Comments on: Will The AUMF Be Bush’s Saving Grace In Wiretap Scandal? http://donklephant.com/2005/12/22/will-the-aumf-be-bushs-saving-grace-in-wiretap-scandal/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:03:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: DosPeros http://donklephant.com/2005/12/22/will-the-aumf-be-bushs-saving-grace-in-wiretap-scandal/comment-page-1/#comment-4769 DosPeros Fri, 23 Dec 2005 06:04:51 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2005/12/22/will-the-aumf-be-bushs-saving-grace-in-wiretap-scandal/#comment-4769 I hope everyone gets a good chuckle at my spelling. It not much better before midnight. I hope everyone gets a good chuckle at my spelling. It not much better before midnight.

]]> By: DosPeros http://donklephant.com/2005/12/22/will-the-aumf-be-bushs-saving-grace-in-wiretap-scandal/comment-page-1/#comment-4768 DosPeros Fri, 23 Dec 2005 06:01:38 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2005/12/22/will-the-aumf-be-bushs-saving-grace-in-wiretap-scandal/#comment-4768 I admit -- I'm coming around on on this deal. I don't think Bush broke the law. That is not an endorsement for his good judgment or constitutional principles. I don't think that he he has managerial skills to with the Brave New World that he is forging. No way -- it isn't a matter of WHETHER the NSA or CIA HAS or WILL wiretap suspected U.S. cititens ("affiliated" with "enemy combatants" posing a "threat") within the United States, it is WHEN. If the "enemy" is that much of a "compatant", won't there surely be times that he enters the U.S. and uses his cell phone to call someone else in the US. The "enemy combatant" of all "enemy combatants" is the American citizen which makes that "enemy combatant" a top priority -- because an American citizen has advantages in mobility and identity. Which makes the the most LOGICALLY person to spy on: American-citizen "enemy combatants" with cell phone already IN the United States posing a threat. Any other policy would be a stupid fucking waste of our tax dollars. If I'm going to have my civil liberties trammeled, I want it to be a damn effective trammeling. I admit — I’m coming around on on this deal. I don’t think Bush broke the law. That is not an endorsement for his good judgment or constitutional principles. I don’t think that he he has managerial skills to with the Brave New World that he is forging. No way — it isn’t a matter of WHETHER the NSA or CIA HAS or WILL wiretap suspected U.S. cititens (“affiliated” with “enemy combatants” posing a “threat”) within the United States, it is WHEN. If the “enemy” is that much of a “compatant”, won’t there surely be times that he enters the U.S. and uses his cell phone to call someone else in the US. The “enemy combatant” of all “enemy combatants” is the American citizen which makes that “enemy combatant” a top priority — because an American citizen has advantages in mobility and identity. Which makes the the most LOGICALLY person to spy on: American-citizen “enemy combatants” with cell phone already IN the United States posing a threat. Any other policy would be a stupid fucking waste of our tax dollars. If I’m going to have my civil liberties trammeled, I want it to be a damn effective trammeling.

]]> By: ford4x4 http://donklephant.com/2005/12/22/will-the-aumf-be-bushs-saving-grace-in-wiretap-scandal/comment-page-1/#comment-4759 ford4x4 Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:57:23 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2005/12/22/will-the-aumf-be-bushs-saving-grace-in-wiretap-scandal/#comment-4759 <blockquote>If we, the American people are indeed shrugging off the wiretapping program...</blockquote> Why am I shrugging it off... As long as it's being used to catch terrorists/gather intelligence about terrorists/stop potential terrorist plots, then I have absolutely no problem with it. However, if it comes out in the future that Joe Smith robbed a bank in Lincoln Nebraska, then called his cousin in Germany to brag about, and he was arrested because of that wiretapping.... yeah, I'll agree that they've gone too far. But I'll still be glad ol' Joe is in jail. Just because the potential for abuse is there, it doesn't mean it will happen. I own guns, therefore, I have the potential to kill someone with one of them. Does that mean my guns should be taken away?

If we, the American people are indeed shrugging off the wiretapping program…

Why am I shrugging it off…

As long as it’s being used to catch terrorists/gather intelligence about terrorists/stop potential terrorist plots, then I have absolutely no problem with it.

However, if it comes out in the future that Joe Smith robbed a bank in Lincoln Nebraska, then called his cousin in Germany to brag about, and he was arrested because of that wiretapping…. yeah, I’ll agree that they’ve gone too far. But I’ll still be glad ol’ Joe is in jail.

Just because the potential for abuse is there, it doesn’t mean it will happen. I own guns, therefore, I have the potential to kill someone with one of them. Does that mean my guns should be taken away?

