John Hinderaker, super-genius
“I have a J.D. from Harvard Law School.”
He’s at it again.
Professor Stone,
you were quoted in the New York Times today to the effect that the administration’s NSA international intercept program is plainly illegal. This puzzled me, as I have been researching the issue and have not found any support for that proposition. It appears to be universally recognized by the federal courts that warrantless surveillance for national security purposes is within the President’s Article II power. See, for example, the November 2002 decision of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, in Sealed Case No. 02-001:“The Truong court [United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 4th Cir. 1980], as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. *** We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
The Supreme Court precedents are consistent with that view.
I am writing on this topic, and want to make sure that I am not overlooking an argument for the illegality of the intercepts. As happens so often in newspaper articles, the Times reporter quoted your conclusion without conveying any hint of the grounds for it. I would appreciate it very much if you would take the trouble to refer me to the authorities that you believe support the opinion that you gave to the Times.
Thank you very much.
John HinderakerWhile I have seen nothing so far that would suggest that the NSA program was illegal, I want to make sure that we are addressing the strongest arguments that can be made to that effect, and Professor Stone appears to be a respected authority on the subject. So I will post any response I receive from him, and will respond to whatever arguments and authorities he brings forward.
Posted by John at 07:30 AM
Dear Acme Company,
Please send the following:
1-gal. container glue
Giant spring
Crate of TNT
Inflatable monster head
Assortment of bear traps
“Little Giant” rocket sled kit
Anvil
Thank You,
John Hinderaker
PS: Am enclosing steam-powered pole-vault kit for refund, w/ accompanying hospital bills.
PPS: Will catch Road Runner this time for sure.
[Executive summary:
What Assrocket doesn’t understand, or more likely tries to muddy-up, is that wiretapping of “agents of a foreign power” is quite distinct, legally, from wiretapping of US citizens with (or without) possible connections to nonstate-sponsored terrorism. The Truong Dinh Hung case was pre-FISA and concerned a foreign national, among other salient details. Most simply, the laws governing FISA are crystal-clear and extremely specific, and to break them is to commit a felony. In ordering warrantless wiretaps, George W. Bush seems to be facing a penalty of (doing quick math in head) up to 100,000 years in prison, according to what constitutes a ‘single offense.’ The fines are pretty steep as well.]
There can be only one…supergenius.
Dear Mr. Webster,
foreign = domestic
right?
Please correct your dictionary,
Sincerely,
Assrocket
Dear “Ms. Thailand Inner Beauty Pageant”,
I am writing to complain about your dishonest and deceitful pageant. Your seemingly beautful women were nothing more than aspiring pre-operative transsexuals. I find this kind of false advertising to be insufferable. I was forced to masturbate improperly and would like to be compensated for 1 billion little Assrockets that I can never get back and emotional damages and damage to my reputation as an arbiter of human beauty.
Thank you,
John H.
silly question, probably, but why doesn’t powerline allow for reader comments? is there some actual reason for this? just wondering.
The larger right-blogs tend not to have comments (although Malkin used to, and removed them), in order to keep people like us from commenting. LGF has a large forum, but censors it against ‘trolls’ — which actually means dissenters.
Inter alia, I’ve never deleted a single non-spam comment from a thread here (or been tempted to), and I doubt whether Seb or Brad has, either.
Gavin M, I suspect it’s more to stop the righties from posting and embarrassing the bloggers. Have you seen the stuff that doesn’t get censored on LGF? It’s one thing for Time to give Blog of the Year for making shit up about 1970s typewriters, but it would be another thing entirely for them to give it to a blog whose commenters regularly advocated genocide.
Chazmo deleted a ton of really awful stuff from LGF during the ramp-up to Pajamas Media.
You can ask the 3Bulls guys about that. We were doing a merry troll-raid against LGF a couple-few months ago, and got some inside intel — it checked out according to my Googl-oogling and the (ahem) secret SadNo LGF account.
Hey, wait: Did I give you your Holiday Present yet? I’m kinda behind on’m…
Dear Society of American Historians:
In a recent poll, you named Abraham Lincoln as the country’s greatest president.
Didn’t you see where my colleague described our current president as “A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another”?
We’re Time Magazine’s Motherfucking Blog of the Year, bitches! Recognize and reconsider!
