Is The NSA Surveillance Legal? Let’s Remove Any Doubt
I’m not a big fan of slippery slope arguments. They can be used, like statistics, to negate almost any action. Here’s an example: opponents of the Bush administration’s NSA surveillance like to paint a scenario of omnipresent government spying: if we permit surveillance of suspected terrorists (and how do we know it’s limited to that?), why not drug dealers? Child pornographers?
Well, no problems there – but why not ‘unpatriotic’ reporters and anti-war protesters? Why not political opponents? Once we open the floodgates, where does it end?
Well, I ask you, if we permit government to take our money for programs we don’t support (i.e., tax us – I have no children, yet my property is taxed to pay for schools), where will it stop? Who’s to say Congress won’t raise the top income tax rate to 60%? 75%? Hell, who’s to stop ‘em from taking it all?
You see the problem, and the solution – we the people will stop them. We’ll impeach, we’ll elect new representatives, we’ll petition, we’ll amend the Constitution…there are a number of ways to impede progress down that slippery slope. Legal ways…yes, political, but explicitly provided for under the law.
We’re a nation of laws, not men. A cliché that has lost it’s meaning through overuse, I fear – but here’s what it means: the sovereign power of our Republic lies in words on a piece of paper. Those words embody the ideas of our founding fathers, that there are universal truths and values, that all men have certain rights from birth, that it is the people who consent to be governed, and not the other way around. It’s inspiring stuff, and those of us that believe in American exceptionalism believe in it not because Americans are inherently superior – what a ridiculously prejudiced sentiment that would be – but because we believe our system of government is inherently superior in its elevation of the rights of the individual over the rights of the state.
Thus, though I have had occasion to make fun of what I see as overbearing and exaggerated fears of an out-of-control, imperialist regime under our current President (a man I make no apologies for supporting, respecting, and admiring, opinion polls be damned), Glenn Greenwald, the ACLU, and the media have every right to zealously protest infringements on our privacy. The individual is paramount in the United States, not the state – I can’t stress that often enough.
Yet we must grant the state (through our consent – you see the beauty of our system of government once again) certain powers in order to secure our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Therein lies the fundamental conundrum of the post-9/11 world. The state is moving aggressively to combat terrorism, and in doing so, it encroaches on our cherished personal liberties. The dangers are real enough – this is not a bad dream; the terrorists do indeed wish to kill us, every last one of us, for we are, by definition, the infidels – but so is the danger that the state will move too aggressively, and outstrip our consent.
That’s all very abstract, you may say, and you would be right – how do go from these idealized matters to reality? How do we express our consent, or withdraw it? Through the ballot box, yes, but ultimately through laws.
That’s why I support the litigation efforts in play around the NSA surveillance program. That’s also why I’ve come to support the idea of either (a) amending FISA, or (b) working out a new regulatory framework for intelligence matters, preferably with the involvement of both parties and the administration.
President Bush has every right to move aggressively to combat terrorists – and if he seeks legal justification, and that justification is provided, he should (indeed, would be negligent not to) move forward quickly to implement any measure that would make our nation safer.
Just as obviously, the Congress, as the representatives of their constituents, the media, in its role as public watchdog, bloggers, in their role as citizen journalists, have every right to push back. Things are not legal because the President says they are – nor are they illegal because the NY Times says they are. The give and take we see daily is called democracy – we need not tar and feather one side or the other as unpatriotic, fascist, or with any other fashionable epithet – this is how things should work, for the most part.
Ultimately, though, we come back to that sovereign power, that piece of paper, the Constitution. Any litigation related to the NSA surveillance that has a chance of ending up in the Supreme Court, our national Constitution interpretator, should be welcomed, I believe, by partisans of both camps – for the issues involved go beyond Democrats and Republicans, and they will far outlast the current administration. If the constitutionality of the NSA program is affirmed, it would be a great victory for the Bush administration, and there would be no reason why the Congresss would not work with the administration, through a revision of FISA or other legislation, to ensure that the legal framework governing intelligence matched the constitutional outer limits of the permissable.
If the surveillance were ruled unconstitutional, then it must stop immediately. Period. There can be no approval granted to extra-Constitutional activity, for that document is sovereign. That applies to Gitmo, to Lincoln’s actions in the Civil War, to any other scenario that you care to bring up. On this one thing, and this one thing only, there can be no compromise. The buck must stop somewhere, or the government will have no coherency and thus no legitimacy.
