Chairman Specter: I think the thrust of what you are saying is the President is bound by statute like everyone else unless it impinges on his constitutional authority, and a statute cannot take away the President's constitutional authority. Anybody disagree with that?

[No response.]

Chairman Specter: Everybody agrees with that.

Briefly, here are comments made by two of the judges:

Judge Kornblum: I think--as a Magistrate Judge, not a District Judge, that a President would be remiss in exercising his Constitutional authority to say that, "I surrender all of my power to a statute," and, frankly, I doubt that Congress, in a statute, can take away the President's authority, not his inherent authority, but his necessary and proper authority.

and this:

Judge Stafford: Everyone is bound by the law, but I do not believe, with all due respect, that even an act of Congress can limit the President's power under the Necessary and Proper Clause under the Constitution.

So in summary the program is completely legal.  I summarized in a previous post why the program was precendented, legal and necessary.  In fact these judges even infer that a President could be impeached for NOT following their Article II responsibilities in the Constitution.

The New York Times must have been watching the testimony from an alternative universe as this was the analysis that was printed:

In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.

Where exactly was the "skepticism" that the New York Times found about the legality of the program.  Read the testimony for yourself and see if you can reach the same conclusion that the judges were skeptical about the legality of the program.  Of course the NY Times does not want you to read the testimony and think for yourself -- you're just supposed to read their version of events and accept it for fact.

John Hinderaker from Powerline comments on this in far greater detail here and here.

And keep those impeachment movements going against our President for choosing to prosecute a war on terror.  That's going to be a great campaign platform for the Democrats.

The only thing more despicable and transparent is the Democrat's campaign pledge announced today by Harry Reid to once and for all win the war on terror by "eliminating" Bin Ladin. 

Ed Morrisey at Captain's Quarters finds this new security minded approach amusing in the light of a Democratic Congresswoman punching a police officer near a metal detector. 

UPDATE:

Scott Johnson at Powerline chimes in.

The testimony that Scott quotes clearly demonstrates that the judges did not accept the premise that the survelliance was domestic, but insisted that it was international.

Also I neglected to post this portion of the testimony -- which was quoted in the Washington Times -- which is especailly important:

"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."

If the film's look and feel refuse to flee from the real world, its dialogue takes every chance to connect to it. We are told about the recent past, that "America's war grew worse and worse, and eventually came to London." Hot-button terms like "rendition" are sprinkled about; dissidents are handled as in a third-world dictatorship; and our hero (who calls himself V) lectures citizens who have surrendered their liberties to a government that promised to protect them from terrorism. 

One thing is clear about Russ Feingold's move to censure Bush: Republicans love it and Democrats hate it.

"school choice, whose value I had shown in the broadcast, would "take money away from . . . our union leaders" and a special program they had built to pay college tuition for a special-interest group within their union."

• When was Bush warned that the dam might fail?
• Was funding for the dam reduced under the Bush administration?
• Since Bush's father was Vice President when the dam was built, what was George W. Bush's role?
• Was Bush on vacation when the dam broke?
• Has Bush ever played golf in Hawaii?
• Did global warming cause the dam to break, linking the event to Bush's rejection of the Kyoto protocols?

Enquiring minds want to know. 

And perhaps we can switch David Gregory's choice of recreational beverage to Kona so that he can avoid embarrasing moments like this.

In "V," Big Brother has taken over Britain. The fascist leader of the country (played by John Hurt) is a Hitlerian tyrant who spews invective on giant monitors placed everywhere. Free speech, homosexuality and artistic expression have been outlawed; citizens must abide by a curfew; and the streets are controlled by secret police. The government has conducted gruesome medical experiments on innocent citizens, with tragic and horrific results.

In short, the London in "V for Vendetta" looks like the world if Germany had won World War II.

Roeper concludes:

These are the power elite that V wants to destroy. The London in "V for Vendetta" is not the real London. In the London of "V," taking down the government would be an act of heroism, not terrorism.

I essentially agree with this conclusion and this is certainly part of the reason America went to war against Nazi Germany (and along with the British, bombed civilian factories there).

But I think Roper is missing the bigger point of the concern about this film.  Does this film send a positive message in the context of the moment?

In America, many are in an uproar about what they percieve as "illegal domestic spying" (which I commeneted on in detail here) and in Britain cameras are deployed everywhere to monitor the population in public areas.  These very cameras ultimately proved indespensible in identifying the London bombers.

Add to this that The American Hard-Left -- which is now the base of the Democratic Party -- associates President Bush with Nazis and Hitler. 

How many Kos Kids are going to see this film and afterwords going to fantasize and perhaps even discuss openly how they might go about blowing up the White House to destroy the evil BushHitler?