Sincerely,
John Hinderaker, J.D. (1988 I Can’t Believe It’s a Law School, Mall of the Americas)
The only times I’ve been tempted have been where Marie Jon’ posted entire columns of hers in the comments. Yet even then I’ve left them as is — I am ruthless on spam, but would not touch anything else. The only non-spam comment I ever deleted was when someone posted the home address and phone number of the parents’ of Sarah from Trying to Grok. I find her quite dumb at times, but don’t believe that justifies invading her (or her parents’) privacy.
A.J., I believe you answered your own question, no?
ok. that’s what i figured. it’s pretty easy to make up whatever you feel like on your blog when it’s impossible for people to immediately call you out on your bullshit. a couple weeks ago amato at c&l made an honest error in how he interpreted an a political ad, and his own people set him straight within minutes.
evidently, the powerline guys come from the george w. bush “why discuss this issue when i’ve never been wrong about anything?” school of debate.
did i?
I mean, the thing with Powerline is that they’re so hilariously and ineptly full of shit that they’d get torn apart if they allowed comments. They used to allow trackbacks at least.
Powerline is a great example of someone thrust into a position for which they are unqualified. They managed to fool some print journalists into thinking they were relevant by taking down a television personality (a position to which many print journalists aspire). Having made a name for themselves acccidentally, they now find they are unable to live up to the reputation which they never earned or really deserved. The frustration bred by this fuels their anger and leads them to post greater and greater inanities. John E. Hinderaker – SoopahGenius! Indeed. Heh, even.
This looks like a place that a man can piss on your back and tell you it’s raining !!!
Ed Koch
seems like if you have any confidence in your positions at all you would let people debate them on their merits. i’d even let them slide if they cut out clearly obnoxious and meaningless comments from time to time. what a bunch of whimps.
brad: damon to the yanks?? say it ‘aint so!
BTW sorry for my revent absence. I’ve been hammered with finals and I just ritualistically burned my Johnny Damon jersey…
Once, just once, on Howie the Ho’s weekend show, I’d like Jeralyn TalkLeft to tell Assrocket that he is as good at being a lawyer as he is at disguising his crush on George W. Bush.
hahahaha we posted that at the same time!
Amazing that Assrocket would miss it, given that it’s in the text from the very same opinion that he cites:
“the court held that the Executive Branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when “the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators,” and “the surveillance is conducted ‘primarily’ for foreign intelligence reasons.”
What a moron.
They managed to fool some print journalists into thinking they were relevant by taking down a television personality (a position to which many print journalists aspire). Having made a name for themselves acccidentally, they now find they are unable to live up to the reputation which they never earned or really deserved
—
Sounds like Drudge, too.
ok. that’s what i figured. it’s pretty easy to make up whatever you feel like on your blog when it’s impossible for people to immediately call you out on your bullshit. a couple weeks ago amato at c&l made an honest error in how he interpreted an a political ad, and his own people set him straight within minutes.
evidently, the powerline guys come from the george w. bush “why discuss this issue when i’ve never been wrong about anything?” school of debate.
Posted by: a.j. | December 21, 2005 07:29 PM
You got it, a.j. This is one of the reasons why the righty blogosphere is shrinking even as the lefty blogosphere is growing. The RWers were compelled to spout nonsense RE: Social Security, then Schiavo, and that caused a lot of their casual fans to go “Whaaaa?!?!?” Then they started totally veering from reality WRT Iraq and TreasonGate (aka PlameGate), and even readers gave up on them.
It is so fucking sad when someone who claims to be an attorney cannot understand FISA and the related executive orders to enforce it. The FISA is pretty straightforward about the procedures on collecting on US persons and non-US persons. So straightforward, even I can understand it. These guys have been spinning so much, they have lost all common sense.
Mr. Seb, that sensible and even-handed approach to handling comments is exactly the kind of limp-wristed European tomfoolery that will allow the hordes of Muslim Orcs to overrun Gondor, er, the U.S.
I agree with the others, Assrocket is the best example of the Peter Principle among the more popular bloggers. Nothing like calling Jimmy Carter a traitor to cement your cred.
100,000 years? I’d be satisfied with a concurrent sentence. Even reduced to 5 years for good behavior.
Heck, I’d take parole if it came with articles of impeachment.
The assrocket clan had TrackBacks until about 6 months ago…
i’d even let them slide if they cut out clearly obnoxious and meaningless comments from time to time. what a bunch of whimps.
Well, we don’t even do that, and it seems to work out fine.