I fully support the President’s initiatives, at least to the extent that I know about them. I have not been convinced, however, by the legal justifications put forth. Thus I welcome any removal of doubt, even if it must be accomplished through litigation. The principles of constitutionality and legality must be ensured. If the President acted illegally in a time of national crisis and in vigorous defense of the nation, I’m not overly concerned. If such a state of affairs continues indefinitely, I would be very concerned. We must operate within the law, and within the Constitution.
I support a vigorous War on Terror. I support vigorous surveillance. I support President Bush. I am an American, though, and as such, my first loyalty is to the Constitution. The President and Congress should work together to ensure that all post-9/11 security measures are constitutional, legal, and subject to periodic review. Failure to do so would be a great disservice to future administrations – and generations of Americans – to come…
Comrade mark,
For an excellent look at why the NSA data mining and surveillance program is perfectly legal, go here:
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/
Chris Byrne knows from whence he speaks, and I have been a reader of his for some time and never known him to post anything other than factual articles and supported opinions.
Anyway, he sums it all up nicely, and it supports (imagine that!) my own take on the issue.
Respects to all,
Gwedd
Gwedd, thanks for the link, very informative. I should have made more explicit in the post that while I have not found the arguments put forward by the administration for the legality of the surveillance as a whole terribly convincing, I have yet to see a convincing argument that the pen register/phone database is illegal. I’m operating under the assumption that this aspect is completely legal…
Gwedd:
Chris Byrne clearly has never even heard of the Pen Register statute, let alone come up with an argument as to why the NSA program doesn’t violate it.
Orin Kerr, at the the Volokh Conspiracy has the most even-handed discussion of the legal issues.
Mark:
Does that mean that you are unhappy that the Administration has quashed a legal review by their own Justice Department, refusing to grant the Justice Deparment lawyers the security clearances necessary to review the NSA program?
And are you perturbed that the Administration has filed motions to have lawsuits testing the legality of the NSA program summarily dismissed?
Jacques –
As the government is basically saying that they should be the ones defending against the lawsuit, (as opposed to AT&T), I’m not really bothered by it.
But then, I’m not afflicted with BDS.
That’s not the argument, as recounted in the news report I linked to. The Government’s dismissal motion claims that state secrets will be compromised if the suit is allowed to go forward. It is an invocation of State Secrets Privilege, not a move to protect poor Ma Bell.
We’ll find out (as early as next week, in the case of Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush) whether they intend to employ similar tactics to obtain dismissals of the other suits which target the NSA and the Administration itself.
Well put, Mark. I fully agree. This needs to be resolved by the courts, and the sooner the better. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is doing everything in its power to keep any of these issues from being litigated. They’re challenging litigants standing, intervening, invoking the state secrets doctrine. And the truth is, if they had any confidence in their legal theories, they could easily test them at any point. All they would have to do is try to introduce evidence (either in court or to obtain a FISA warrant) derived from the NSA program. They have made it clear that they have no intention of doing this, however. In fact, one U.S. News article (don’t have the link handy) reported that David Addington urged prosecutors to drop any cases in which judges inquired how such evidence was obtained. That’s basically a concession that they know it will be found to be illegal.
As for the new USA Today phone records angle, I’m not convinced the NSA acted illegally, at least if they were not intercepting the records in real time. But I think it’s a different story for the phone companies. They’re going to face massive non-frivolous class actions suits.
Oh, please. Jacques is no more afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome than the other 71% of the population who have realized, either quickly or belatedly, that Bush and Cheney are a disaster and a gross embarrassment to this country. This is the same tactic the Wall Street Journal uses routinely: lacking any basis in logic or fact to support the people and the policies they once vociferously endorsed, they are left to attack those who point out obvious failures — if a Democrat criticizes the President, surely it is because of venom and political self-interest, and hence can be dismissed. If you want an example, look no further than today’s editorials.