An article in the London Telegraph points out that the original comic book on which the film is based, was originally written as a protest against the Thatcher government of the 80's.  Alan Moore -- who wrote the original comic book -- has removed himself from the movie and dismissed it's screenplay as "imbecilic".  The screenplay seems to many to be a protest against preceptions of spying by the Bush and Blair administrations and this is cetainly how many will see it.

The actors and directors of the film hope it will stir discussions.  I have no issue with that provided those discussions aren't how to blow up the White House or Parliament or even why one would like to see this come about.

In this day and age it seems terribly inapproriate to glorify an act of terrorism -- with gratiuitious scenes of Paliament being blown up by a violent exploision. 

If movies like The Sum of All Fears can have the villans changed from Islamo-fascists to neo-Nazis so as to not offend Muslims, why couldn't the film have been modified to use a fictional fascist government rather than destroying the government of a country that currently represents the free world?  I guess the opportunity too blow up Parliament on film just looked so cool that they couldn't pass it up.

During his time in Guantanamo, Mr. Abbasi (writing in the third person) alleges that he was:

• subject to [unspecified] "mental stress and pressure"
• "willfully misdirected ... to pray north"
• deprived of "comfort items"
• subjected to an [apparently failed] "attempt to withdraw Qur'an"
• able to hear two guards having sex, while they "assumed he was asleep"
• distracted from his prayer by the "sharp intake of breath" of a female MP who'd been "sexually fondled".
• offered a plate of pork
• the object of a conspiracy "to keep detainee ignorant of detainee's allotted Tuesday recreation"
• subjected to a "partially successful" attempt to administer injections "under the guise of immunisation", designed to "unhinge detainee's mental and emotional stability"

While all of these acts are undeniably horrifying, being on a par with the worst excesses of Torquemada, even their totality pales in comparison with the most extreme of the tortures to which Mr. Abbasi was subjected.

Of course, countless abuses have been committed against war prisoners throughout the ages - no one denies that. But, while not downplaying their suffering, it must be admitted that even the most unfortunate of these victims can only breathe a sigh of relief that he was not subject to what Mr. Abbasi was forced to endure when he:

• had his peanut butter eaten by a guard "right in front of him".

One needn't be a bleeding heart to shudder at the inhumanity thus displayed.

“Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists….”

In 1974, the Third Circuit decided United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), where the defendant was convicted of espionage. The court wrote:

In sum, we hold that, in the circumstances of this case, prior judicial authorization was not required since the district court found that the surveillances of Ivanov were “conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information.”

For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], “unduly frustrate” the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations.

The Truong court, 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. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. 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 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.

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.

NBC News aired an "exclusive" story in 2004 that dramatically recounted how al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, the San Diego terrorists who would later hijack American Airlines flight 77 and fly it into the Pentagon, received more than a dozen calls from an al Qaeda "switchboard" inside Yemen where al-Mihdhar's brother-in-law lived. The house received calls from Osama Bin Laden and relayed them to operatives around the world. Senior correspondent Lisa Myers told the shocking story of how, "The NSA had the actual phone number in the United States that the switchboard was calling, but didn't deploy that equipment, fearing it would be accused of domestic spying." Back then, the NBC script didn't describe it as "spying on Americans." Instead, it was called one of the "missed opportunities that could have saved 3,000 lives."

Bill Clinton, former US president, advised top officials from Dubai two weeks ago on how to address growing US concerns over the acquisition of five US container terminals by DP World.

It came even as his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, was leading efforts to derail the deal.

UPDATE:  Lawrence Kudlow of CNBC's Kudlow & Company comments on the Clintons' triangulation.

The AP article is fatally compromised by its factual errors, and adds nothing to our understanding of the issues surrounding Hurricane Katrina. It also raises an important point about the leaks that form the basis for many news stories these days. The AP took what appears to have been a substantial quantity of leaked material, and turned it into a brief against the Bush administration. Whether the documents themselves contain anything noteworthy, and whether, on balance, they support the AP's tendentious interpretation, is impossible to tell. In view of the fact that no one trusts the AP, the New York Times and other news outlets who make use of leaked documents and other materials to report on them objectively, here is a modest proposal: let us see them. If the AP will release the leaked materials, the rest of us will quickly figure out what significance, if any, they have.

UPDATE:  Flopping Aces tracked back to this post and has more.

UPDATE2:  Captains Quarters has more.  I also heard somewhere that this may not have been a leak, but just a regurgitation of media that the Administration supplied to the media months ago -- this time twisted to make their case that Bush knew and it's all his fault.  If I come across that info I'll pass it on.

UPDATE3:  The AP published a retraction...

