NSA Story: Why Bush Is To Blame

Today's NSA story is the second, or possibly third iteration of the communication's monitoring meme, which is probably more about political battles, especially over the CIA, than anything else. The target is more likely Hayden than it is Bush, though he's convenient collateral damage. The problem with the Bush administration is that they have never fought back.

From the Priest prison story, through the previous NSA program leaks, right up until now, the administration has been acting guilty because they've been stuck on defense.

These are National secrets being exposed, ones which undermine our ability to uncover and combat terrorism. Unfortunately as long as the administration fears the press and partisan attacks and fails to follow these leaks up through the journalists and to their sources, they are destined to look guilty as charged.

Were I in a similar situation, especially with Bush's current approval ratings, I might just go for broke and call the media's bluff. If Bush wants to return to being seen as the President who is tough on terror, he should start by investigating and ultimately prosecuting a few of the typing terrorist-enablers and their sources we have here at home.

Let them scream McCarhty-ism. Just remind them that the pertinent McCarthy in this instance, Mary O., worked for the CIA.

If the President would have us believe what he is doing is justified and legal (I believe it most likely is) - then he should seek legal remedies against the criminals providing the leaks which undermine our National Security. Doing anything less only leaves the administration with the appearance of guilt. And that appearance is increasingly difficult hard to defend.

Comments

[MrsLevy'sNiece]

Do you want the grape or the orange?

MrsLevy'sNiece

[Bill]

Spying legal? Don't think so.

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No
doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false, for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence, as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority." Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

The 4th Amendment is an amendment "OF" the Constitution, meaning it supercedes ALL prior grants of power, i.e. the 4th's protections trump the powers granted. Latter legislation has always been viewed as overriding prior legislation when both legislative acts cover the same ground. The Feds are required to get a warrant with a show of probable cause, with an oath or affirmation by the person requesting the warrant, and stating the particulars, i.e. exactly what is to be looked for and/or seized. No other method meets the requirements for a reasonable search and seizure.
What the Feds are doing amount to a general writ or a writ of assistance and these, as discussed by the Framers, were outlawed under the 4th's requirements. Neither Congress, the Executive, nor the Judiciary are granted any authorization to sidestep the Constitution, even in times like these. That is the point of the 1866 decision by the SC quoted above. Only a simple grant to suspend habeaus corpus is granted and because the Framers realized that a power to suspend habeaus corpus had to be granted, all other provisions to suspend any other part must be withheld.

For more information, check out:

www.rapeoftheconstitution.com

Please check out the discussions and quoted passages from people much more knowledgeable than me on this issue. FYI, the writings found at the link above do not waste time on modern day revisions of what the Framers discussed and stated concerning the Constitution.

FWIW, only Congress is granteed authority to hold certain portions of their journals secret. Do a search on the Constitution and see if you can find any other grant of secrecy powers. Then recognize that IF it was necessary to grant secrecy powers to Congress, it is equally necessary to grant secrecy powers to the executive and/or judiciary because ours is a system of granted powers, not one of restrictions.

[Concerned]

Is ther concern at all that these records may enter the public domain? FOI request? What happened to privacy?

[Dan]

FYI, the writings found at the link above do not waste time on modern day revisions

As those modern day revisions include Supreme Court rulings almost 20 years old, that has no bearing on whether the program is legal or not. By that standard we'd still be a slave holding Nation. So the argument carries no real weight.

[Phoenix]

Dan,

"the administration has been acting guilty because they've been stuck on defense." I'm thinking it might look to us as if this is the case, but I am not for one minute thinking they're letting this flow by unnoticed. This administration hates the press. And rightly so. I agree they could pander a bit more to the microphones, but in the end, all that does is provide more fodder for criticism. Or whining - which serves no purpose other than to make us all look like weenies.

Just word play, but the very concept of 'spying' makes it somewhat below the radar, close to illegal, underhanded activity designed to gather information one might not otherwise glean from a nice, polite legal request. Since the beginning of civilization man has been spying, and it will not stop because of words on a page or outraged oratory by pseudo-offended parties. Espionage and counter-espionage are sanctioned illegal legal activities. Ground Control to Major Tom...........

[Bill]

Strawman argument: By that standard we'd still be a slave holding Nation. So the argument carries no real weight

Not = 13th Amendment

Amendments are legitimate; interpretation to fit the circumstances are not.