As for Mark’s essay: it’s certainly reasonable and incontestable. However, as fellow BDS sufferer Jacques points out, the current administration has consistently tried to evade judicial review of its actions. In addition to what Jacques cites, the administration also changed the jurisdiction of the Hamdi case to avoid Supreme Court review, would not allow Gonzales to testify before Congress under oath, and attaches riders to bills passed by Congress which effectively nullifies the legislation by adding the caveat that the executive may choose at its own whim not to enforce them. We’re all for the Court having the final word — but we’re stuck with an administration which does everything in its power to prevent that from happening.
Hmmm, looks like we’re all piling on here.
Jacques, your own link seems to back up Leon’s point, does it not? I quote:
In its motion seeking intervention, posted on the court’s Web site, the government said the interests of the parties in the lawsuit “may well be in the disclosure of state secrets” in their effort to present their claims or defenses.
“Only the United States is in a position to protect against the disclosure of information over which it has asserted the state secrets privilege, and the United States is the only entity properly positioned to explain why continued litigation of the matter threatens the national security,” said the motion, dated May 12.
I think your dismissal of Leon is a little self-serving. There is indeed the problem that to litigate this program may involve disclosure of secrets – indeed, it seems unavoidable. It’s a tricky line…nevertheless, I acknowledge your point, and I don’t approve of efforts to quash any and all litigation involving the program – it rather defeats my preferred purpose of having a definitive legal ruling.
peter, it’s odd that you try to avoid the charge of having BDS by calling Bush and Cheney ‘a disaster’ and ‘embarrassments’ – I think you’re projecting when you claim that the 29% approval rating in one poll means everyone else thinks the way you do…your distaste for this administration is obvious to see, but it’s not convincing for those who don’t share it.
Then again, I’m among the 29%…
Just one more note, to be clear: I see my post not as a blanket defense of the Administration, but rather as a rebuke: not for their actions in undertaking the surveillance, but for their obstinacy regarding Congressional and legal review. Their has to be a way to address secrecy concerns and still get this thing completely above board to everyone’s (well, almost everyone’s – the true BDS sufferers will never agree) satisfaction…
Jacque, I was perhaps unclear in my epxlanation of pen-reigest and pen trace data collection legalities.
It may be ILLEGAL to capture a SPECFIC INDIVIDUAL pen-register information without a warrant (in fact there is a specific type of warrant to do so, but under some circumstances it isn’t necessary); however it is NOT illegal under any circumstances to capture all the pen-register data for a specific trunk, bo, cso, etc…
Now, as to whether it is legal to capture that data without a specific target, and then run traffic analysis on it which produces specific targets which were not present before the data collection… well so far the courts say yes; and have several times and at several levels.
Once the data is collected in a legitimate way, it is generally assumed that any analysis done is legitimate. It may or may not be allowed as evidence depending on the judge, and the court; but the agency doing the analysis wouldn’t be under any sanction for doing so.
THis is clearly a case of the law not being properly costructed to handle unforseen technological circumstances. The spirit of the laws (and there are more than just one, in fact more than a few) may be violated here; but in general it has been held that this IS legal.
Now as to the Bush adminsitrations HANDLING of the situation; well it’s jsut as incompetent as everything else they do. These are unfortunately folks that could screw up a free lunch.
Oh wait, they often do.
Then again, so does pretty much every other politician.
Oh and if you don’t beleive me on the third party exemption, look up Smith v. Maryland which is controlling in these situations. A pen register is not a search under these criteria.
So long as there is not an individual target, privacy provisions of ECPA ‘84 don’t apply; but the access provisions do. It’s a case of the government having its cake and eating it too.
Further, USAPA ‘01 (the patriot act) CLEARLY defines that global pen registers conducted through electronic means are NOT an unlawful search. Or rather it clearly correlates them to earlier definitions of pen registers which were also held not to be unlawful searches.
If there IS an individual target, then there is a low burden of proof threshold to obtain a pen register, to wit any likely information pertienent to a criminal investigation.
This has additional implications in a national security context, and I’m not sure if there is a controlling decision; in part because some of the decisions that may be controlling are classified. Also some cases that may have produced controling decisions were instead vacated or dismissed by national security exemption.
Basically there are a lot of things that an NS or NCA initiated investigation can do that a criminal investigation can’t and still be legal; in some cases without the authorization of courts.
That is an executive powers question, and one that the courts have been EXTREMELY reluctant to enter into. The constitutional law (as opposed to a straight reading of the constitution – a distinction that I find distasteful but it is very real today) issues here are somewhat convoluted.
