December 28, 2005
John Podhoretz, FOX News contributor, NY Post columnist, and blogger at the Corner, appeared on Your World to defend his recent column which accuses The New York Times of treason (reg. required).
DOWNLOAD – .WMV
DOWNLOAD – .MP4
Thespis Journal linked with Treason at The New York Times
31 Responses to “John Podhoretz Rightfully Accuses NY Times Of Treason (VIDEO)”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register to comment here.
4:18 pm [ Quote ]
It is simply a misuse and abuse of the word “treason” to apply it to the NY Times’ publication of this NSA program.
Treason is adherence to an enemy and providing aid and comfort. No one seriously believes that the Times has any adherence to al-Qaeda and no one believes that the paper is deliberating providing aid and comfort.
Is the Times irresonspible? Yes. Reckless? Yes. Contemptible. Yes.
But that is entirely different than saying that they are committing treason. Let’s save that charge to real traitors, people like Alger Hiss or Aldrich Ames, and not misguided people like Bill Keller or Pinch Sulzberg.
4:37 pm [ Quote ]
It is sad most people (lunatic fringe) who visit this site does not understand the issue. It is about unchecked government powers. Just remember in a few years we will have a new president and one you may not like. Will you then still support him when they bypass our systems of checks and balances.
4:40 pm [ Quote ]
Javanman1:
What unchecked powers are you talking about?
Congress gave the executive the authority to wage military force. If Congress doesn’t want the executive to enagage in this activity, repeal the force authorization.
Or cut off the funding for the programming. Lots of things they can do to stop the executive from doing something they don’t want.
To argue that Bush has unchecked powers (what? he’s going to stay in office after his term is up?) is simply not accurate.
5:31 pm [ Quote ]
This is the problem with the left. They simply will not admit that NSA taps are legal under these extraordinary circumstances. It amazes me that 2 prior Democratic presidents have done the same thing during a time when a war was not being waged and yet these incredulous hypocrites start screaming that Bush is breaking the law which the congress gave him the ability to do! Just unbelievable!
BTW javaman1 – I fully support ANY president (dem or rep) doing this to protect my butt and yours. IF abuse of this power can be shown, then that is a different story. But tapping suspected and known terrorists speaking to US citizens is OK with me anyday!
5:39 pm [ Quote ]
Exactly. The left cries illegal but doesn’t bother to explain what part is illegal about this. It’s interesting that they say it’s not in the constitution, yet can’t find where the right to an abortion is.
5:40 pm [ Quote ]
He bypassed the FISA court the Judicial branch, Bypassed congress by giving limited information that could not be reviewed or shared with anyone. Remember the hand written note that directly contridicted what VP Cheney said? If you actually read the the force authorization you will see this kind of power was not granted. If this is allowed to continue then the standard has been set of the next president. So, if you do not like the next President you have given up the right to complain about war time powers. Can you actually show anyone where the check and balance is with this program outside of the President’s inner circle?
5:50 pm [ Quote ]
It is not the spying or datamining that is the issue. I say do what ever it takes to get the job done. But abide by the constitution and use the checks and balances that are in place. Why not modify the FISA to better fit new technology. Five warrants have been turned down in almost 30 years. That is the problem of the lunatic fringe your missing the point. It is that they are working free and clear of our fundamental basis of our form of government. Which is checks and balances. What did the Founding Fathers say about one branch of government having to much power? Oh, that is right they designed the constitution so that would not happen.
5:52 pm [ Quote ]
Javaman:
Are you aware that previous presidents claimed this power? To spy – simply spy – on foreign agents?
It’s not an unchecked power.
Congress – either the Judiciary or Intelligence or Defense Committees – can have closed door hearings to examine the program. If they think the program is being abused, they can cut off funding.
Or they can rescind or change the authorization to use military force. Or they can change the FISA laws to forbid statutory exemptions.
Look, you can criticize the policy but this “unchecked powers” description doesn’t have any merit.