Seb left a note before, and I think that perhaps the thing-unsaid is that when someone writes a comment, it’s no longer ‘our writing,’ and we have no right to mess with it.
I did actually delete a comment once. It was something with a physical threat in it, and it simply couldn’t stay up. Brad and I shot some emails back and forth on’t, and nothing like that has ever happened since.
Not only that, but the passage quoted by Hinderaker is clearly dicta, and not a holding of the court. The very next sentence in the opinion states, “The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President?s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the
government?s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable.” In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001, 47-48. I’d get an ‘F’ on a law exam if I were to try to put any precedential value in that statement that he uses.
Marie Jon? Now THAT is one kooky wingnut!
Not only that but let’s face it — this blog dishes it out (with great pleasure) and if people want to dish it right back in the comments, then they can go right ahead.
I actually messed with my own writing in that comment, betw. when it was first posted and when Seb responded.
Alas, alack!
Impeachment and then — on to the Hague!
Yeah, but when MJ’ triple posts, dear LORD, we’re talking scrolling injuries. In fact, Sadly, No! might be held liable. That’s different from being held libel.
100,000 years? I’d be satisfied with a concurrent sentence. Even reduced to 5 years for good behavior.
Heck, I’d take parole if it came with articles of impeachment.
Posted by: storwino
Not me! How many thousands of deaths and maimings is this guy responsible for? We’ve already had two Presidents impeached — let’s make Dubya the first one who gets imprisoned!
Erm, I can pretty much safely say as a Canadian, I know little to nothing about US constitutional law, but looking at the fourth amendment of the constitution, I have no idea how anyone could consider it legal, in the traditional sense of the word.
I also noticed assrockets little deception there too, upon first reading. I surmise that these boys are just out of good lies. All they have left is crappy ones that don’t make sense. Bush has allready been through his nine lives, and then some, stick a fork in him.
Watertown native …
John Hinderaker (aka Assrocket) of Powerline Blog fame shows the world what a legal genius he is.
The part that really gets me is Buttrocket’s naive belief that the target of his request will be happy to assist Buttrocket in proving the target wrong.
Compare this to the Wen Ho Lee sham. The supposed blame on that man was mostly a result of Reagan/Bush sanctions lifts towards China. These helped Pakistan develop nuclear capacities in 1989(exploded their first nuke) and China’s “voluntary compliance” sanctions end runs that resulted in third party missile sales to Iran.
JINSA, a hawkish pro-Israel site, tracked these items through traditional mainstream media.
All of these policies crafted under George Schultz and James Baker State Departments. The neocons started proliferation the late 80s they knew the Soviet was about to collapse and felt a need to expand markets for their Military-Industrial Complex products to justify the ongoing Star Wars(tm) Missile Condom(c) boondoggle.
Look back, much of the claims and language on Lee match the statements of the original proliferatrion/sanctions lifts towards China under the Bush Sr reigns.
I’m sorry, but I just have to disagree with Sadly’s analysis on this one. Sure, FISA made it a felony to wiretap without a warrant, but…that was only for the rest of us. I’m sure they never meant to limit the president’s power to do such things. They just meant that the rest of us had to get warrants before wiretapping other Americans.
And when you think about it like that, it all makes sense. That’s the way I get my wiretaps done and it works just fine. Sure, it does hamper my investigations some times, and sure, I wasn’t able to prevent my neighbor from blowing those leaves into my yard; but you can bet that the intel I heard about his daughter from my after-the-fact wiretaps was enough to make it all worthwhile. And now that I have my kids working on the 72-hour retro-warrant paperwork; even those problems aren’t so stifling.
But to expect Bush to follow such paperwork headaches, and during such a time of undefined war; that just makes no sense. If we make the President follow the laws and prevent him from circumventing the necessary checks which were once designed to protect our freedoms; the terrorists have obviously won.
Yay! We have won!
See, see. I told you. They’re even declaring victory outright, and just a few days before X-mas no less. Have these heathens no shame?
Next thing you know, they’ll be demanding chimpeachment, wishing a good Fitzmas, and hugging trees. See what you people have done? You’re just encouraging them with this stuff.
The real question is, will they be hugging good old fashioned christmas trees? Or with they be satanistic, pot smoking abortion holiday trees?
In England we dealt with this situation, a royal tyrant, so much better. We topped the fucker for treason. No namby-pamby 100,000 year sentence. Since then the monarchy have largely behaved themselves.