Why Ignore The Polls Now?
I have never been a big fan of polls, especially political polls. The results are too easy to manipulate and a skilled pollster knows who to ask as well as what questions to ask in order to obtain a certain result. Polls are generally not as reliable…
You have utterly missed the point. Smith v. maryland established that Pen Registers are not a “Search” and hence do not enjoy 4th Amendment protection. No one has argued that they do.
They do, however, require a warrant (or a FISA Pen Register Order). But, because they are not searches, the burden of evidence for obtaining one is lower.
Your distinction between individual Pen Registers and Global ones is wrong. As you yourself note, the USA Patriot Act makes explicit (just in case it was previously unclear) that the are covered by the same legal criteria.
I’ve been trying to figure out why Bush’s approval ratings are so low. Clearly it’s not because of the NSA program, which has well over 50% approval (This, by the way, indicates that Bush’s impeachment over this issue is not going to happen. Just as with Clinton’s comission of perjury and the Iran-Contra Affair did not foster an inherent sense of wrongness among the American people and did not result in the president’s removal from office, neither will this). He probably lost some theocrats over the attempted Harriet Miers appointment. He’s lost the xenophobes over his stances on immigrantion and the Dubai Ports deal. So aside from neo-Nazis and skinheads, who were probably never with him in the first place since his appointment of Colin Powell and Condi Rice as SoS, he doesn’t have the support of the most extreme right wing of America. The extreme lefties have always hated him and they always will no matter what he does.
The biggest reasons that the average American wouldn’t approve of him are his handling of Hurricane Katrina — an event which will always be a blight on his presidency — and gas prices. Of course, a fair evaluation of the latter issue — something we won’t be able to rely upon until a decade or so hence — will likely find that Bush is not really responsible. (Don’t liberals want there to be high gas prices anyway?) As for Katrina, most of the responsibility falls on Nagin and Blanco (had the state and local authorities evacuated New Orleans as they should have, the event wouldn’t have been nearly the disaster it was). But Bush’s actions — or, moreover, lack thereof — can be most likened to those of Jimmy Carter during the many crises he encountered, or James Buchanan during the secession crisis.
Peter, just because Bush has a 29% approval rating in the most recent polls (anybody know what the margin of error is on that anyway?) doesn’t mean that 71% actively disaprove. And even if everyone who doesn’t actively approve does disapprove, I would be surprised if 71% would say they are embarrased by him as you suggest. And even if this is true, under the eye of history it is unlikely that Bush will retain such unpopularity. His handling of 9/11 (and Afghanistan) and his handling of Katrina will cancel out, and the fact that he had big plans for domestic reform (even if they didn’t come to fruition) will be a small positive for him. So, Bush’s legacy comes down to Iraq and Middle East policy. If Iraq is a success in the longrun — especially if the 60% of the Iranian population that is under the age of 30, pro-American, and pro-democracy stage another Iranian Revolution in the near future — it will be a huge plus for Bush. If it isn’t, he’ll get some credit for trying. So the lowest he’ll likely go is about where he is now — near LBJ. The highest he’ll get is probably be near Wilson.
By any objective standard, the Bush Presidency has been an embarrassing disaster (or — take your pick — a disastrous embarrassment). There is nothing deranged about pointing this out.
To use another example: if you think that Bill Clinton was an awful President because you think his policies were wrong-headed, or because you think his morals were lacking, then fine: it’s a free country, you’re entitled to your opinions. If you think that Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster, you’re probably deranged.
I object to the BDS label because it’s a facile way to dismiss any criticism of the Bush administration: the person who criticized Bush is so deranged by his venom towards the President that he shouldn’t be taken seriously. Hence there is no need to respond to what he actually says, because he’s as deranged as the people who have had Elvis sightings recently. Not only is this disingenuous, it’s also irrelevant: even deranged people can sometimes be correct.
As for Bush’s approval rating: I recognize that if he has a 29% approval rating, that it does not follow that the other 71% disapprove of him with equal intensity. The range is from people who think he’s a good guy (but not up to the job) all the way to those who think he is the devil incarnate. Nor do I think that an approval rating is that important: Winston Churchill’s approval rating at the end of his administration was pretty dismal (although, to paraphrase Lloyd Bentson, George Bush is no Winston Churchill).
