In today's Congressional hearing, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) vehemently defended the freedoms of American citizens against the surveillance authorities claimed in the President's recent Executive Order. Clinton contended that FISA law had been bypassed, and therefore violated by the order. The UACL applauds/welcomes Senator Clinton's continuing efforts to combat the administration's unlawful actions. Her high-profile symbolic move to hold AG Mukasey in contempt of congress, if nothing else, should certainly draw some much needed attention to this issue of vital importance.
-Jordan Lonner
Thursday, December 6, 2007
whoACL?
At this afternoon's press conference, President Bush quite conspicuously avoided taking any questions from UACL media representative Michael Soneff. In the last press conference before today, Soneff had been aggressive in going after the new Executive Order, and had asked questions that led to some controversial (and at times comical) answers from administration officials. Perhaps the President hopes to avoid all questions that might be critical of his most recent order. One might even venture to say that he's punishing Mr. Soneff, by showing that if the UACL doesn't want to play ball, the Administration doesn't have to deal with them. Is it appropriate for the Administration to require passive acceptance of all executive acts in order to acknowledge the UACL as a legitimate media outlet? Fortunately, after today's Press Conference Ms. Perino agreed to respond to any and all written questions submitted by the UACL. Hopefully this represents a new way forward for the Administration.
-Michael Soneff
-Michael Soneff
Texas Barbecue
President Bush held a press conference today, immediately preceding the congressional hearings. The first question came from veteran UACL representative Jordan Lonner:
"Mr. President, Attorney General Mukasey admitted that your executive order contradicts FISA, but that your order was necessary. However, FISA already has the emergency authorization provision that gives the Attorney General the ability to tap any phone, foreign or domestic, and get a warrant from a FISA court 72 hours later, after the tap has been done. So why do you need this order?"
An excellent question. The President doesn't need his illegal executive order because the AG can already tap any phone that he believes he needs to tap in order to combat terror. The only difference between FISA and the President's EO is that the AG has to go to the FISA court within 72 hours after the phone has been tapped under FISA. This doesn't hinder the abilities of the AG in the slightest. The only possible reason that the President would want this ability is in order to tap phones without ever having to provide a reason in a court. His reasoning has nothing to do with a time problem. So, in that context, let's examine the President's response. He said:
"This order is put in place to make sure that we have a very hastened and speedily way to track our enemies. {inaudible} Uh, they are able to move at such a speed that uh, it's frankly quite frightening. {the President laughs} Uh, this enemy is able to assume different identities is able to be in parts, different groups at different times, and is a threat to our national security. I issued this order to make sure that everything could be done to make sure that this december plot, which, from the information I have received, could be potentially one of the greatest attacks ever planned on any country, was prevented from happening."
The point of Mr. Lonner's question was that the AG already had "a very hastened and speedily way to track our enemies." The question was, why do we need this new ability, in light of the Emergency Authorization Provision of FISA.
The President later went on to say:
"This Executive Order has been issued to make sure that lives of Americans are not lost. {inaudible} We want to keep the citizens of this country safe, we want to make sure they enjoy a good holiday this year, and uh, anyone opposed to this executive order, while perfectly within their rights, is indirectly saying they value their emails more than they value american lives."
Strong words. Incorrect... but strong none the less. Of course the UACL cares more about life than it does about E-mails. The problem with President Bush's argument is that he doesn't need his EO to fight terrorism. The FISA EA provision is perfectly sufficient; that was the point of Mr. Lonner's question, which the President either failed to understand or decided not to answer. The President's argument is, frankly, quite offensive. The UACL cares about the precedent of protecting our civil liberties, codified in the Constitution of the United States, a document which he swore an oath to protect and uphold. As a matter of fact, the entirety of the Presidential oath of office reads:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Nowhere in that does he swear that he will violate the Constitution if he feels he needs to. The UACL is concerned about protecting the rights of Americans, ALL their rights, even the ones that the President wants to be able to violate.
By: Michael Soneff
"Mr. President, Attorney General Mukasey admitted that your executive order contradicts FISA, but that your order was necessary. However, FISA already has the emergency authorization provision that gives the Attorney General the ability to tap any phone, foreign or domestic, and get a warrant from a FISA court 72 hours later, after the tap has been done. So why do you need this order?"
