Vilsack -- wiretapping -- FISA -- need some help!!!!!!!!

[Katherine Brengle]

Hey DUers,

I am working on an article, re:Vilsack's comments about the "debatable" nature of the illegality of Bush's spying program, and while I have collected a huge amount of legal data (information on FISA and the FISC and the 4th Amendment, Berger v. New York and all that), I am finding it difficult to find a way to connect the dots.

If anyone has read anything that compiles all of the data and makes it easy to understand (or as easy as it can be), I would really appreciate a link. Thanks!

KB

[hwmnbn]

1. Here's an article with an overview...

http://www.slate.com/id/2070287/


I found it on the DU Research forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2326

[Emit]

2. good resource n/t

[Emit]

3. Here's a blog piece that is mostly about Vilsack

Don't know if it helps, or if it's what you're looking for, but it touches upon some points that might help connect some dots for you as far as Vilsack's comments about the "debatable" nature of illegality:

~snip~

All he needs to say is that the Democratic Party doesn't object to eavesdropping on terrorists, but it does object to breaking the law to do so. And if the law needs to be changed, it can be changed without making vital information public. Unless I'm mistaken, that's the Democratic position. And reviewing the polls, I know that's a popular position.

Vilsack's statement implies a few things. First, it implies that Democrats don't want to wiretap terrorists. That's not true. Second, it implies that Bush's illegal warrantless wiretapping is necessary to keep people safe. That's not true, either. And third, it implies that the "very, very large political trap" being set by Bush and the GOP is legitimate. On that point, he could just as easily have said that 'Republicans are trying to set a political trap for Democrats, but the American people can see through that.' Flip the script. Work to change the conventional wisdom. Reject their premise and refuse to fight on their terms. Apparently, that's beyond Vilsack's political capabilities.

This is all about Vilsack building himself up at the expense of the larger Democratic Party brand. Notice, as Matt did at Breaking Blue, that Vilsack refers to "Democrats" in the third person. This is something we've grown accustomed to from politicians aligned with the Democratic Leadership Council. And that habit, more than anything else, is why I think the DLC is harmful to the party. I don't mind centrism. I don't mind moderation. I don't mind non-adherence to certain Democratic principles as long as the big picture is progressive. But Democrats like Vilsack and Lieberman love telling the world how "moderate" they are, that they're not at all like the rest of us extremist radicals in the party. Never do they give any thought to what this kind of behavior might mean for elections other than their own. And if guys like this really want to remain Democrats, they ought to knock it off.

~snip~

http://skippy.mydd.com/story/2006/1/31/122012/569

[CoffeeCat]

4. Isn't it interesting that Evan Bayh said the same thing as Vilsack?

I read the Vilsack remarks about the NSA snooping. He practically warned Dems not to make this an issue. He claimed it would be bad for Dems and make them soft on terror.

Interesting, that a few days later--another Dem--Evan Bayh, makes the very same remarks.

Both of these "Democrats" are warning Dems not to make this an issue.

I truly smell a rat here.

Someone has been issuing talking points to conservative Dems, and orchestrating a campaign to quell the controversy surrounding this. It greatly disturbs me, because it has to be originating from the White House. The White House is in the throes of a very concerted PR effort to make illegal spying on Americans--ok. Junior's speech about the possible LA hit was done for the sole purpose of legitimizing illegal spying.

Curious, that in the middle of the WH's PR effort--a couple of Dems are issuing the identical talking points and warning Dems to shut up.

Just what in the heck is going on?

[Emit]

5. Aren't both considering a presidential bid?

And both are/were chairman of DLC (Vilsack/Bayh respectively). And so was Bill Clinton:

(Hillary) Clinton was the marquee attraction among a procession of prospective 2008 Democratic presidential candidates who spoke at the annual summer meeting of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) -- a group that was a springboard for Bill Clinton's first White House bid 13 years ago. She announced that she had taken a new position with the group aimed at winning back heartland voters.

All the prospective candidates emphasized that opposition to President Bush's policies alone will not put the Democrats back in the White House
...Three other Democrats actively considering running in 2008 -- Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, the newly named DLC chairman; Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), the outgoing DLC chairman; and Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner, who just concluded a year as chairman of the National Governors Association -- competed with Clinton for attention...

~snip~

Bill Clinton used his chairmanship of the DLC in the early 1990s to engage in some of those intraparty fights, urging a break from traditional liberalism and emphasizing "New Democrat" themes that foreshadowed his 1992 campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/25/AR2005072501395.html

[Katherine Brengle]

6. thanks guys -- i'm buring the midnight oil here trying to weed through

FindLaw articles on the Unitary Executive Theory and I am starting to get a headache, lol.

I can't believe I actually considered law school! This stuff is murky at best, but the good news is, Dubya is in deep shit.

He's basically doing the same things that got Nixon impeached--and the kicker is, these laws were enacted in large part BECAUSE of Nixon, so go figure...

It's going to be a long, long snowy night...