Rather, I brought it up in response to the poster who dismissed Jacques’s argument because he purportedly suffers from BDS. As well over two thirds of the population disapproves of his Presidency, then Jacques has lots of company.
In the Harris Poll (conducted before last Thursday’s revelations), 71% rated his job performance “fair” or “poor”; 29% rated it “excellent or “pretty good.”
I find it rather amusing that anyone perplexed by that result would call me deranged.
“By any objective standard, the Bush Presidency has been an embarrassing disaster (or — take your pick — a disastrous embarrassment). There is nothing deranged about pointing this out.”
There’s also no serious or credible analysis in pointing it out either.
I just found this: The Rasmussen Poll for today finds that President Bush has a 39% approval rating and a 60%. 39% still isn’t great, but it’s a heck of a lot better than 29%.
Based on the fact that Rasmussen was the only polling organization that made the right predictions in the 2004 election, I’m inclined to find it more reliable than others.
Thanks for pointing to the Rasmusssen Poll. Unlike Harris, they provide a detailed breakdown
Strongly Approve: 20%
Somewhat Approve: 19%
Somewhat Disapprove:15%
Strongly Disapprove: 44%
which confirms something that I suspected, but could not prove. It appears that BDS has reached epidemic proportions: 44% of the population.
peter, “by any objective standard” – come on. Grand sweeping generalizations like that may work in Frank Rich columns, but they’re not persuasive…
Also, as far as the somewhat approve/disapprove, its really a question of is the glass half-full or half-empty. I mean, I would say that I disapprove of some of Bush’s actions — I think he ought to fire Rumsfeld and put an administration outsider, namely Eric Shinseki, at the Pentagon, and I, of course, disapprove of the administration’s handling of the Katrina aftermath. Then again, there are aspects of which I approve. So, from that, I wouldn’t think it would be that difficult to get as much as a 64% approval rating or an 80% disapproval rating with a few tweaks.
I think that you could use two objective standards: what the administration has done right and what they have done wrong. If there are no major policy successes, and many indisputable failures, then I think that you can objectively label a Presidency to be a disaster.
I am hard-pressed to name a single major policy success of the Bush administration, foreign or domestic. (Even Afghanistan is falling apart, as opium production increases and the Taliban control more of the country.)
As for policy failures: too numerous to name here.
Call me deranged, but I don’t see how anyone can argue with a straight face that this administration has been even minimally competent. Can you? Is there a more objective standard for evaluating a Presidency than comparing successes and failures?
What the administration has done right and what the administration has done wrong? These are your objective standards? You’re joking, I hope? Because there could not be any standards more subjective than those.
You want a policy success? How about John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court? You may not like them, but if you don’t acknowledge that as an administration victory, then I really will have to accuse you of suffering from BDS. How about the economy? Looked at any of those numbers lately? How about the tax cuts?
Don’t give me New York Times talking points and pretend that that’s ‘objective’…
My favorite part of Peter’s argument is his reference to approval ratings. Never in the history of man has there been a more mysterious source of information regarding the opinion of the masses. No one that I know has ever been asked what he or she thought about the President’s performance. Perhaps this is merely a reflection of the fact that I don’t live in San Francisco, Manhattan, or teach ethics at Berkeley.
Policy success? Ummm . . . maybe the ecoonomy. Or is a 4.7% unemployment rate a disaster?
Mason, I don’t know anyone who’s ever been polled, either – certainly I haven’t, I don’t answer my phone unless I recognize the number…
Ah, yes, the economy….
We’ve already dealt with the unimpressive GDP growth under this Administration (much worse than the postwar average, unless you remove all the bad years, in which case the cherry-picked numbers are only mediocre).
But you say Employment has been great under GWB? OK, let’s head on over to the Bureau of Labour Statistics. In January 2001, when Bush took office, seasonally-adjusted non-farm payroll employment (the standard measure of employment) stood at 132.5 million, or 75.3% of the work-age population (age 18-64). Five years later, in January 2006, seasonally-adjusted non-farm payroll employment stood at 134.5 million, or 71.9% of the work-age population.
To keep pace with population growth, the Economy would have had to have created 6.4 million more jobs over the past 5 years than it actually did.
Does that make “Heckuva job Georgie” a disaster? By itself, no. But it’s not something one could call a resounding success either.
