Bush: Trial lawyers versus Intelligence community

1. As usual, it's a binary choice for these simpletons: you either favor national security by accepting my terms whole cloth, or you're in bed with "greedy" trial lawyers who hate America if you take issue with a single comma. Can't possibly be more complicated than that. Can't conceivably be a middle ground.

2. These "radio addresses" are getting a bit anachronistic, aren't they? It's not as if families huddle around the big wooden radio in the living room to listen to the president and then The Shadow. We might as well call it what it is: a weekly press release.

All we have to fear are... trial lawyers?

Sorry Dumbya, you and your corporate cronies are going to get a fight from those of who don't believe you should have the right to circumvent the Constitution and the law by conspiring with telecoms to unlawfully wiretap people.

"CONSTITUTION SCHOLARS SPEAK"

WHEN YOU HEAR WIRETAP, IN ORDER TO WIRETAP YOU HAVE TO HAVE A COURT ORDER.

SO YOU EITHER DID OR YOU DIDN'T. IF QWEST COMMUNICATIONS DIDN'T WOULD THEY HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME?

THAT IS THE QUESTION AT HAND! TRIAL LAWYERS DIDN'T CIRCUMVENT THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY.

THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD NOT BE OF QUESTION, BECAUSE UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY DOES ANY MAN OR WOMAN HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO QUESTION THE CONSTITUTION OR THE LAW OF THE LAND.

ONLY BEFORE A JUDGE!

SO AT&T / VERIZON WIRELESS SHOULD STAND BEFORE THE SAME TRIAL LAWYERS AND JUDGE THAT "QWEST" COMMUNICATIONS IS STANDING BEFORE.

IT COSTED THEM BILLIONS AND BILLIONS NOT TO ENGAGE IN UNFAIR PRACTICES AND EAVESDROP, DATAMINE AND WIRETAP AMERICANS ON AMERICAN SOIL WITHOUT A WARRANT ISSUED BY A "FISA JUDGE" 72 HOURS AFTER THE WIRETAP OR EAVESDROP OCCURRED.

NO IMMUNITY! NEXT!

Good old George. Scare the pants off them, with a mention of September 11 thrown in for good measure, and then assure them that their only salvation is to give him all their liberties on a plate. Could he possibly be a republican?

There have been several cases on file where an electric company told the cops of an inordinate increase of usage. After surveilence it was discovered these homes were green houses for pot. How is what the phone companies did any different? They used company information legally obtained for law enforcement.
Its also similar to asking a cab driver where he dropped off a fare. (without a court order) This is done regularly, at least on tv.

Another red herring from the Fear Monger in Chief.

Those "trail lawyers" are working pro-bono.

Try again, Wingnuts!

Bush has always been solely about protecting big business. Following 9/11, he allowed his Saudi friends who certainly had information critical to the attack to leave the country unquestioned. His pathetic excuses for covering big business don't fly anymore. Unfortunately, our Congressional leadership hasn't shown the courage to call him on this and probably won't again. He should be impeached and exiled.

It's almost laughable that the Republican Party always uses the talking point of "we are against big government intruding on American lives" and yet everytime they get an opportunity to back up their bluster they "cut and run":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3r8VRnTW4w

“There have been several cases on file where an electric company told the cops of an inordinate increase of usage. After surveillance it was discovered these homes were green houses for pot. How is what the phone companies did any different? They used company information legally obtained for law enforcement.
Its also similar to asking a cab driver where he dropped off a fare. (without a court order) This is done regularly, at least on tv.”

Posted by: whatnow | February 23, 2008 1:03 PM

A wiretap is fundamentally different from either the electric company or the cab driver scenario you set out. A person does not use electricity with the expectation that the local utility company is going to keep his or her electricity use statistics private. Nor, for that matter, do people hire cabs with the expectation that their publicly visible travel in the cab will be kept private. Moreover, even if one did believe that such information would be kept private, such a belief is not reasonable. You can’t expect those who provide public services to keep their own activities a secret.

The same is not true of a telephone conversation. People expect the content of their calls to remain private. There are laws which criminalize privately tapping calls, eavesdropping on calls through another phone on the same line and, in a number of places, a party to the call recording a conversation without the consent of one or both parties to the call. Thus, not only do people have a subjective expectation of privacy in the content of their calls, it is an objectively reasonable expectation that society has recognized.

In turn, because people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone conversation, an intrusion into the content of a call by a government agency or a private company working at the government’s behest is a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. To lawfully intrude into the conversation, the government must normally first obtain a judicially authorized warrant based on probable cause. [The FISA law changes this, and allows authorities up to three days to apply for a warrant after a tap has occurred – but I haven’t heard that anyone has successfully challenged this procedure.] Government agents can only conduct a warrantless tap if: 1) they have the consent of one of the parties to the call; or 2) they have probable cause to get a warrant for the tap but are prevented by “exigent circumstances” from getting the warrant. A tap that cannot be justified in one of these manners is a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of the parties to the telephone call.

