Decision ‘08

Bush Speaks Out On NSA Ruling

There’s really nothing new or surprising here, but he is the POTUS:

President Bush today strongly denounced a federal judge’s ruling that a warrantless surveillance program he authorized is unconstitutional, saying the program is a necessary tool in counterterrorism efforts and expressing confidence that the decision would be overturned on appeal.

Speaking to reporters at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland, Bush said that “those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live.” He cited the disruption in London last week of an alleged terrorist plot to blow up as many as 10 U.S.-bound airliners over the Atlantic using liquid explosives.

“This country of ours is at war,” Bush said. “And we must give those whose responsibility it is to protect the United States the tools necessary to protect this country in a time of war.”

Bush said of the ruling yesterday by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit, “I strongly disagree with that decision. Strongly disagree. That’s why I instructed the Justice Department to appeal immediately. And I believe our appeals will be upheld.”

He again defended the National Security Agency eavesdropping program he authorized shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. “We believe — strongly believe — it’s constitutional,” he said. “And if al-Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know why they’re calling.”

Ruling in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups in the Eastern District of Michigan, Taylor ordered a halt to the NSA program on grounds it violates the Constitution and federal law. However, both sides agreed to delay action until a hearing scheduled for Sept. 7.

Shockingly, the NY TImes editorial board adopts the Greenwald approach to the matter:

Ever since President Bush was forced to admit that he was spying on Americans’ telephone calls and e-mail without warrants, his lawyers have fought to keep challenges to the program out of the courts. Yesterday, that plan failed. A federal judge in Detroit declared the eavesdropping program to be illegal and unconstitutional. She also offered a scathing condemnation of what lies behind the wiretapping — Mr. Bush’s attempt to expand his powers to the point that he can place himself beyond the reach of Congress, judges or the Constitution.

I’ve got a great idea for how Pinch can solve some of his fiscal problems; just merge the Times with Daily Kos and replace the editorial board with frequent commenters at firedoglake…best of all, the readers will never notice!…

16 Responses to “Bush Speaks Out On NSA Ruling”

1 Muffin the Cat Says:
August 18th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Wake me when the US Supreme Court rules on this case. That’s the only court that counts for this case.
2 Fred Says:
August 18th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
“…On July 14, 1994 President Clinton’s Deputy Attorney General and later 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes…and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.” This “inherent authority” was used to search the home of CIA traitor Aldrich Ames without a warrant. “It is important to understand,” Gorelick continued, “that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities.”[9]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_searches_in_the_United_States

Did the ACLU also sue over President Clinton actions?
3 mtl Says:
August 18th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Isn’t it hysterical to have a judge find standing for the case, but the media refuses to discuss who the plaintiffs are, and their specific complaints?

Here’s a link to their complaint, with a list of some of the ‘victims’:

http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/aclu-nsa-complaint.html

The aclu, with the help of the press, is hiding the facts of the case by not addressing the injustices done.
4 too many steves Says:
August 19th, 2006 at 6:01 am
Stipulating that my sources are right-leaning, I must say that I have yet to read a favaorable analysis of this opinion. Whether it is the issue of standing or the logical and legal foundation for the opinion, the analysis I’ve read is, at best, politely dismissive. Net-Net: the opinion is too long on opinion and too short on legal foundation, such as precedent, to be taken seriously.

Can you point me to a source, other than Greenwald, that judges this opinion to be well founded (without partisan spin and cheerleading)?
5 peter Says:
August 19th, 2006 at 8:28 am
What is so “shocking” about the excerpt from the Times editorial? Seems pretty factual to me — every statement in the excerpt is, in fact, correct –
6 Mark Says:
August 19th, 2006 at 10:09 am
Peter, my ’shocking’ comment was made with my tongue very far in cheek - it’s not shocking at all that the Times would take this view of what is by all accounts a simply atrocious piece of judicial work - nor, I’m said to say, is it shocking that you would agree with the Times - I’m really at a loss to explain how you can continue to maintain that the Times editorial board hasn’t become a complete joke under Gail Collins…
7 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Not Even The New York Times Can Pretend The NSA Decision Was A Good One Says:
August 19th, 2006 at 10:22 am
[…] And that’s saying something, for sure! (I’m speaking of the news division, particularly Adam Liptak - God knows Gail Collins is A-OK with anything anti-Bush): Even legal experts who agreed with a federal judge’s conclusion on Thursday that a National Security Agency surveillance program is unlawful were distancing themselves from the decision’s reasoning and rhetoric yesterday. […]
8 Dmac Says:
August 19th, 2006 at 10:41 am
“I’m really at a loss to explain how you can continue to maintain that the Times editorial board hasn’t become a complete joke under Gail Collins…”