Jacques … Can you explain to me how come it is that “not enough” jobs have been created yet there is 4.7% (economists apparently consider
[...] This weekend, I argued in support of a new regulatory framework for surveillance, if necessary, to face the threats of the post-9/11 world. Right on cue, Richard Posner has a suggestion that doesn’t lack for boldness: In my forthcoming book, I explain why burying our principal assets for detecting terrorist plots that unfold within the U.S. in a criminal-investigation agency–the FBI–is unsound. We are the only major country that does this. The U.K.’s domestic intelligence agency, MI5, works closely with Scotland Yard, Britain’s counterpart to the FBI. But it is not part of Scotland Yard. [...]
1) There is a difference between a policy success and “an administration victory.” A policy success is an achievement which will be recognized for centuries: the Marshall Plan, the Clinton budget surplus, the end of Russian Communism under Reagan (just to be even-handed here). Getting two Supreme Court nominees through a GOP Congress isn’t a policy success — all Presidents with Court vacancies fill them. It’s part of the job. Perhaps they will be great Justices, or perhaps not: we don’t know.
2) The economy is decent enough, as you would expect it to be after the fiscal and monetary stimulus we’ve had. If you want to use the Dow Jones as a proxy, we’re about where we were when Clinton left office. If the economy were in its present state and we had a balanced budget, then I would view that as a policy success. However, because the economy is juiced up by hundreds of billions of dollars of government borrowing, we are not seeing the full picture. The inevitable result is that we will have to repay the government debt, quite possibly in a time when the economy is slowing or foreigners are not longer willing to buy government paper.
I used to work with someone who made a lot of money in dot-com stocks in the 1990’s and then bought his house on margin (using Qualcomm stock, if you can believe that). Things looked pretty good for him, too — for a while.
3) The unemployment rate uses as the denominator everyone currently in the work force (leaving out the chronically unemployed or those who can’t find a job and leave the work force). As mentioned, when both the Fed and the budget deficit combine to goose the economy, it will create a lot of jobs. However, if you look at metrics like disposable income, household balance sheets, and consumer confidence, it doesn’t seem like the mass of Americans are getting ahead (and certainly they don’t seem to think so).
4) Tax cuts aren’t a policy success. You can always give money away. Fiscal discipline is a policy success.
Well, that didn’t take long did it?
Still think the NSA program is limited to “terrorists”? Or are reporters, whose reporting hurts the war effort, fair game too?
There was an interesting revelation in an article about the lawsuit against Verizon:
The lawyer suing Verizon “said the information, only collected from landline subscribers, would not provide the government any information to help national security. “The terrorists are on the pay phones or using the prepaid phones,” he said. “They are not on landlines so this entire exercise is another one of the administration arguments that we have to protect national security by doing something which doesn’t have any protection for national security.”
If this is true, it boggles the mind. This whole program is limited to landlines only? Who uses landlines any more?
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/15/news/companies/verizon/index.htm
Jacques, my points still stand, and an allegation by Brian Ross is not proof. I’m not an apologist for the administration, and I’m not Tony Snow. I was laying out my position and my position only…
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]
I’m just taking the opportunity to point out that, only a few days ago, you were poo-pooing my comment suggesting exactly this eventuality as a hypothetical “slippery slope” argument.
I realize these allegations are far from proven. But it’s remarkable how quickly that “slippery slope” stops looking so steep …
Hey, if an element of vindictive, Nixonian paranoia becomes enmeshed with all this (see my most recent post), I won’t be able to support that…the database should be used for national security only, in my view…
[...] Oh, alright, I’m sure he’s never read me before – but this piece by David Ignatius in today’s Washington Post might very well have been written by me – and in fact, it almost has been. Here’s what I said on Saturday: I fully support the President’s initiatives, at least to the extent that I know about them. I have not been convinced, however, by the legal justifications put forth. Thus I welcome any removal of doubt, even if it must be accomplished through litigation. The principles of constitutionality and legality must be ensured. If the President acted illegally in a time of national crisis and in vigorous defense of the nation, I’m not overly concerned. If such a state of affairs continues indefinitely, I would be very concerned. We must operate within the law, and within the Constitution. [...]
Bo Carter…
I am a movie fanatic. Fortunately, I found a place to download the…