Violation of the Fourth Amendment in this manner is considered a tort as well as a crime (under some circumstances). So, if a telecom company helps the government tap a phone call, that company is also responsible for intruding upon the reasonable expectation of the callers’ privacy. If the government has no justification for the tap, then neither does the telecom company. Without justification, a telecom company will face a lawsuit for money damages for facilitating that invasion of privacy. That is why telecom companies (and the Bush administration) think immunity for wiretap activity is a good idea.

* * * * *
Posted by: Bu$h Wacked | February 23, 2008 4:11 PM

It is tragic that the Democratic Party sees big government as a good thing, that Democrats in Congress always work at ways to make government even bigger, and that they never even give lip service to the idea that smaller, more efficient government is a good idea. This is based on the flawed idea that government is an appropriate engine of social and political change. They forget that government made big and given divers powers to do good things can also be employed in the service of evil.

And then Democrats whine when Republicans get into the White House and exercise all of those monstrous “big government” powers the Democrats created in the first place to serve their own purposes. They should have learned that Bush is only a monster because he inherited the legacy of F.D.R.’s imperial presidency. By now, the evidence of this should give Democrats good enough reason not to make the federal government any bigger (and maybe even shrink it a bit). They should have had a similar message after Nixon’s administration.

I guess those Democrats will never learn.

John W., good post. The only thing I would add is that retroactive immunity, like most things that operate retroactively, is generally a poor idea.

“. . . . The only thing I would add is that retroactive immunity, like most things that operate retroactively, is generally a poor idea.”

Posted by: weinerdog43 | February 23, 2008 7:57 PM

That's true. It's doubly true when it is applied to cut off redress for a violation of one's constitutional rights. That's because immunity doesn’t change the fact that a person had (and still has) constitutional rights, or that those rights were violated. Immunity is only an instruction from Congress to the courts for them to thumb their collective nose at the government's victims. The idea that people have fundamental rights - for which they have no redress when injured, when no emergency exists to justify suspension of those rights or their redress - is cause for a great deal of political dissonance.

But this is what happens when rights are no longer viewed as “transcendent” but, instead, as dependent upon government or society for their existence. Rights created by men can be destroyed by men. When this view holds sway, someone will always try to put fundamental rights on the auction block for the sake of vindicating some greater “public good.” At that point, those rights may as well not exist because the government, with clock-like certainty, will do its best to see that they don’t. Remember: “Rights,” to those in government, are little more than hindrances to doing one’s job. That’s why governments cannot be trusted.

Posted by: John W. | February 23, 2008 8:59 PM

Unbelievable, Johnny boy the lawyer sits here and watchs as the President he voted for (George Bush) expands the powers of government and instead of just excepting the blame that his Party has nosedived on it's "mission" of making government smaller and less intrusive and moving on, he blames FREAKING FDR BECAUSE HE'S A DEMOCRAT!!!!

That's what I love about the Republics, they tell you how big government is bad for you and then they get elected and expand the government and literally prove to you how bad big government really is.

Well done Johnny W!

Is the Bush gov't too arrogant to ask FISC for warrants to get currently needed info?  No problem getting info now if the Bush gov't gets warrants. If we are attacked, it will be because the Bush gov't was too arrogant to request warrants.

*****
Posted by: John E | February 23, 2008 9:49 PM

JohnEE-boy:

1. I fully accept the fact that many, but not all, Republicans in government have joined the big government crowd – and I don’t like it. I have never personally voted for anyone who promised to increase the size of government once in office. (George W. Bush, the liar that he is, promised smaller government during his first campaign.) In addition, I am not the only Republican that doesn’t like the fact many Republicans have caved in on the big-government model.

So, while it might be hypocritical for Republicans in Congress to complain about the big government they help to maintain, it is not hypocritical for ME to do so. I didn’t ask for it. Furthermore, since I am not a pseudo-liberal like you, I don’t hang my head in shame for someone else’s screw ups. I’m content to take responsibility for my own actions.

2. Republican complicity doesn’t change the fact that Democrats are famous for their endless push for a larger, centralized federal government. No Democrat Representative or Senator in Congress holds the big government model in disdain. All of them accept it without reservation and plan to make it larger with or without Republican support. Thus, all of them – Democrats and turn-coat Republicans alike – are appropriately blamed for the way the government has been growing in size, appetite and wastefulness.

3. Nothing any President has ever done since Franklin Delano Roosevelt compares to his administration’s expansion of the federal government. He profoundly altered the balance of power between the federal government, the States and the People like no one before him. Before F.D.R., a federal government as large as the one we now have was inconceivable. After F.D.R., anything smaller has become next to impossible.

So, yes, F.D.R. deserves the largest share of blame for the government we have. What George W. Bush has done in the last seven years doesn’t hold a candle to what F.D.R. did. Nor would it have been possible for Duh’bya to do any of it were it not for the imperial presidency F.D.R. inaugurated. Then again, you don’t know any of this because you aren’t interested in “obscure history,” or so you tell us.

