SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Rock_nj who wrote (56013)1/24/2006 12:57:17 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362340
 
Why the Senate should not confirm Alito

chicagotribune.com

Supreme Court doesn't need a justice who has no interest in restraining 'presidential powers'

By Geoffrey R. Stone
Editorial
The Chicago Tribune
Published January 24, 2006

I supported the confirmation of John Roberts Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court and, until recently, the confirmation of Samuel Alito Jr. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion, however, that Judge Alito should not be confirmed and that this is a matter of real importance to the nation.

Alito is a smart, experienced and knowledgeable jurist. I have no doubt of his legal ability. On balance, the Senate should give more weight to excellence than judicial philosophy.Why, then, should the Senate deny confirmation to Alito? The most fundamental responsibility of the Supreme Court is to preserve both the separation of powers and the individual liberties guaranteed by our Constitution. They are the bulwarks of our freedom. Yet history teaches that these indispensable elements of our constitutional system are most threatened in time of war. Too often in wartime, the president demands excessive authority in his role as commander in chief and the president and Congress run roughshod over civil liberties in their effort to protect, or appear to protect, the nation.

This was true when Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the internment of 120,000 individuals of Japanese descent, Richard M. Nixon ordered unlawful break-ins and wiretaps against those who opposed the Vietnam War, and Congress enacted the Sedition Act of 1798, the Sedition Act of 1918, and the Smith Act of 1940. We hope, of course, that presidents and Congress will act with restraint and wisdom. But we know that, in times of crisis, they frequently overreact to perceived danger, manipulate public opinion and needlessly sacrifice our liberties.

The last line of defense against such excesses is the Supreme Court. With life tenure, the justices are largely insulated from the need to please any particular constituency for personal advancement. And with their unique commitment to long-term principle rather than short-term political expediency, they are well-placed to resist the fears and anxieties of wartime.

Through our history, the court has had a mixed record in fulfilling this responsibility. During World War I, it upheld the convictions of individuals for criticizing the war; during World War II, it upheld the internment of Japanese-Americans; and during the Cold War, it initially upheld the persecution of American citizens because of their political beliefs and associations.

At other moments, however, the court has performed admirably.

During the Korean War, it held that President Harry Truman had exceeded his constitutional authority as commander in chief when he sought to take over the steel industry; in the latter part of the Cold War, it held unconstitutional government actions directed against "disloyal" Americans; during the Vietnam War, it rejected Nixon's effort to enjoin the publication of the Pentagon Papers and his claim that he could constitutionally conduct "national security" wiretaps without judicial warrants; and during the war on terrorism, it rejected President Bush's claims that he had the "inherent" authority to deny habeas corpus to individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay and could unilaterally decide to detain American citizens indefinitely without even a hearing on whether they were in fact "enemy combatants."

The single most critical factor that distinguishes the decisions in which the court failed from those in which it succeeded was the character and constitutional philosophy of the justices serving at the time. Those justices who abdicated their responsibility and chose blindly to defer to excessive presidential claims approved the pervasive suppression of dissent during World War I, the Japanese internment and the rampant abuses of McCarthyism. Those who were determined to ask hard questions and to insist that the president and Congress comply with the Constitution gave the nation the steel seizure decision, the Pentagon Papers decision and the 2004 decision preserving the due process rights of American citizens.

Now, Bush arrogantly asserts that he has the inherent constitutional authority to wiretap American citizens on American soil without first obtaining a warrant, in direct defiance of federal legislation and the 4th Amendment. This is on top of his previous assertions of inherent authority to employ torture, wiretap lawyer-client communications, confine American citizens incommunicado and close deportation and other legal proceedings from public scrutiny.

Given the times in which we live, we need and deserve a Supreme Court willing to examine independently these extraordinary assertions of executive authority. We can fight and win the war on terrorism without inflicting upon ourselves and our posterity another regrettable episode like the Red Scare and the Japanese internment. But that will happen only if the justices of the Supreme Court are willing to fulfill their essential role in our constitutional system.

Whatever else Alito may or may not have made clear about his views on such issues as abortion, federalism and religious freedom, he has certainly made clear that he has no interest in restraining the acts of this commander in chief. That, in my judgment, poses a serious threat to the nation and is a more than adequate reason for the Senate--Republicans and Democrats alike--to deny his confirmation to the Supreme Court.

----------

Geoffrey R. Stone is a law professor at the University of Chicago and the author of "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism."



To: Rock_nj who wrote (56013)1/24/2006 1:37:39 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362340
 
NSA Director Hayden--One Needle in a Growing Bush "Hay"stack of Lies

By Kristen Breitweiser*

huffingtonpost.com

01.24.2006

The Bush Administration has continually used 9/11 as an excuse to break the laws of our great nation. A simple reading of the September 11th story shows that General Michael Hayden and the Bush Administration are, once again, contradicting themselves in their use of 9/11, this time with regard to President Bush's illegal domestic spying program.