An excellent question. The President doesn't need his illegal executive order because the AG can already tap any phone that he believes he needs to tap in order to combat terror. The only difference between FISA and the President's EO is that the AG has to go to the FISA court within 72 hours after the phone has been tapped under FISA. This doesn't hinder the abilities of the AG in the slightest. The only possible reason that the President would want this ability is in order to tap phones without ever having to provide a reason in a court. His reasoning has nothing to do with a time problem. So, in that context, let's examine the President's response. He said:
"This order is put in place to make sure that we have a very hastened and speedily way to track our enemies. {inaudible} Uh, they are able to move at such a speed that uh, it's frankly quite frightening. {the President laughs} Uh, this enemy is able to assume different identities is able to be in parts, different groups at different times, and is a threat to our national security. I issued this order to make sure that everything could be done to make sure that this december plot, which, from the information I have received, could be potentially one of the greatest attacks ever planned on any country, was prevented from happening."
The point of Mr. Lonner's question was that the AG already had "a very hastened and speedily way to track our enemies." The question was, why do we need this new ability, in light of the Emergency Authorization Provision of FISA.
The President later went on to say:
"This Executive Order has been issued to make sure that lives of Americans are not lost. {inaudible} We want to keep the citizens of this country safe, we want to make sure they enjoy a good holiday this year, and uh, anyone opposed to this executive order, while perfectly within their rights, is indirectly saying they value their emails more than they value american lives."
Strong words. Incorrect... but strong none the less. Of course the UACL cares more about life than it does about E-mails. The problem with President Bush's argument is that he doesn't need his EO to fight terrorism. The FISA EA provision is perfectly sufficient; that was the point of Mr. Lonner's question, which the President either failed to understand or decided not to answer. The President's argument is, frankly, quite offensive. The UACL cares about the precedent of protecting our civil liberties, codified in the Constitution of the United States, a document which he swore an oath to protect and uphold. As a matter of fact, the entirety of the Presidential oath of office reads:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Nowhere in that does he swear that he will violate the Constitution if he feels he needs to. The UACL is concerned about protecting the rights of Americans, ALL their rights, even the ones that the President wants to be able to violate.
By: Michael Soneff
Mukasey Dodges Questions, is Held in Contempt and Released
WASHINGTON, D.C.-- During public hearings held today on Capitol Hill, Attorney General Michael Mukasey became increasingly evasive when confronted with objections to the Administration's actions since the attack on the U.S. embassy in Sumatra. Appearing in front of a Congressional panel chaired by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California), Mukasey conceded that the administration's failure to notify congress of the Executive Order was a mistake, but refused to admit anything further, denying that the new measures taken violated citizens' civil liverties. The UACL's representatives looked on in patriotic terror as Mukasey stated that he would do "whatever is necessary" to protect America, and even going back on a previous statement to state that he believes measures taken to bypass Congress "are appropriate because Congressional oversight might endanger national security." The UACL and its associates view this as an affront to the liberties and principles America stands for, as well as to the ideas put forth by the Founding Fathers. Mukasey's evasiveness at one point prompted committee member Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York) to incredulously ask, "can you READ?"
When prompted to produce documents for which he had been subpoenaed, Attorney General Mukasey failed to produce them and invoked executive privilege "on behalf of the president," echoing the irrational statements J. Lewis "Scooter" Libby made during the Valerie Plame espionage case. The Attorney General refused to respond to the subpoena and Senators Clinton and Obama called for his arrest in contempt of court. A tied vote on the Senate floor failed to support Mukasey's imprisonment and he was released.
The UACL has become more and more worried about the administration's rogue attitude: ignoring Congress and failing to respond to supboenas displays an increasing disregard for law and democratic practice in the U.S.
--Matt Lerner
When prompted to produce documents for which he had been subpoenaed, Attorney General Mukasey failed to produce them and invoked executive privilege "on behalf of the president," echoing the irrational statements J. Lewis "Scooter" Libby made during the Valerie Plame espionage case. The Attorney General refused to respond to the subpoena and Senators Clinton and Obama called for his arrest in contempt of court. A tied vote on the Senate floor failed to support Mukasey's imprisonment and he was released.
The UACL has become more and more worried about the administration's rogue attitude: ignoring Congress and failing to respond to supboenas displays an increasing disregard for law and democratic practice in the U.S.
--Matt Lerner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