This is why, in fact, the government we get from a Democrat administration doesn’t vary that much in function, size and appetite from government in a Republican administration. We have a ubiquitous, embedded, statist system of government which largely dictates the manner of government to everyone. This pretty much locks us into a right-wing government regardless of the party in power. The idea that Democrats are “left-wing” is actually a sick joke. They may or may not be “left” of the Republicans in some respects, but their appetite for statism basically guarantees their place in right-wing history.

And no, I don’t blame F.D.R. because he was a Democrat. I blame him for what he did. He just happened to be a Democrat.

Well, John W, you were doing fine but just couldn't stop.

"But this is what happens when rights are no longer viewed as “transcendent” but, instead, as dependent upon government or society for their existence."

Complete and utter crap. Laws are made by men. Period. There is absolutely no such thing as a 'transcendent' right. Only a Republic could say something so stupid.

“Complete and utter crap. Laws are made by men. Period. There is absolutely no such thing as a 'transcendent' right. Only a Republic could say something so stupid.”

* * * * *
Posted by: weinerdog43 | February 24, 2008 8:39 PM

I guess you’re smarter than Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington, aren’t you? All of them believed that the fundamental rights of men are transcendent. Or haven't you read the Declaration of Independence? You know:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Jefferson repeated this effort by assisting the Marquis de Lafayette write the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen,” approved by the French National Assembly in 1789. It is even more explicit than the Declaration of Independence in setting forth the transcendent rights theory of human, civil and political rights.

We see the same thing in Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address,” where he spoke about how this nation was “. . . conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” So, I suppose Abraham Lincoln was “stupid” too, huh? After all, he was a Republican too.

Or maybe someone in your school thought the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address were too "religious" to inflict on the poor students. It would figure.

And before you start getting the idea that these are old ideas of a bygone age, go read the United Nations “Universal Declaration Of Human Rights.” It, too, spells out universal human rights in broad “transcendent” terms - none of which depend upon any positive rule of law for their existence or protection.

I believe you misunderstand exactly what “transcendent rights” are. Transcendent rights are those which belong to Man in a state of nature before entry into any social compact or governmental agreement. As such, they exist even in the absence of positive laws to create or protect them. [Note: the Constitution creates no rights; it only protects pre-existing rights.] These rights exist regardless of whether one views them as God-given or simply natural attributes (although many, like myself, believe they are God-given). The idea underlying transcendent rights is that there is something inherent in Man which makes men exactly equal in society, and valuable and worthy of respect without any proof of individual worthiness. It is also the recognition that there are some non-negotiable limits to government – even to a government founded on majority rule - because minorities also have certain rights that are too valuale to be abolished.

And, of course, without transcendent rights as limitations on human action (of the individual, corporation or government), then all questions of human freedom, dignity and justice are open to negotiation and compromise. There would be no reason, other than considerations of utility, to enforce principles of liberty, equality or dignity. Under the right circumstances dictated by utilitarian considerations, it may be perfectly right for men to kill or enslave others. The situation in Darfur is a good example of this.

In addition, there would be no moral or rational basis to justify revolution or any other action of a People to throw off tyranny. That’s because, in the absence of transcendent rights, there could be nothing inherently wrong with absolute monarchies, autocracies, dictatorships or totalitarian states. You see, by declaring the non-existence of transcendent rights, you place yourself in the company of people like Hitler, Mussolini, Marx and Stalin. None of them believed that anyone had any right to assert against “The State.” They believed that all rights between men can exist only as dispensations of, and in furtherance of, the State. Politics, to them, was purely a matter of reciprocal utilitarian considerations.

Re-read my last post (i.e. the one to which you interposed your objections) and see if what I said about viewing constitutional rights as transcendent rights doesn’t make a whole lot more sense in light of the foregoing explanation. If it doesn’t, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Most eloquently stated John W. While I have my own views on stupidity on both sides of the aile in our government, I'll simply keep to the topic of the PAA. I served in the Intelligence Community so I've seen this first hand. First let me say that the PAA was never intended to be permanent. It was designed to be a temporary fix to an outdated system. We no longer live in a world where you have to wait days to receive a message to act, which takes us to the difference between intelligence and intelligence that is actionable, meaning it is still current. The days of the 72 hour warrants are outdated and gone. The issue here is that the temporary PAA was allowed to expire without a permanent fix to the break. This had nothing to do wth what is right but with one person on one side (Pilosi) not liking the guy on the other side (Bush) so she decided to stick it to him istead of doing her job (for the people). So stop your whining people, and get on your representatives to come up with a permanent fix that we all can live with. Before you critisize the Intelligence Community for the tools it asks for just know one thing, it isn't composed of just Republicans or Democrats or Indpendants or Greens. It's composed of Americans from all parties and they are the ones who see the dangers first. Here is a proverb, take what you will from it. An Ostridge may stick its head in the sand but the Wolves still see it. Peace by with you.