The secret spying program was said to be necessary because getting court approval under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is too time-consuming. That position is difficult to accept: Warrants requested under FISA can be approved in a matter of hours, and the statute allows the government in emergency situations to put a wiretap in place immediately, and then seek court approval later, within 72 hours. But the true reason behind the administration's position is less difficult to decode - the desire to circumvent a key limitation of FISA. Despite the statute's breadth, it permits wire taps only on agents of foreign powers, and would not have permitted them on persons not directly connected to al-Qaida. Apparently seeking to cast a much wider net after 9/11, the president simply ignored the law and unilaterally - and secretly - authorized warrantless wiretaps on Americans.
Was it legal to do so? Attorney General Alberto Gonzales argues that the president's authority rests on two foundations: Congress's authorization to use military force against al-Qaida, and the Constitution's vesting of power in the president as commander-in-chief, which necessarily includes gathering "signals intelligence" on the enemy. But that argument cannot be squared with Supreme Court precedent. In 1952, the Supreme Court considered a remarkably similar argument during the Korean War. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, widely considered the most important separation-of-powers case ever decided by the court, flatly rejected the president's assertion of unilateral domestic authority during wartime. President Truman had invoked the commander-in-chief clause to justify seizing most of the nation's steel mills. A nationwide strike threatened to undermine the war, Truman contended, because the mills were critical to manufacturing munitions.
The Supreme Court's rationale for rejecting Truman's claims applies with full force to Bush's policy. In what proved to be the most influential opinion in the case, Justice Robert Jackson identified three possible scenarios in which a president's actions may be challenged. Where the president acts with explicit or implicit authorization from Congress, his authority "is at its maximum," and will generally be upheld. Where Congress has been silent, the president acts in a "zone of twilight" in which legality "is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law." But where the president acts in defiance of "the expressed or implied will of Congress," Justice Jackson maintained, his power is "at its lowest ebb," and his actions can be sustained only if Congress has no authority to regulate the subject at all.
that's from david cole's "Bush's Illegal Spying."
bully boy could have gone to fisa but chose not to. it goes to the arrogance at the heart of the bully. he barged into office feeling he was above the law and he's never lost that sense of entitlement.
so using the youngstown precedent, constitutional law professor cole explains that there should be no legal ground for bully boy to stand on. cole explains how the bully boy falls into the 3rd catergory which is where presidential power rests 'at its lowest ebb.'
what there's no backing for, bully boy pretends there is and blusters and bullies.
i think the david cole article is important and that it's something you should familiarize yourself with. it places the issue in a legal context that cuts through the spin and moves beyond the 'objective' reporting that says 'bully boy claims that' and 'some democrats argue that'. this is a pretty clear cut issue. bully boy could have gone to fisa for a warrant. and he didn't have to do it right away. he could do after the spying had started. but the laws in place weren't flexible enough for a bully who thinks he's god or at least king. so he does what he wants and says screw you to the courts, congress and the people.
this week thom hartman has been substituting for janeane garofalo and sam seder on the majority report. i mention that because i know community members were bothered last year that there were so many repeats on air america for about two weeks in the lead up to christmas and until after new year's eve. there's too much going on to be stuck in reruns. a news network can't take two weeks off except for their five minutes of news at the top of each hour. peter werbe has filled in for mike malloy on the mike malloy show and mike malloy has filled in for randi on the randi rhodes show. randi and her staff are usually on top of things (community member eddie has praise for tim and randi) and so it's no surprise that the website for her show has the schedule up for next week (tomorrow is a best of randi show):
Mon, 12/26 - Best of Randi
Tue, 12/27 - Mike Malloy
Wed, 12/28 - Best of Randi
Thu, 12/29 - Mike Malloy
Fri, 12/30 - Mike Malloy
this was an issue last year to the community. and when big brain came back in january tut-tutting that unfiltered was the place where you had to go to hear the news and here she was telling you about the tsunami - uh, excuse me, the tsunami happened while you were on vacation and unfiltered was in repeats. big brain was just so proud of herself for ... going on vacation? you can't do that. as c.i. stated (so nicely) after this happened last year (too nicely?) people do need their vacations but a talk show network that focuses on the news shouldn't go into repeats when people are counting on it for news. for some listeners, it was as though abc world news tonight had taken 2 weeks off.
it's not a way to build up an audience and a number of members began listening to pacifica for the first time during this period last year when c.i. noted that they had programming.
with a radio network, you never know when some 1's going to discover you for the 1st time. and if they discover you by going up and down the dial and it's dec. 27th and your show is going over something happening in november, especially if it's something that has been resolved or that more is known on, you sound like some 1 who is out of touch. that doesn't encourage trust.
and if you're listening to get perspective on the day's news, you really aren't in the mood for nonstop repeats. i'm not surprised that radio pros like randi rhodes and mike malloy get that or that janeane garofalo and sam seder (who've become radio pros though janeane always downplays her own abilities - she's very good).
