Congress lies low and goes along

[bigtree]

Full Speed Ahead

By Evan Thomas and Daniel Klaidman -Newsweek-
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10663996/site/newsweek/page/3/

{snips}

IN NATIONAL CRISES, PRESIDENTS REACH FOR POWER.
Though the choice is rarely stated—or perhaps even conscious—a president will almost always choose to violate individual rights over the risk of losing a war. When the French threatened American sovereignty on the high seas in 1798, John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, blatantly punishing free speech as traitorous. When the Civil War broke out in 1861, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (the rule giving citizens a right to take their grievances to court). During World War I, Woodrow Wilson allowed officials to prosecute anyone for criticizing the government. During World War II, Franklin Roosevelt allowed FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to promiscuously wiretap, and ordered Japanese-Americans placed in internment camps. As the Vietnam War dragged on and domestic dissent arose, Richard Nixon—citing his Demo-cratic predecessors FDR and Lyndon Johnson—authorized bugging and wiretapping against domestic "subversives." None of these steps, it should be pointed out, made the nation appreciably safer.

>>>>Typically, in times of national peril, Congress gets swept along on a wave of patriotism. During the Korean and Vietnam wars, presidents did not even bother to get Congress to pass a formal declaration of war. After Vietnam and Watergate, Capitol Hill briefly reasserted itself with the War Powers Act—but no Congress and no president has ever wanted to put the act to the test. In the first and second gulf wars, Bush father and son relied on less-stringent congressional resolutions. The White House official involved in the September 2001 resolution authorizing force against terrorism recalls very little push back from the Hill. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter wanted to limit the scope of the measure, but he was successfully rolled.

Given Congress's pliability, several commentators have wondered why the White House did not ask Congress to amend FISA to allow the sort of warrantless data mining and eavesdropping that has set off the current flap. A White House official who declined to be identified discussing internal deliberations says that the administration feared a congressional debate would have tipped off the terrorists to secret "sources and methods" used by the NSA and other spy services.

A more subtle factor is also at work. The executive branch is always reluctant to ask Congress for permission if, by the very asking, that means conceding that the legislative branch has the power to say no. Presidents prefer to keep warmaking powers general—and unquestioned. By the same token, congressmen often do not wish to know exactly what the spooks are up to in the name of national security. Allen Dulles, the legendary CIA director in the 1950s, once said that he always "told the truth" to Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Richard Russell; "that is," Dulles added with a wink, "if Dick wants to know!"


If (Dick) wants to know, indeed.

[Skidmore]

1. Congress needs to be cleaned out--both sides of the aisle.

And some new faces need to appear, ones willing to keep the people and the Constitution in mind while legislating. "Congress' pliability", indeed. Is that a synonym for corruptibility?

[meganmonkey]

2. I agree

there is no excuse for Congress sitting on its hands through all of this. It is a nightmare. There are these phrases like "limits to power" and "checks and balances" that I vaguely remember being taught in high school gov't class. I haven't seen anything of them in the last several years.

Unacceptable. I don't care what party they are in - they are not doing their jobs.

[Benhurst]

3. ...

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: to you both.

[FreedomAngel82]

5. Yes

Even a conservative like Bob Barr and Saffire are against it than you know something bad is up. Bush should be impeached and, according to the law, put in jail for five years. Isn't there also a fine?

[meganmonkey]

7. A fine, eh?

How about "can I have my tax money back for all the illegal shit it got spent on?" :)

[tularetom]

4. Makes me wonder

if the true purpose for the NSA wiretaps was to get information on members of congress and blackmail them into support (or at least non opposition) for the goofy policies. Come to think of it, the press could have been targets also. In any case, you are correct, they all need to go (with maybe half a dozen exceptions).

[FreedomAngel82]

6. You know it

I definitely think he was spying on political opponents and other republicans who have power. And of course average Americans too like the quakers. Try to find the film "UnConstitutional" which mentions spying on people and what they do.

[Skidmore]

9. I do too. I would brand as a hero any political opponent or other

person in power who has done something to be blackmailed for and who would step forward and tell us this is happening to him/her. That this person felt obligated to do something above and beyond for the nation would be a noble deed. Much of the time the crap these politicians try to hide are so pedestrian, the actual circumstances are laughable. Expose this creep and those who assist him.

[Deja Q]

10. Sadly, people prefer career politicians. Why?

Because the newbies like Patty Wetterling "have no experience".

[Armstead]

8. That stooge Thomas lets Bush off the hook

Using the "They all do it" excuse, he supports the adminisytration's overreaching even while he criticizes it.

[FormerOstrich]

11. Can the people bring a

class action against Congress and the war makers for breach of duty (or something like that). They should all have to open the wallet and pay for the mess they should have stopped/not started/etc.

[bob4460]

12. i have a new slogan

anyone but the incumbent

[bigtree]

13. anyone but the (republican) incumbent

dead dog Democrat here.