1. NSA DIRECTOR, GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN CONTRADICTS HIS 2002 TESTIMONY TO THE JOINT INQUIRY OF CONGRESS:

January 22, 2006 - General Michael Hayden, in defending the illegal NSA Surveillance Program, stated:

"We're not violating the law ... Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the al-Qaida operatives in the United States."

October 17, 2002 - Lieutenant Michael Hayden said the following:

"In early 2000, at the time of the meeting in Kuala Lumpur, we had the al-Hazmi brothers, Nawaf and Salim, as well as Khalid al-Mihdhar, in our sights. We knew of their association with al Qa'ida, and we shared this information with the community. I've looked at this closely. If we had handled all of the above perfectly, the only new fact that we could have contributed at the time of Kuala Lumpur was that Nawaf's surname (and perhaps that of Salim, who appeared to be Nawaf's brother) was al-Hazmi."

"There is one other area in our pre-September 11th performance that has attracted a great deal of public attention. In the hours just prior to the attacks, NSA did obtain two pieces of information suggesting that individuals with terrorist connections believed something significant would happen on September 11th. This information did not specifically indicate an attack would take place on that day. It did not contain any details on the time, place, or nature of what might happen. It also contained no suggestion of airplanes being used as weapons. Because of the processing involved, we were unable to report the information until September 12th. To put this into some perspective, throughout the summer of 2001 we had more than 30 warnings that something was imminent. We dutifully reported these."

*** General Hayden should reconcile his contradictory statements. I note that President Bush's illegal NSA surveillance program was in effect at the time of Hayden's testimony in 2002. I also note that Hayden was a Lieutenant-General in 2002. Since 2002, Hayden has been promoted to a full-fledged General.

2. NSA DIRECTOR, GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN CONTRADICTS STATEMENTS TO JOINT INQUIRY OF CONGRESS REGARDING APPROPRIATENESS OF NSA CARRYING OUT DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE:

January 22, 2006 - General Michael Hayden, in defending the illegal NSA Surveillance program, stated:

"We're not violating the law ... Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the al-Qaida operatives in the United States."

In 2002 - NSA Director Hayden testified before the Joint Inquiry that:

"the collection of communications between the United States and foreign countries will most likely contain information about domestic activities and thus, is the responsibility of the FBI, not NSA."

According to the Joint Inquiry, Hayden "contrasted the foreign intelligence value of such intercepts and their domestic security value. If the former is at stake, he asserted, NSA should intercept the communications; if the latter, the FBI."

The Joint Inquiry found: "General Hayden, senior NSA managers, NSA legal staff, and NSA analysts made clear in Joint Inquiry testimony and interviews that they do not want to be perceived as focusing NSA capabilities against U.S. persons in the United States. The Director and his staff were UNANIMOUS that lessons NSA learned as a result of Congressional investigations during the 1970's should not be forgotten."

*** General Hayden should explain why he now deems the illegal surveillance program being carried out by the NSA appropriate and constitutional. Once again, I note that President Bush's illegal NSA surveillance program was in place when General Hayden testified in 2002.

Perhaps, the American people would be better served with a Director of the NSA who understands that agency's capabilities regarding terrorist surveillance - both past and present. Hayden's statements indicate one of two things - he is either incompetent or a liar. In either case he should not be heading up the NSA.

Once again, I encourage President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Former President Bush, Attorney General Gonzales and General Hayden - all of whom were recently on TV spouting utter nonsense to the American people regarding the need and justification for this illegal program - to review the findings of facts and conclusions held by the Joint Inquiry of Congress and the 9/11 Commission.

The Joint Inquiry and the 9/11 Commission did not find that there was a failure to collect information on the 19 hijackers. Rather, they held that:

Better coordination between NSA and FBI might have improved prospects for determining that al Mihdhar was in this country in early 2000; led to the collection of information concerning international communications by other hijackers; identified radical suspects; and created leads for the FBI. Both NSA and FBI are authorized to access international communications between the United States and foreign countries.

Please, Gentlemen: Stop deliberately and grossly misleading the American public.
________________________________________________________________

*Kristen Breitweiser, 9/11 widow and activist, is known for pressuring official Washington to provide a public accounting to the American people of what went wrong on the morning of September 11 and in the months leading up to the disaster that claimed the life of her husband and more than 3000 others.

Breitweiser did not seek to be an activist. She was a stay-at-home mother in suburban New Jersey and a George Bush supporter. Yet Breitweiser and the other so-called "Jersey Girls" transformed by their grief and outraged by a lack of accountability are widely credited with forcing the creation of the 9/11 Commission and were instrumental in insuring the passage in Congress of the national security reforms it recommended.

She testified before the Joint Inquiry of Congress in September 2002 and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in August 2004 with regard to national security reforms. She campaigned as a primary surrogate for the Kerry-Edwards Presidential Campaign in 2004.

Breitweiser lives in New York City with her six-year old daughter, Caroline Whitney and her golden retriever, Cooper.



To: Rock_nj who wrote (56013)1/24/2006 3:52:45 PM
From: geode00  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 362340
 
It's a good thing. Not good for Ford Explorers but then they've enjoyed years of those high profit margin vehicles that no one really needed.

I wonder if we'll be hearing from Chavez soon. :)