i'm also not surprised that baby cries a lot doesn't and that he thinks what the country is a week of repeats from him. best ofs, he's called it this week. he has a prime slot and is carried most of the stations (probably all) that carry air america programming. (no surprise, some of them are messing with randi rhodes' show - which should make every 1 watch clear channel closely, they refused to syndicate randi rhodes before air america began because she was beating rush in markets where she aired and they didn't want to anger rush.) to provide a week of dead air in a prime spot that's carried on so many stations is something air america should have addressed.
you have people who would have seen filling in as a mission or an honor. you also have people who would have done it to get some exposure for causes they believe in. more importantly, you have some people who do not celebrate christmas either for personal or religious reasons. a substitute host or hosts could have been brought in. instead it's dead air as you listen to jokes (or 'jokes') on a timely issue that may not be timely because it's old.
will we hear more on impeachment? not in a show that in nonstop repeats.
that's not how you handle a political network. when an issue will be responded to on fox 'news' and by right wingers here, there and everywhere, if air america is supposed to offer an alternative perspective, it can't do that via nonstop repeats.
the radio pros seem to realize that and i'll applaud them. baby cries a lot seems to be doing ego stroking, and i'll call him out for it. you have more flexibility on the weekends (when most listeners are already used to nonstop repeat and a lot of stations carrying air america programming are creating their own programming to air in those spots). but during the week, if you're covering what's in the news and giving political commentary on it, you need to be there or offer a substitute host who can be.
in this community, elaine, wally, mike and c.i. are very aware that the community doesn't want community sites going dark. so we have provided daily content. (c.i. several times a day.) we know that other members need time off and i know wally plans to take time off at some point when every 1's back to blogging (or 'resource/review'ing in c.i.'s case). i may take a week off at some point in the new year. but with impeachment finally breaking through as a what-if to the mainstream media, i wouldn't feel right taking off without providing a fill in or having other members not be on vacation.
if i do provide a fill in when i go on vacation, i have some 1 in mind. when i went on vacation this summer, i asked elaine to fill in and she did a wonderful job. she now runs her own site and i wouldn't dream of asking her to fill in. some 1 i would ask is betty.
i think she'd do a great job (and have suggested it to her). at her site, thomas friedman is a great man, she has to stay in character and be 'betinna' wife of thomas friedman. there are things she wants to comment on but can't because it's hard to work them into betinna's character and betinna's world. when i mentioned it to her, her 1st comment was she wouldn't have the time. then she said 'well maybe a paragraph or 2 each day.' then she really got excited.
i think she'd do an amazing job and if i go on vacation in the near future, she'll be the 1st person i ask.
i plan to blog tomorrow. if i miss it, i will blog on saturday. i won't blog both days short of bully boy announcing that he's resigning. due to holiday plans, i won't be able to participate in the third estate sunday review's edition for sunday and i want to thank every 1 for being so nice about that and so supportive. as it stands now, the people who will be participating are jim, jess, cedric, c.i., mike, elaine and 'probably' ava. ava really wants the time off but says that at the very least she will try to make time so that she and c.i. can do a tv commentary.
every 1 needs down time, whether it's a holiday or not. though some people may think, for instance, that kat's done nothing because her site has been 'dead' this week, the reality is she's writing music commentary for the common ills that will start going up tomorrow. so look for her latest then. (i'll break the news, tomorrow, the review she did for eli of carly simon's no secrets, will go up. i have read it and thought it was wonderful.)
but i want to close by noting c.i. who has not missed a day. not just this week, but every day for over a year. c.i.'s been running the common ills since november 2004. there has been no day off. sometimes that means dictating entries over the phone, sometimes that means e-mailing them in. protests? c.i.'s at them and still has new content. going out of town on the weekends to speak on issues, c.i.'s still got new content up there.
i hope in 2006, c.i. will consider taking some time off. c.i. and i have been friends for years and knowing work and political committments as well as social 1s, i still shake my head in disbelief that the common ills has had new content every day. 1 thing that jim and i agree strongly on (we agree on many things) is that c.i. and ava need some time off. their tv reviews are the biggest draw at the third estate sunday review judging by the e-mails. readers love it. the 1 week they addressed a movie, readers were thrilled but asked, 'where was the tv commentary?' so the next week, ava and c.i. came back with 2 reviews (and 2 review was of 2 shows so they actually reviewed 3 shows in one edition). that's a lot to expect of 2 people who do the reviews by themselves. the other pieces are group efforts. this week, when ava's incredibly busy, you have her trying to figure out how she's going to swing time to manage to co-write tv commentary with c.i. we all love their commentaries but we are aware that they deserve a break. so we're tossing some ideas around that would give them at least 1 week off.
guess who else deserves some time off? you the reader. i hope you're making time for yourself this week. this can be a stressful time of year and you don't need to add to your stress. take the time you need for you.
