May 09, 2006
By Left's Standars, FDR Was Hitler
Don't question their patriotism.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Via Powerline, this from The American Spectator:
IN A BOLD AND CONTROVERSIAL DECISION, the president authorized a program for the surveillance of communications within the United States, seeking to prevent acts of domestic sabotage and espionage. In so doing, he ignored a statute that possibly forbade such activity, even though high-profile federal judges had affirmed the statute's validity. The president sought statutory amendments allowing this surveillance but, when no such legislation was forthcoming, he continued the program nonetheless. And when Congress demanded that he disclose details of the surveillance program, the attorney general said, in no uncertain terms, that it would get nothing of the sort.No, not THE President Roosevelt? Yes. In fact, the article goes on to quote a letter from Roosevelt to J. Edgar Hoover specifically authorizing the surveillance of those that disseminate enemy propaganda--no doubt a reference to the German Bund and many other groups that were actively engaged in trying to keep the U.S. out of the war, i.e. peace activists.In short, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt charted a bold course in defending the nation's security in 1940, when he did all of these things.
Posted by: Rusty at
09:11 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Rusty by the Right's standard at that time FDR was Stalin. So what does any of that prove ? Washington was a slave owner blah blah blah. Holding historical figures to present day standards seems to me to be creating easy targets. How about a post instead on something a bit more current, say the disaray in the C.I.A. ? I seem to recall reading about that in the MSM last week.
Posted by: john Ryan at May 09, 2006 10:38 AM (TcoRJ)
2
Libs have different standards for Democrats. Kind of like Jimmy Carter appointing a Navy admiral to head the CIA (Stansfield Turner), but throw a hissy fit when Bush appoints an Army guy for exactly the same post. That's why it's best just to ignore them, or just laugh at them.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 09, 2006 10:40 AM (paKD6)
3
Does that mean we should start calling him Chimpy McPolio?
Seriously Rusty, if we're going to mirror the intellectual reactions of the left, then we should simply rain down hate, err, I mean 'tolerance' on people who disagree with us.
Seriously Rusty, if we're going to mirror the intellectual reactions of the left, then we should simply rain down hate, err, I mean 'tolerance' on people who disagree with us.
Posted by: Granddaddy Long Legs at May 09, 2006 11:04 AM (v3hgS)
Posted by: Howie at May 09, 2006 11:09 AM (D3+20)
5
Interesting piece in the Spectator. One key difference that is controlling from then and now is this: Congress has spoken on national security wiretapping, in the FISA case. When Jackson wrote his memos for FDR, there was NO congressional statute addressing this point. As articulated by no lesser light than Jackson in the steel seizure case, when the president acts with statutory authority granted by Congress, it is constitutional unless the constitution directly forbids it. When the Congress hasn't spoken to a matter, it is a gray area, tasking judges with divining where the power rightfully resides. But when the president, given a statutory path to achieve a given end, ignores or thwarts Congress' will, it can ONLY be upheld if the Constitution grants that power to the president strictly. This is tantamount to strict scrutiny, and thus, FDR's actions would have been in zone 2, and Bush's post FISA acts in zone 3. That's a huge difference, in legal terms.
Posted by: jd at May 09, 2006 11:13 AM (aqTJB)
6
Jd, noted and already over-ruled a while ago.
Bush's actions fall under the president's wartime powers, and we've seen legal judgments to that effect.
Besides which, this is only an issue if you have a deep inner need for that. Or are you going to start complaining when they search your luggage at the airport when you leave or enter the country?
Bush's actions fall under the president's wartime powers, and we've seen legal judgments to that effect.
Besides which, this is only an issue if you have a deep inner need for that. Or are you going to start complaining when they search your luggage at the airport when you leave or enter the country?
Posted by: Casey Tompkins at May 10, 2006 02:08 AM (xdVg/)
7
Is this argument an example of the tu quoque fallacy? Agree or disagree, showing your reasons.
Posted by: OH at May 10, 2006 10:33 AM (dYUmX)
8
FYI Carlos, Stansfield Turner had retired before he was DCI. The last active duty military officer in the poisition was Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter (1947-50). So, the "Carter did it" example of a double standard doesn't apply.
Thanks for playing!
Thanks for playing!
Posted by: daphne at May 10, 2006 12:51 PM (qtUKx)
9
daphne,
Stansfield Turner was head of the Navy War College, a MILITARY institution-- and therefore hardly "retired"-- when Carter called him up to the CIA.
Thanks for playing.
Stansfield Turner was head of the Navy War College, a MILITARY institution-- and therefore hardly "retired"-- when Carter called him up to the CIA.
Thanks for playing.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 10, 2006 01:30 PM (paKD6)
10
I don't know what was "overruled". Jackson's steel seizure division of presidential powers? FISA? As you know, there is no explicit grant of wartime emergency powers in the Constitution, which distinguishes it from most constitutions. There are statutory examples of powers that grow in war, and Congress and the courts have treated the president deferentially.
But Bobby Inman got it right yesterday, yet another intel/law expert who says the president broke the law when he ignored FISA. There is another side to the debate, but it is hardly as simplistic as the Spectator makes it out to be.
But Bobby Inman got it right yesterday, yet another intel/law expert who says the president broke the law when he ignored FISA. There is another side to the debate, but it is hardly as simplistic as the Spectator makes it out to be.
Posted by: jd at May 10, 2006 03:51 PM (aqTJB)
11
Carlos sweetie,
Stansfield Turner - Naval War College 1972-74
Stansfield Turner - DCI 1977-81
Thanks for playing!
Stansfield Turner - Naval War College 1972-74
Stansfield Turner - DCI 1977-81
Thanks for playing!
Posted by: daphne at May 10, 2006 09:20 PM (GyHLs)
12
Dems had to find something to criticize. But Hayden being a general in the Army is a non-issue. He's the highest ranking military intelligence officer in the country and therefore eminently qualified (unlike Stansfield Turner was).
Posted by: dcb at May 10, 2006 10:06 PM (M3nr/)
13
dcb, then why the pre-push no by Republicans to the Hayden nomination? Big Bill is asking the same question now on the teevee.
And now Stansfield Turner wasn't qualified, aty. I think James Webb would like to weigh in on that. Let's see. I'll ask him, as opposed to taking the word of "dcb" on a blog.
Thanks for playing
And now Stansfield Turner wasn't qualified, aty. I think James Webb would like to weigh in on that. Let's see. I'll ask him, as opposed to taking the word of "dcb" on a blog.
Thanks for playing
Posted by: daphne at May 10, 2006 10:50 PM (GyHLs)
14
daphne,
don't take my word for it.
"Although Turner had had little previous experience in intelligence, he viewed it simply as a problem of assessing data, or, as he described it to his son, nothing more than "bean' counting. He quickly found, however, that the CIA was a far more complex and elusive entity than he had expected."
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/whokilled.htm
don't take my word for it.
"Although Turner had had little previous experience in intelligence, he viewed it simply as a problem of assessing data, or, as he described it to his son, nothing more than "bean' counting. He quickly found, however, that the CIA was a far more complex and elusive entity than he had expected."
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/whokilled.htm
Posted by: dcb at May 11, 2006 08:37 AM (WCwrR)
15
DCB--was Daphne right about Turner and the war college? You have a funny way of admitting that someone correctly identified a mistake in your post.
Posted by: jd at May 11, 2006 01:46 PM (aqTJB)
Posted by: MegaTroopX at May 15, 2006 08:26 AM (gveym)
36kb generated in CPU 0.0137, elapsed 0.042 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0333 seconds, 171 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.0333 seconds, 171 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