6:21 pm [ Quote ]
SteveMG you just proved the point of unchecked powers. FISA court bypassed and congress not informed. So when was congress informed in what closed door session? Remember the Rockefeller letter? That would be defined as unchecked powers. How would you define unchecked powers?
6:52 pm [ Quote ]
Javaman:
Congress was informed. Eight members were told of the program. The Rockefeller letter was written after he was told of the program.
If Rockefeller didn’t like what was happening, he could call for a closed hearing or additional details.
Historically, there have been a number of top secret programs that had limited disclosure (the Venonan intercepts of Soviet embassy cable traffic was known by a very small number of people).
If Congress thinks the program is being abused or misused, they could ask for closed hearing for more details.
If these details showed that the program was found to be abused, Congress could then cut off funding.
This program was part of the military operations of the Commander in Chief. The president was authorized by Congress to use force against the terrorists. That force included monitoring foreign agents.
If Congress believes that the program is being used improperly, as part of the check and balances on the war making powers of the President, they simply de-fund the operation.
How can it be an unchecked power when Congress can stop the exercise of the power? An unchecked power means the president can do whatever he want for as long as he wants.
Congress can monitor the program, have closed hearings, listen to testimony from NSA officials. And if they don’t like what the president is doing with the program, they can stop funding it.
7:09 pm [ Quote ]
SteveMG you left out the Judicial branch. Also, congress has been left out of the loop on this. If you read the language in the authorization to use military force the president is not granted these powers. It is a vast reach. But then again you said the powers are not unchecked. But then you go on to explain the president has been granted these powers. That would be defined as double talk. How can Congress monitor a program it has only be given litte to no information on. But then again if you think I am rambling on ask yourself one question why is the Republican majority very quiet on this one and also calling for hearings just liek the Dems? The only people who have oversight on this program is the president’s inner circle.
7:41 pm [ Quote ]
Javaman:
Sorry, we fundamentally disagree on just about all aspects of this.
You keep saying there are no checks and I keep listing the checks.
Again:
Congress can review this program ANY TIME THEY WANT. In fact, Specter will be having hearings next month.
Eight members of Congress were told about the program at its inception. Why do you keep saying that only the inner circle knew about the program? That’s wrong.
Not EVERY member of Congress knows about EVERY secret program. We’ve probably got hundreds of programs that have limited disclosure.
Those who were informed about the program could AT ANY TIME request additional information. Senator Rockefeller is on the intelligence committee. He could request a hearing on the program.
At the hearing, Rockefeller can ask whatever he wants about it (in closed session obviously if they’re talking about classified information).
If Congress doesn’t like how the program is being run they simply stop the funding.
And that will be the end of the monitoring. No money = no program.
The President was authorized to use military force against the terrorists who were involved in the 9/11 attacks. Clearly, gathering intelligence on the enemy is one part of that power. You don’t think the military spies on the enemy?
If Congress doesn’t want Bush spying on the terrorists without a warrant, they can take away the power they gave him to wage war on the terrorists.
That’s not double talk. The president was given the power by Congress. The Congress can take away that power.
That’s one of the checks.
Last post from me. We’re taking too much of the bandwidth.
Nice talking with you.
7:48 pm [ Quote ]
SteveMg is right! The Congress can cut funding, they have the power of the purse. What they cannot do, absent the Amendment process, they cannot order the President to stop during a time of war. Neither can the judiciary.
Even the liberal god FDR is guilty of this activity!
7:55 pm [ Quote ]
The President clear has stated based the power given to him by congress he does not need a warrant. This bypasses the Judicial branch. Can you deny that? Second He gave very limited information to only select members of congress(not the entire committe on inteligence)with extremely tight restrictions, so how can you call that oversight. Alos, can you deny the Rockefeller letter directly contridicted what the VP stated a few days ago? The only group with knowledge of the program and has oversight is the executive branch. In short how can there be a claim of oversight if the powers are falsely claim by the authorization of force? See double talk. Oh, by the way there will be hearings. Then that will create the oversight required by the Constitution. I say spy on datamine away to keep us safe. But, it can not be done without oversight. Ooops, I am stuck on the founding fathers principles for the nation.