Abortion trees!!!!
womb-sapplings?
After rading Hindrocket a couple of times I had an insight: this man is a litigator. Now, litigation has a place in life, but as a guiding rhetoric in public affairs? When the litigator uses that frame outside of its intended sphere he becomes morally deformed.
For a relatively sane if right-wing take on the legalities, see Orin Kerr of Volokh. He concludes the actions don’t violate the 4th amendment if the calls being surveilled by NSA had one leg international because of case law permitting searches at the border without a warrant. Apparantly the border may be construed loosely when it comes to communication across the border. (Others disagree about this, and we aren’t sure of the details of the NSA activities, but the argument is at least rational.) However, he concludes that the NSA program is a violation of the FISA statute. He has a long discussion of the Truong case, btw.
Dr. Biobrain, I have read and seen so many dumb things today, I had to read what you said twice to make positive that wasn’t sarcasm.
Blowback, thanks for that link. Great stuff, but while I don’t think Shrub will face the same outcome as Charles I–alas–to see him in the dock at The Hague would be the next best thing.
Is Assrocket a living example of the Peter Principle, or what???
Oooops, there’s almost something Freudian in this.
Here’s one for you that pretty much sums it up:
‘Won’t you fight for your country?’ Colonel Korn demanded, emulating Colonel Cathcart’s harsh, self-righteous tone. ‘Won’t you give up your life for Colonel Cathcart and me?’
Yossarian tensed with alert astonishment when he heard Colonel Korn’s concluding words. ‘What’s that?’ he exclaimed. ‘What have you and Colonel Cathcart got to do with my country? You’re not the same.’
‘How can you separate us?’ Colonel Korn inquired with ironical tranquillity.
‘That’s right,’ Colonel Cathcart cried emphatically. ‘You’re either for us or against us. There’s no two ways about it.’
‘I’m afraid he’s got you,’ added Colonel Korn. ‘You’re either for us or against your country. It’s as simple as that.’
‘Oh, no, Colonel. I don’t buy that.’
Colonel Korn was unrufed. ‘Neither do I, frankly, but everyone else will. So there you are.’
Oh how I love catch 22.
Thank you John, and Scott, for adding links to “What Land is This?” and
“That Saddam is Gone Christmas Song”
to your Power LIne site. The songs were virtually ignored over here, while your visitors downloaded them by the thousands. Then again, Christmas, and the message of Christmas is anathema here.
Then again, I have grown accustomed to be shunned, verbally attacked, and turned into right-wing road kill over here on a daily basis. Then, to add insult to injury, I’m told I suffer from a persecution complex. Well, if that’s true, they really know how to put the “persecution” in “persecution complex.” They are powerless to defeat me, while you put the “power” in Power Line. And I”m not just saying that because you have now made several of my songs into internet “hits.”
Consider it an honor to be persecuted here. If you are persecuted here, it is a sign that you are on the right path, and everybody blessed with common sense understands that the “right” path is the right path.
God bless you and have a Merry, Merry Christmas. Ch-ching!
Yeah, just watch to see what happens to Dr. BLT next. They will either persecute him, totally ignore him, or offer fulsome praise and/or ersatz niceties as a way of obfuscating their true intention to further persecute him.
Heh… that’s funny. Doc Sammich posts, then posts again under another name, in support of himself. And what does he say? Essentially that the response to his initial post will be one of the following:
(a) a mean response;
(b) a nice response, which will be either (i) sincere or (ii) insincere; or
(c) no response.
Kind of covers the waterfront. Heads I win, tails you lose. Way to go, Doc!
Now, I’ll bet Doc Sammich will either respond with a comment about how he pities me, a comment about how he is filled with love even for those who disagree with him, a comment in which he tosses out some spot analysis of my psyche, a comment in which he does none of the above, or no comment at all.
You go, Dan Someone! I am definitely not you, but you are clearly right on the money with that last comment.
Why thank you, Definitely Not Dan Someone! It’s nice to be appreciated, especially by those who are not me.
Dan, Dan & Dan, this is your lucky day. I just happen to be filled with even more love than usual towards those who disagree with me.
This is the day that one of your own, has made one of my own songs, rather famous thanks to a very popular European site called mp3000.net
(though I don’t condone the porno adds it posts).