The true believers are always the last to notice that their false God has feet of clay - Michael Wolf, the media columnist formerly of New York Magazine and now at Vanity Fair, used to be one of the Time’s staunchest defenders, but now he ridicules it on a daily basis.

http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/060814roco02
9 peter Says:
August 19th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
I happen to agree with the end result of the Judge’s decision, although she got there the wrong way and she ignored her strongest argument, which was Hamdan.

My point here is that the Times excerpt is not opinion as much as demonstrable fact. It is a fact that Bush “was forced to admit that he was spying on Americans’ telephone calls and e-mail without warrants.” It is a fact that “his lawyers have fought to keep challenges to the program out of the courts.” And so forth for the rest of the paragraph. So I’m puzzled how anyone could object to the excerpt — it’s all grounded in the events of the past few months.
10 Mark Says:
August 19th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Peter, Peter, Peter - how about the end of the excerpt (were you too bored to finish it - it wasn’t long)?

She also offered a scathing condemnation of what lies behind the wiretapping — Mr. Bush’s attempt to expand his powers to the point that he can place himself beyond the reach of Congress, judges or the Constitution.

Just bland recitation of facts, still, or pretty blantantly leftist opinion?…
11 peter Says:
August 19th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
If you ignore the laws passed by Congress — in this example, bypassing FISA requirements — you are by definition placing yourself beyond the reach of Congress and the FISA judges.

The Constitution allows a President to veto a bill passed by Congress. If the President declines to veto the bill and signs it instead, he is obligated to enforce it. If the President signs a bill and then latter issues a “signing statement” stating that he will only enforce the law if he feels like it, he is by definition placing himself beyond the reach of the Constitution. If he does this over 700 times, then the thing speaks for itself.
12 Dmac Says:
August 19th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Whether you feel her opinions (and that’s all they are) are correct or not, I think this kind of overreaching rhetoric is just one of the reasons why no one’s taking her act seriously, in addition to the fact that the ACLU shopped this case around the country more than twice, before finding the one congenial court that was sure to rule in their favor. Thank god for orgs like the ACLU - without their tireless efforts on behalf of journalists (what ??!!), what would the press be like today? Pravda? I didn’t realize how imperiled the journalistic community was these days - after all, the voluminous leaking of security programs 24/7 surely validates their concerns.
13 Dmac Says:
August 19th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
“I happen to agree with the end result of the Judge’s decision, although she got there the wrong way.”

I see - so the ends justify the means? I’ll remember this handy nostrum next time you start haranguing on “secret prisons” and “illegal surveillance activities.” Just another synonym for the “what I said may have been false, but the greater truth was served.” As I’ve said previously, Orwell would’ve recognized many of Bush’s opponents these days - some of these ideas come straight out of Animal Farm.
14 peter Says:
August 19th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
1) The reason that journalists and scholars were the plaintiffs is that in a case like this — when the government does not reveal the names of those who were wiretapped — then the case by its nature makes it difficult to find people with a standing to sue. However, in a class action there is a relatively low bar to establish a standing to sue, as long as you have a class of people who are similarly situated and whose cumulative harm is tangible.

2) I did not say that the ends justify the means. I said that I agreed with the verdict but not necessarily the reasoning she used to get there. There are many legal scholars and judges who could have arrived at the same conclusion with a much firmer legal foundation. The fact that her opinion was overwrought and missed its best arguments does not mean that the end result is necessarily wrong.
15 peter Says:
August 19th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
Also I’m not sure that it is accurate to say that the case was shopped around — according to the Times article this morning, similar cases are pending elsewhere in the country, and this decision is the first of several.

The government regularly shops cases — they get cases heard in the Virginia appelate court and bypass the one in San Francisco — so there is no validity to the complaint that plaintiffs also seek congenial judges.
16 Dave Manchester Says:
December 5th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
I converted a bunch of widely scattered pdfs to web pages with links a while back, all relating to this issue.

The collection is here:

http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/nsa.html

The downloadable collection is here:

http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/012006_HouseDemJudBriefing.zip

EFF v. ATT Complaint (initial filing):

http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/att-complaint.html

ACLU v. NSA :

http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/aclu-nsa-complaint.html

- dcm