9:05 pm [ Quote ]
Treason at The New York Times
9:05 pm [ Quote ]
This I just one of a couple times this guy exposed Rockefeller for either being 2-faced or screwing up royally:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179215,00.html
“Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chairman of the intelligence panel, said if Rockefeller had a problem with the program, he had several avenues to raise concerns, including taking up the issue with other members who had been briefed (THEY WERE BRIEFED), using legislative tools at his disposal or confronting the vice president during any one of several briefings.
“A United States Senator has significant tools with which to wield power and influence over the executive branch. Feigning helplessness is not one of those tools,” Roberts told reporters in a written statement. “If Senator Rockefeller truly had the concerns he claimed to have had in his two and a half year old letter, he could have pursued a number of options to have those concerns addressed.”
J.J. Go Away was even witnessed by the intel chairman to be supportive of this starting from the time they were told of the program. If he had a problem with it, he has been if office for a long time, he would know how to address it. There is no excuse for him and his double talk/actions.
Likewise there is no excuse for whoever leaked this. As I mentioned before, the chain of command works and is in effect at all levels of the government, not just the military. And it works. There is even an IG (Inspector General, and comparable civilian counterparts) for when one thinks their complaints aren’t being addressed appropriately. You don’t have to go crying to the press with national secrets to address a questionable issue, unless you have other motives.
Neither of the leaker nor JJ Rockefeller deserve to hold any gov’t job again. Especially since JJ has openly (maybe inadvertently) spoken about sensitive and classified things himself.
9:51 pm [ Quote ]
Elguapo, either you failed to read the letter or you failed to understand the conditions of the disclosure by the President of the program. Why was the letter hand written? Because he was barred by disclosure laws from seeking advice about the program or it legality. The letter is what most would a CYA letter. Funny that that letter directly contridicted what the VP stated to the American public. Why are you not upset about that? But then again you have to ask yourself why some many members on both sides of the aisle are calling for hearings.
10:20 pm [ Quote ]
“Why was the letter hand written? Because he was barred by disclosure laws from seeking advice about the program or it legality.”
There goes the know-it-all attitude.
10:41 pm [ Quote ]
Ding ding ding
He was covering his a$$ that is why it was locked and dated in a safe. It is sad that some believe the adminstrations version over a sealed letter. Why let the truth get in the way of lunatic fringe talking points.
Ian, I can not figure out if you read the laws and details or just the talking points that are pipelined to you.
10:55 pm [ Quote ]
Javaman1: I dare say that Ian is an extremely well informed man with an uncommonly high degree of common sense and natural wisdom. That is, in comparison to your own abilities, based on your many postings. Yours are the ravings of a Bush hating, extreme left wing partisan, absent any desire for the truth.
The President of the United States is the Executive Branch, a separate and equal branch of the United States government. While he is subject to the power of the purse and on occasion the partisan machinations of the the party out of power, they do not have any power to demand that he submit to their rules over the executive branch, nor does the Judiciary. Further, the historical record is clear that he has the power as Commander in chief in time of war to engage in this surveilance of enemies posing a direct threat to the national security and the lives of the citizens of this country. He is only subject to the people, through the ballot box in this matter.
It is indeed sad that you are more interested in protecting the terrorists and their allies in this country that they might engage in heinous acts against the people of this country. I do not believe for one moment you are concerned about the President violating the liberties of anyone. Yours is a twisted, partisan mind!
11:38 pm [ Quote ]
Here is the point, I will say for the third time do all the spying and datamining the NSA has the knowledge to do. That is the point the lunatic fringe is missing. Nobody cares about that part, technology changes adjust the law. Do not let one branch of government hold that power. The FISA law is pretty amazing thing if you even consider the fact it is 30 years old and allowed for retroactive warrants. Datamining is a new technology to the masses (just google it to understand how powerful it is) adjust the FISA law to include datamining. What is sad most of you ultra conservatives think this is about wiretaps nope datamining. The simple way to explain this one branch of government has total control over a powerful tool. Oops, once again I am stuck on the foundation the founding fathers set fourth. Or simply put if you want to be a strict reader of the constitution do not pick when and where you will be strict about the foundation of the country.