A few weeks ago, I read a post that suggested that Marq had sent Black Santa, my rapping duo with Michael C. to one of his favorite sites. Well, since that post came out, the song has become one of the top songs on the site I mentioned, right up there competing with artists such as Madonna, Green Day etc.
I better not say anything critical of you either, Dan. Black Santa is now my most successful song ever, and I owe it all to Marq, and to the powers that be a this site for allowing a troll to mingle with their own left-wing bloggers. Too bad they’ve got me listed as Black Santa rather than as Dr. BLT & Michael C. Now my song is famous, but still, nobody in Europe knows who I am.
In high school, I got suspended for reading a passage from Catch 22 for a speech class assignment. And that was only, uh, 25 years ago. (Fuck I’m old.)
altho I agree that in bypassing FISA & authorizing the wire taps, Bush is
A: in the wrong legally
B: has just demonstrated that laws have no value (guess that means we can all break em now, eh?)
I have to say that he is facing no jail time.. A sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.. Technically, ‘impeachment’ is not a charge.. It is a way, to be used by the Congress, to remove a president who is failing to perform as a president. I put forth that the reason Rove has Bush ‘claim’ to have done things that are ‘illegal’ is because this protects the people who have actually committed the acts.. Rove, Cheney, Rumsfield & their lackeys.. Bush is, after all, simply a front. Think of him as chaff, protecting the people who are in charge.
FWIW, The Office of the President was authorized by the Congress to use force to remove Saddam. Period. Saddam is removed, and, as the imposter repeatedly tells us, Iraq is safe again. There is no war. Technically, it is a police action. The ‘prezdent’ has no war powers. It is time to end this farce.
The scroll-wheel in my mouse died, and I can only blame MJ’ and her triple-posts, damn her eyes.
Hell, who doesn’t love Dan Someone after that?
Or is it Definitely Not Dan Someone who has won our hearts?
Oh, and BLT? Stop slandering me by “crediting” me with shilling your “Black Santa” song… Since. I. Did. Not. The exchange you are mis-remembering was when I set you up to download the extremely racist and loathsome “12 Days of Kwaanza” song, which, incidentally, wasn’t by you, just in case you forgot. After you effusively praised it, I mentioned it was by a white drag-queen, Shirley Q. Liquor, who performs in blackface. Your response deftly avoided actually responding to the facts and shilled for one of your songs, as usual. It must be nice to remember things the way you’d like for them to have been. I state for the record that I am definitively not one of the purported “silent majority” of commenters on this site who “like” you. Hardly.
Once again Marq, my mistake. My apology.
Question – can the Congress limit the executive war powers of the presidency, via FISA or otherwise? The answer, I fear, is “only if they are prepared to impeach a president who disregards the attempt to limit his powers.”
In other words, what we have here is not a legal question – it is a political question.
Now, if a political question can be framed as a legal question in the context of an actual legal controversy – that is, something that can get into court via a lawsuit – then perhaps a congressional limitation can be enforced. But even the courts will be wary of taking on a wartime president, particularly where the president’s actions are pretty much viewed as sensible by most people. In any event, I don’t see how this one gets into court.
Well, yes and no- technically speaking, “only if they are prepared to impeach a president who disregards the attempt to limit his powers.” is applicable to any attempt to limit executive power.
Congress can pass bills and acts (or repeal previously passed ones) in order to limit presidential power, but it must be by a large enough margin to avoid the veto (I don’t recall what limits, if any, are on the veto in such cases- it’s been a while since civics).
Any attempt, however, would likely be resisted by the president since, hey, who likes giving up power? If it passes, however, it is nearly assured that the president would have to acceed or face impeachment and/or censure (plus death in the public opinion polls for defying their duly elected representatives).
Well, technically, we aren’t even “at war”–there was no war declaration at all, only an authorization for the use of military power. That authorization came with many attached strings–for instance, Shrub was to have made regular reports to Congress on a number of “war” related activities. The reports were to have been regular events, every few months. There have been none. Theoretically, Congress should have ended funding for the Iraq debacle unless the administration would deign to cough-up these missing reports. Sadly, Congress is in Republican hands….
And Marq, (if you deign to converse with me, after giving you credit for my making me mildly famous on the basis of my own admittedly flawed intelligence), how would things be different, in your view, if Congress were in the hands of Democrats?
Remember, Marq, most of them fell—hook, line and sinker, for the same flawed intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction, and were every bit as eager to move into Iraq on the basis of that same flawed intelligence as the majority of Republicans.