He’s Obviously Right

Over at Obviously Right I have been following a discussion between the Blogger, Jasyn, and a KOSkiddie named Darth Vyan about the NSA Wiretaps. I rarely check into KOS so I have no idea who Vyan is but wow….Jasyn skewers this guy:

Over at the Daily Kos, Darth Vyan has issued another ostensible refutation of my arguments. My original post is here, my reply to Vyan here.

To begin:

Vyan says:

the question is whether or not due process, probable cause, habeas corpus and the bill of rights can be summarily suspended or ignored by a President during a War, or for that matter ever.

No it isn’t. I never talked about those things, I never supported or condemned those things and those things are utterly irrelevant to my original post. Vyan seems to lack the capacity to focus on what I actually wrote, and instead prefers to argue about something entirely different.

My point was solely, is solely, and remains solely this: It is Constitutional for the President to spy on enemies during war time. Compared to the actions of past Presidents, President Bush has shown far more regard for civil Liberties than Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR.

He’s conceded both of these points, time and again. In fact, he did so in this very response!

Witness:

Vyan says:

My point isn’t that it’s wrong to spy on foreign enemies – of course we should do that

and:

I didn’t have any contention with the point that other President’s have done worse, they have.

Then, pardon my French, but what the hell is the point?

I advanced two claims. You’ve conceded them both. End of argument. Period. Finit. That’s it. Fat lady’s sung. Show’s over. Boat has sailed. The curtain’s down. The bell has tolled. End of story. The house lights are coming up. The bar’s closed. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.

Have a nice life. Catch you on the flipside. See you in the funny papers. See you later, alligator. If this is the best you can do, please forget to write.

[…]Remember this, folks, as you read the rest: Vyan has conceded my original two points. Far from debunking me, he has in fact supported my position. All the rest of this is an attempt to obscure and distract.

Vyan continues:

What the Constitution does or does not allow currently is completely irrelevant in relation to General George Washington who wasn’t President during the Revolutionary War, when there was no such thing as the U.S. Constitution. What General George Washington did then has no bearing, legally or Constitutionally on what any President has ever done since that time.

The Founding Fathers resuscitated a political system originally seen in Ancient Greece, circa 400 B.C., and used it as the basis of the government. They depended on the common law of Britian, a millenia old. They were heavily influenced by the Magna Carta, 572 years old. They built on the government of the colonies, including the Mayflower Compact, which was 167 years old. They were heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights, 98 years old. They studied and quoted the works of John Locke, 83 years old. They explicitly discussed and adopterd principles from the Bible, 4000+ years old. They reacted against the abuses of King George, 20 years old. They acted in concert with the Declaration of Independance, 11 years old. They were replacing the Articles of Confederation, 6 years old. They fought a war with King George, peace coming but 4 years before the Constitutional Convention.

According to Vyan, none of this has any relevance to the Constitution because it happened before the Constitution and isn’t contained within the text of the Constitution.

But is this actually so?

In the Constitution, they gave the Federal Government the power to tax some activities, because during the Revolutionary War, General George Washington couldn’t get the funds he needed for his troops.

Washington’s experience during the War->affects Constitution.

Hmm. How interesting.

Many of those involved in the Convention were involved in and carried out the orders to monitor domestic mail during the War. All of them were privy to the actions, and none- not one- ever denounced the actions. They clearly felt it was an integral and necessary part of warmaking activities.

Man, I’m tired of being right all the time.

Vyan continues:

The problem I have is that the Constitution did not follow directly from the Revolutionary War. Prior to the adoption of the Constitution, there were the “Articles of Confederation”, which ultimately failed.

Right, because events of the AoC and the War and the Constitution were so far removed in time:

1781- AoC. 1783- War ends. 1787- Constitutional Convention.

Obviously, the war could have utterly no effect at all upon their deliberations. It just happened too long ago to matter. After all, 4 years is an eternity, far too long for them to remember or care what happened during the War or be affected by it at all.

Vyan continues:

In short, bubula, the President’s powers are effectively limited by the rules and regulations of the armed forces as written by Congress…It’s also the reason that FISA is perfectly Constitutional.

Wow, look, I was talking about one thing and here you are “rebutting” it by talking about something completely different and unrelated. How novel.

However, since you are so clearly begging for an ass-kicking, here’s my reply: Your claim- “Article 2 gives Congress the power to ‘regulate the army and navy.’ This means they can dictate absolutely every detail of the President’s activities in war. This then means that Congress can ban the President from gathering intelligence from enemies in wartime.”- is flawed, unsupported, contradicted by the FISC and in general irrelevant.

More, the very language of the clause you quote doesn’t support you. The power to “regulate the army and navy” doesn’t confer the power to absolutely dictate every single wartime policy.

Were that true, giving the President power would be meaningless as the power would really lie with Congress. It is barking mad to believe that the Constitution says the President is C-in-C, but that the same Constitution then gives the entirety of that authority to Congress.

[…]Vaney says:

but even if it is, it is clear that it’s “spying on an enemy during wartime”. The problem is that it’s also a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment for those persons within the U.S.

So, and let me get this straight, the President can spy on enemy actions all he wants but the moment they cross onto American soil, suddenly he needs a warrant.

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, spying on them required a warrant. When the South invaded Pennsylvania, spying on them required a warrant. When Al Qaeda sends enemy cells into the country to blow up the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, spying on them required a warrant.

So we can monitor the enemy everywhere in the world, but when they pose the most danger- when they have invaded the U.S.- suddenly we can’t listen to them at all.

That’s simply insane.

And contradicted by Vyan’s earlier statements, as he’s already admitted that spying on the enemy is right- “of course we should do that.” So spying on the enemy is right and necessary, until they invade us when it suddenly become verboten. And this is the position he claims is mandated by the Consitution.

Although, I note, he can’t quote the Constitution to support it. Instead he relies on a tortured, tenuous, and faulty chain of logic: “The President is C-in-C. Congress can make rules and regulations for the Army and Navy. This allows them to override the C-in-C at will. The NSA is part of the military. Congress wrote FISA. It therefore regulates the military. It therefore applies to the NSA. Therefore Bush’s actions are Unconstitutional.”

Riiiight.

That last paragraph just nails the whole thing. The left wants Congress to now rule over the Commander and Chief. Of course they wanted no such thing when Clinton was in office but now that Bush is there, lets still call him the CIC but Congress should have oversight over his authority granted to him by the Constitution.

Well done Jasyn.

Curt

See author page