Umn, I respect you opinion b/c we have always found a happy medium. Get serious with that terrorist comment. You have to understand the issues at hand. It is about balancing new tecnology and our system of checks and balances.
2:47 am [ Quote ]
The fact that eight members of Congress were informed of the Spying program by the White House does not “excuse” the president from abiding by the 1978 FISA Act.
There are folks on the right that will say the 1978 Act is Unconstitutional and abridges the Presidents rights under the Constitution. That may be true, but again after 27 years the Act still stands and is still Law.
The President IMHO has broken the law and is now a sitting duck legally.
2:09 pm [ Quote ]
idiot_bush_voter: Do you realize what you are saying? You are saying that even if the 1978 Act is unconstitutional, this unconstitutional infringement on presidential authority by the Congress, in violation of separation of powers, should have greater authority than the Constitution.
If any law has abridged or in any manner violated the Constitution: (a) It should have absolutely no power or authority under law. (b) The only way to make such a law Constitutional is via the Amenment process. (c) Even if the courts rule the law is in harmony with the Constitution, absent the Amendment process, they cannot enforce it against anyone, it has no authority under law!
Let us put the Constitution first!
2:49 pm [ Quote ]
Umn, your saying put the constitution first. But, you seem okay with the fact a domestic spying program has no checks and balances. So, which one is it? I would think you would agree one branch of goverment should not hold such vast power. Just like the Founding Fathers set fourth.
3:03 pm [ Quote ]
Umnumzana,
I am not saying that the law is unconstitutional, but that some folks on the right seem to say it is.
How convenient for them, to now after 27 years, say that a bi-partisan supported law in 1978 is now unconstitutional.
The fact of the matter is if some in Congress believe the law is unconstitutional then (1) they should change the law or (2) challenge the law in Court.
As it remains now the Law has not been changed or challenged as Unconstitutional in Court…. So its the law of the land and is the President believes he is above this Law, then why did he take an Oath of office? To lie for a power grab? Personally, I think Bush feels he is some sort of King that maybe above the law.
Remember the Bush Quote: “A Dictatorship would be a heck of alot easier. As long as I am the Dictator.” – GW BUSH
Now tell me this does not smack of being way above they law.
3:03 pm [ Quote ]
Javaman1: He is subject to the voters and there are Constitutional remedies if they believe he is wrong in this matter. If he commits high crimes or misdemeanors, which have a very high bar of proof indeed, then he is subject to the impeachment process, as well as the power of the purse.
Neither branch is greater in power or independence than the other two, and we must hold ALL our elected leaders to account for true miseeds, though obviously I believe the President does have the Constitutional authority under his office as Commander-In-Chief to engage in warrantless surveilance in time of war; and if it is simply a difference in the interpretation of the Constitution, after the Judiciary and the Congress and the President have made their case; then the voters have ample remedies to deal with such matters, including voting out members of Congress or impeachment of Justices if the public decides they are engaging in partisan politics.
Nonetheless, I share your concerns about excess power in the hands of any man or woman or party, and I have no problem with your questioning such activities!