There is not a single instance where the New Testament states that a non-Christian should be persecuted for his convictions or statements. With regard to those with whom it is not possible for Christians to co-exist, Christ simply preached secession: “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.” (Matthew, 10:14). On the other hand, Christ did not allow himself to be censored: He said what He had to say, He “insulted” and “offended” the pharisees, and for this He was persecuted and finally murdered. The core text of Islam is different. It explicitly calls for the persecution and submission through violence of all who hold other beliefs.

Also the point is made that those in the West who might be either Christian or agnostic "are prepared to acknowledge the importance of the cultural traditions of the West, rooted in the Judeo-Christian values without which classical liberalism could never have evolved".

In any case I strongly recommend reading the full post for the full context.

Below is the manifesto for the conveneince of those who do not follow links:

MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism

Læs mainfestet som Salman Rushdie og 11 andre europæiske intellektuelle har skrevet, hvori de advarer mod islamisk totalitarisme.

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

12 signatures

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq

Presentations:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, from somilian origin, is member of Dutch parliement, member of the liberal party VVD. Writter of the film Submission which caused the assasination of Theo Van Gogh by an islamist in november 2004, she lives under police protection.

Chahla Chafiq
Chahla Chafiq, writer from iranian origin, exiled in France is a novelist and an essayist. She's the author of "Le nouvel homme islamiste , la prison politique en Iran " (2002). She also wrote novels such as "Chemins et brouillard" (2005).

Caroline Fourest
Essayist, editor in chief of Prochoix (a review who defend liberties against dogmatic and integrist ideologies), author of several reference books on « laicité » and fanatism : Tirs Croisés : la laïcité à l'épreuve des intégrismes juif, chrétien et musulman (with Fiammetta Venner), Frère Tariq : discours, stratégie et méthode de Tariq Ramadan, et la Tentation obscurantiste (Grasset, 2005). She receieved the National prize of laicité in 2005.

Bernard-Henri Lévy
French philosoph, born in Algeria, engaged against all the XXth century « ism » (Fascism, antisemitism, totalitarism, terrorism), he is the author of La Barbarie à visage humain, L'Idéologie française, La Pureté dangereuse, and more recently American Vertigo.

Irshad Manji
Irshad Manji is a Fellow at Yale University and the internationally best-selling author of "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith" (en francais: "Musulmane Mais Libre"). She speaks out for free expression based on the Koran itself. Née en Ouganda, elle a fui ce pays avec sa famille musulmane d'origine indienne à l'âge de quatre ans et vit maintenant au Canada, où ses émissions et ses livres connaissent un énorme succès.

Mehdi Mozaffari
Mehdi Mozaffari, professor from iranian origin and exiled in Denmark, is the author of several articles and books on islam and islamism such as : Authority in Islam: From Muhammad to Khomeini, Fatwa: Violence and Discourtesy and Glaobalization and Civilizations.

Maryam Namazie
Writer, TV International English producer; Director of the Worker-communist Party of Iran's International Relations; and 2005 winner of the National Secular Society's Secularist of the Year award.

Taslima Nasreen
Taslima Nasreen is born in Bangladesh. Doctor, her positions defending women and minorities brought her in trouble with a comittee of integrist called « Destroy Taslima » and to be persecuted as « apostate »

Salman Rushdie
Salman Rushdie is the author of nine novels, including Midnight's Children, The Satanic Verses and, most recently, Shalimar the Clown. He has received many literary awards, including the Booker Prize, the Whitbread Prize for Best Novel, Germany's Author of the Year Award, the European Union's Aristeion Prize, the Budapest Grand Prize for Literature, the Premio Mantova, and the Austrian State Prize for European Literature. He is a Commandeur of the Ordre des Arts et Lettres, an Honorary Professor in the Humanities at M.I.T., and the president of PEN American Center. His books have been translated into over 40 languages.

Philippe Val
Director of publication of Charlie Hebdo (Leftwing french newspaper who have republished the cartoons on the prophet Muhammad by solidarity with the danish citizens targeted by islamists).

Ibn Warraq
Ibn Warraq , author notably of Why I am Not a Muslim ; Leaving Islam : Apostates Speak Out ; and The Origins of the Koran , is at present Research Fellow at a New York Institute conducting philological and historical research into the Origins of Islam and its Holy Book.

Antoine Sfeir :
Born in Lebanon, christian, Antoine Sfeir choosed french nationality to live in an universalist and « laïc » (real secular) country. He is the director of Les cahiers de l'Orient and has published several reference books on islamism such as Les réseaux d'Allah (2001) et Liberté, égalité, Islam : la République face au communautarisme (2005).