice.
I’m glad the media is reporting on these things, but I hope that people actually read the articles in their entirety because the ledes and headlines are somewhat misleading. Still, these things do look bad for the Bush administration (especially when taken together), and, in politics, image is everything.
There’s no doubt in my mind that presidents routinely withhold information from Congress. What I think is noteworthy about this is that Bush has been trying to create the impression that he and Congress saw the same information and came to the same conclusions about WMD in Iraq. If Bush had access to data Congress didn’t see, it weakens his, “Everyone else thought so too!” argument. What that means is completely up in the air — it might mean nothing.
I disagree that the spying appears legal. It appears to me to be illegal, but it’s the kind of gray area I don’t think anyone can say for sure until a court rules.
I ageee it’s a matter of debate whether the spying is legal or not. I imagine it’s something that could take years to resolve. I guess my point was that we shouldn’t assume it’s not legal until that ruling is made.
Is it better to assume it’s legal? I’d certainly rather have those in power assume things like that are illegal until it is explicitly (and not explicit like the Supreme Court said the detainee thing was explicit, but actually explicit) said to be legal.
I don’t think I have enough information to decide one way or the other whether the practice — listening to international telephone and other communication by U.S. residents suspected of links to terrorist organizations — is legal or not. However, according to the Justice Department, congressional authorization of military force after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks allows the practice. That doesn’t necessarily mean the practice is constitutional, but it indicates that the practice likely is legal at the present time. There’s a distinction there that has to be made.
Yeah, I’m not conviced it’s either constitutional or legal. It’s weird to me how nebulous law is in so many areas. Anyway, I don’t have enough information to decide definitively either, and even if I did, well, I’m no expert, and even if I were, well, what we think doesn’t ultimately matter — it’s up to the courts, and then only once a case is brought. While the distinction between legal and constitutional does have to be made, things aren’t necessarily legal just because the Justice Department says so.
If the Justice Department, being the enforcement arm of the federal government, decides something is legal, then effectively it is legal. Until Congress passes a law to ban the spying or the Supreme Court deems unconstitutional the law that appears to allow the practice, there’s nothing to really stop the spying from continuing (unless Bush voluntarily decides to end the practice because of public scrutiny).
I think not being enforced and being legal are different things, but I also think I’m venturing into philosophic legal grounds I have no business being on. Where I’m trying to go is something like:
-in the US, things are legal unless they are made illegal, either via legislation, the Constitution, or judicial precedent
-warrantless spying on Americans in America has always been unconstitutional, and has been illegal since 1978
-the post-9/11 legislation might be interpreted to allow such warrantless spying, but it does not do so explicitly
-I haven’t heard any legitimate reasons for bypassing the emergency provisions of FISA that would necessitate this kind of spying
I guess what I’m saying is that if there were a reason for the president to use this kind of spying in the fight against terrorists, I would agree that it was legal, even if it’s unconstitutional. In the absence of necessity, though, it seems like it wouldn’t be covered by the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force.”
I’m still not sure that made any sense…
You’re right, of course, that being legal and not being enforced are two different things in fact, but the practical effect is the same. Without a mechanism or the will to enforce a law, it’s just words on a piece of paper.
I also completely agree with your first three bulleted points. As for the fourth point — the sticking point it seems — it’s hard to know whether legitimate reasons exist for bypassing the emergency provisions of FISA. Bush has access to more relevant information than the media, so it’s possible that legitimate reasons do exist. Also, what constitutes a legitimate reason? It’s a gray area that requires interpretation.
DOJ — the controlling legal authority in this case — says yes, post-9/11 legislation does allow type of warrentless spying Bush is conducting, and yes, legitimate reasons do exist. Based on that, I’m left to conclude such spying is legal, albeit constitutionally questionable.
Now that it’s out in the open, however, there’s going to be more scrutiny of such spying, possibly court challenges, etc. In the future, Congress also could pass measures to clarify the post-9/11 legislation to prevent such spying.
I don’t know what role the DOJ has played, historically, in relation to the administration, but it seems to me like a no-brainer, at least in this administration, that they aren’t going to stand in the president’s way, and that they are going to say something is legal if he wants it to be legal. Perhaps I’m being too cynical.
As far as the legitimate reason question, I do agree that it requires interpretation, and that there are probably things we don’t know. Given the provisions of FISA for emergency warrantless spying, though, it seems like a legitimate use of this would be a case in which the government couldn’t come up with a strong enough connection to satisfy the FISA court, or in which it had to be kept so secret that even the FISA court couldn’t know about it. Given that the FISA court has so rarely (ever?) denied a warrant, the former seems unlikely and, if it is the reason, maybe not all that legit; if it’s the latter, well, what is the FISA court for if not secrets? But yes, it is possible that there are reasons that this kind of warrantless spying is necessary.
Some further clarification would be nice. While the DOJ’s word may in effect legalize it, I’d much rather have an independent body (Congress, the court, etc.) review it.
I agree, and I think you’ll get your wish. The Senate Intelligence Committee today called for an investigation of the issue.