]]> By: Joshua http://donklephant.com/2005/12/22/will-the-aumf-be-bushs-saving-grace-in-wiretap-scandal/comment-page-1/#comment-4755 Joshua Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:39:04 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2005/12/22/will-the-aumf-be-bushs-saving-grace-in-wiretap-scandal/#comment-4755 Justin wrote:<blockquote>For a moment, let’s set aside the fact that the War on Terrorism is essentially a war on a tactic...</blockquote> Actually it's closer to the truth to say that this war, so far, has been characterized by Bush (and others) in a way that implies merely a war on a tactic. As you may know I've always regarded this as a mistake. Now it's starting to sound as though this wiretap controversy is the beginning of this President, and perhaps the nation at large, paying a price for not calling the Long War what it really is - a war against a specific set of "theo-talitarian" ideas and those who harbor them. On the other hand, even characterizing the Long War as it should be characterized would create its own set of disturbing issues with respect to the rights and freedoms we enjoy. In that case, wiretapping of American citizens might not only still be deemed necessary, but may be just the beginning. After all, a war against ideas implies that censorship of those ideas and even politicide (theocide?) against those who espouse them may also be regarded as necessary components of the war effort on the home front. And as I've pointed out before, this war is likely to continue for many, many years, meaning whatever measures the U.S. takes in its course are likely to become institutionalized, and therefore <i>de facto</i> permanent. If we, the American people are indeed shrugging off the wiretapping program, as <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562528/site/newsweek/" rel="nofollow">this Newsweek commentary suggests</a>, what other freedoms are we willing to write off under the rubric of "c'est la guerre"? The answers to this question will ultimately determine the impact of 9/11/2001 on the national character. Justin wrote:
For a moment, let’s set aside the fact that the War on Terrorism is essentially a war on a tactic…

Actually it’s closer to the truth to say that this war, so far, has been characterized by Bush (and others) in a way that implies merely a war on a tactic. As you may know I’ve always regarded this as a mistake. Now it’s starting to sound as though this wiretap controversy is the beginning of this President, and perhaps the nation at large, paying a price for not calling the Long War what it really is – a war against a specific set of “theo-talitarian” ideas and those who harbor them.

On the other hand, even characterizing the Long War as it should be characterized would create its own set of disturbing issues with respect to the rights and freedoms we enjoy. In that case, wiretapping of American citizens might not only still be deemed necessary, but may be just the beginning. After all, a war against ideas implies that censorship of those ideas and even politicide (theocide?) against those who espouse them may also be regarded as necessary components of the war effort on the home front. And as I’ve pointed out before, this war is likely to continue for many, many years, meaning whatever measures the U.S. takes in its course are likely to become institutionalized, and therefore de facto permanent.

If we, the American people are indeed shrugging off the wiretapping program, as this Newsweek commentary suggests, what other freedoms are we willing to write off under the rubric of “c’est la guerre”? The answers to this question will ultimately determine the impact of 9/11/2001 on the national character.

]]> By: ford4x4 http://donklephant.com/2005/12/22/will-the-aumf-be-bushs-saving-grace-in-wiretap-scandal/comment-page-1/#comment-4751 ford4x4 Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:04:58 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2005/12/22/will-the-aumf-be-bushs-saving-grace-in-wiretap-scandal/#comment-4751 OK, I'll bite.... Who has been arrested under this Wiretap Scandal that is not related to the WOT? I'm not saying they aren't there, I just haven't heard of them yet. Same goes for the Patriot Act. OK, I’ll bite….

Who has been arrested under this Wiretap Scandal that is not related to the WOT?

I’m not saying they aren’t there, I just haven’t heard of them yet.
Same goes for the Patriot Act.

]]> By: Meredith http://donklephant.com/2005/12/22/will-the-aumf-be-bushs-saving-grace-in-wiretap-scandal/comment-page-1/#comment-4750 Meredith Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:01:59 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2005/12/22/will-the-aumf-be-bushs-saving-grace-in-wiretap-scandal/#comment-4750 While I personally think it's a little tenuous to say that the AUMF encompasses surveillance, I have no doubt that a court could (and very possibly will) interpret it that way. Also, I whole-heartedly agree with Justin that there are limits to this. Presidents do not have unfettered authority over anything. (I know this because while I was studying for the bar exam this past summer, on the subject of constitutional law, we were told never to pick an answer that said "the president has unfettered authority to . . . ." because that answer will always be WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Now, what Bush will most likely do is try to make up a "legitimate reason" to link the people he spied on to the WOT. Even if the court reviews the case under the rational basis standard of review, which is the lowest burden of proof (so to speak) the Pres would have to meet, this may or may not fly. While I personally think it’s a little tenuous to say that the AUMF encompasses surveillance, I have no doubt that a court could (and very possibly will) interpret it that way. Also, I whole-heartedly agree with Justin that there are limits to this. Presidents do not have unfettered authority over anything. (I know this because while I was studying for the bar exam this past summer, on the subject of constitutional law, we were told never to pick an answer that said “the president has unfettered authority to . . . .” because that answer will always be WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Now, what Bush will most likely do is try to make up a “legitimate reason” to link the people he spied on to the WOT. Even if the court reviews the case under the rational basis standard of review, which is the lowest burden of proof (so to speak) the Pres would have to meet, this may or may not fly.

]]>