3:09 pm [ Quote ]
I’m neither a Republican or a Democrat and I absolutely cannot understand all the apologiex for Bush’s behavior. There can only be two possibilities: (1)your party or president is more important to you than the Constitution of the United States and the very ideal of America, being free from government instrusion in our private lives. I believe the biggest scandel is going to be when the TRUTH of exactly WHO was spied on comes out. Do you not see the possibilities of blackmail if this administration was spying on the Democrats? Can you not see how the very ideal of spying on Americans breaks down the whole system? The government is for the people BY the people and majority does not get to rule. We have laws – and those laws were broken and that has been admited to by Bush himself. There is no other recourse but punishment or our whole system fails. I cannot believe those who are absolutely okay with Bush doing it would be silent and okay with President Hillary Clinton doing it. I’d be equally opposed to it regardless of who was in the White House. Bush took an oath which states he is to UPHOLD the Constitution. He has failed in that oath. Period. “Those who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither”. Was it Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson who said that? Our forefathers understood from what they had lived through that someone would eventually come along and install nothing but fear into people and that the people would gladly give up their freedoms for security. That is why the Constitution is set up to PROTECT ALL OF US - Republicans and Democrats – you cannot allow your love for Bush to rise about your love for our Constition and the very ideal of America or America will suffer for it for years and years to come. There has already been enough damage caused to it these past 5 years. If you choose to fear terrorism than I don’t know pray or whatever, but don’t make the rest of the country pay for your cowardess. The Constitution is our law, if you don’t like it – then you should consider moving to a more secure location or to a country where there is dictorial powers, because the United States of America, the home of the free & the brave is not for you.
7:39 pm [ Quote ]
Cavuto: “”A Dictatorship would be a heck of alot easier, as long as I am the Dictator.” -> It’s a joke! Like Reagan saying he was going to end the Cold War by starting the bombing now!
(1) If you examine the documents from our Founder’s, the people who wrote the Constitution, they felt the President had these powers of surveilance without warrant already. (2) The President takes an oath to defend the Constitution and uphold its laws, not the laws of Congress regarding how they read the Constitution at variuous times during our history. (3) Congress and the President are vested not only with the power but with the duty to read the Constitution for themselves. They are entitled to consult the opinions of the court [or the Congress]; but they are not entitled to abdicate their own official function of independent judgment.
“Some [contend] that wherever [the Constitution’s] meaning is doubtful, you must leave it to take its course, until the judiciary is called upon to declare its meaning…. But I beg to know upon what principle it can be contended that any one department draws from the Constitution greater powers than another…. I do not see that any one of these independent departments has more right than another to declare their sentiments on that point.” Madison
Both the architect of the Constitution (President Madison), and the author of the Declaration of Independence (President Jefferson), among many others like Lincoln have made it clear on this point. The President took an oath to protect and defend and determine the meaning of the Constitution for himself, and was not subservient to either the judiciary or the congress to either define the Constitution for them, or were they subject to laws made by the Congress which the President believed violated or limited his powers spelled out by that document.
Lastly, every President has rightly decided the meaning of the Constitution and their powers for themselves, and despite this law being passed by the Congress, the President does not surrender to them the right to change the Constitution. If the President does not agree with Congress, the latter has the right to go to the people and Amend the Constitution to include the words of this law and then the Constitution will force the President to comply with the Constitution, not the Congress or the judiciary!
That is power of the President is inherent within our Republic form of government, spelled out by the Constitution, and it cannot be subject to the whims of the Congress or the Judiciary!
7:43 pm [ Quote ]
Word: Yours is the most asinine posting on this topic thus far. Your have only stated your wholly subjective opinion on this matter, absent any understanding of our Constitution or form of government or any recognition that we are in the midst of WW-III, against global terrorists.
It is you and your fellow travelers who do not like the Constitution as it was written and as it was defined by our Founders. You cannot prove one of your idiotic charges and I will not debate anything any furtehr with someone with such limited intelligence and extreme partisanship!
9:16 pm [ Quote ]
idiot_bush_voter: I have a question for you, because you charged Bush with wanting to be a king, a dictator.
What about FDR? He became our one and only President who ran for more than two terms and for all intent and purposes he became our one and only king, President for life. Among many other things which were contrary to our Constitution, in order to insure that he was a dictator, he got involved with the Court Packing Scheme to make sure every one of his policies was upheld by the Court.
Now do you likewise here and now condemn FDR for not just wanting to be, but becoming President for life, King of America? He is a Democrat god, so are you honest and fair enough to condemn FDR?