For a quick “refresher”; the OFFICIAL duties of the Vice President Of The United States of America (WikiPedia) again:
Role of the Vice President
Duties
The formal powers and role of the vice president are limited by the Constitution to becoming President in the event of the death or resignation of the President and acting as the presiding officer of the U.S. Senate. As President of the Senate, the Vice President has two primary duties: to cast a vote in the event of a Senate deadlock and to preside over and certify the official vote count of the U.S. Electoral College. For example, in the first half of 2001, the Senators were divided 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats and Dick Cheney’s tie-breaking vote gave the Republicans the Senate majority.
A quick evaluation of the Veep’s job performance thus far in accordance with his OFFICIAL job description tells us he has WAY overstepped his powers as a “Veep”. He has claimed his position permits him to randomly declassify and classify sensitive Government information at will in order to protect his financial and political interests. He has claimed his position allows him to data-mine and wiretap his fellow Citizens without a warrant from the FISA Court (a FELONY, by the way). He has claimed his is his own FOURTH branch of Government; independent of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches. Again — re-read his OFFICIAL job description and please try your best to convince me that this man has any of those so-called “powers”. I cannot wait to see the rebuttals…
This is what the Vice President Felon-In-Chief is up to today:
Cheney’s Office Says It Has Wiretap Documents
By Dan Eggen
Vice President Cheney’s office acknowledged for the first time yesterday that it has dozens of documents related to the administration’s warrantless surveillance program, but it signaled that it will resist efforts by congressional Democrats to obtain them. …” – The Washington Post
STOP RIGHT THERE: “Crime”, first; outside of the job description second…
Here we go again:
“… The disclosure by Cheney’s counsel, Shannen W. Coffin, came on the day that the Senate Judiciary Committee had set as a deadline for the Bush administration to turn over documents related to the wiretapping program, which allowed the National Security Agency to monitor communications between the United States and overseas without warrants.
White House counsel Fred F. Fielding has also declined to turn over any documents about the program, telling lawmakers last week that more time was needed to locate records that might be responsive to the panel’s subpoenas.
The committee’s chairman, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), said yesterday that he will pursue contempt proceedings against administration officials if the documents are not produced.
“When the Senate comes back in the session, I’ll bring it up before the committee,” Leahy told reporters yesterday. “I prefer cooperation to contempt. Right now, there’s no question that they are in contempt of the valid order of the Congress.” …
FELONY… F-E-L-O-N-Y, folks. Just try ignoring a subpoena yourselves. At the moment you fail to appear, a warrant is issued for your arrest. Who put Dick Cheney and his boss above the law? THEMSELVES. That doesn’t make it “legal”, however.
Impeach these people… for the sake of Freedom, Liberty, and the Republic.
***
Thanks to our friends at Real Clear Politics For selecting this piece for their REAL CLEAR BLOGS – Debates & Internet Discussions page
Thanks again to our friend Libby Spencer of The Newshoggers for linking in
MemeOrandum has a fantastic blogger roundup HERE -
Loading ...
2:07 am on August 21st, 2007 1
[...] Clark Vice President Cheney Defiantly Claims To Be Sitting On Wiretapping Documents » This Summary is from an article posted at The Gun Toting Liberal™ — Slightly left of center… [...]
9:30 pm on August 21st, 2007 2
A quick evaluation of the Veep’s job performance thus far in accordance with his OFFICIAL job description tells us he has WAY overstepped his powers as a “Veep”.
I recognize that a fair number of people do not like Dick Cheney, and dislike him to such a degree that they believe his even drawing breath is an impeachable offense.
However, while the Constitution really says very little about the VP’s role aside from becoming President if necessary, and the role as President of the Senate, Cheney’s role as a Presidential advisor is pretty much what the President want it to be.
So, while criticizing Cheney is fair game to those who don’t like him or what they perceive him doing, trying to assert that because as an advisor to the President he has somehow breached his VP duties is silly, and not worthy of serious consideration.
7:10 pm on August 24th, 2007 3
James,
I think you completely missed the point of this post. If Cheney were simply acting as Bush’s advisor, that’d be fine.
Wiretapping without a warrant is a crime. Why is that point being avoided?
8:17 pm on August 24th, 2007 4
The term “wiretapping” is a broad term, and one I think is misapplied in the administration’s monitoring of calls into the U.S. by suspected terrorists, and calls out of the U.S. to suspected terrorists.
Why is that distinction being avoided?
1:32 am on August 25th, 2007 5
James,
How clever of you to take my question, reword it slightly, and turn it on me. But you missed one important piece — I didn’t avoid anything.
Wiretapping is basically eavesdropping on electronic communications. If you want to make a distinction between “wiretapping” and “monitoring of calls”, then go for it. However, both of them fall under the umbrella of “illegal without a court order.”
9:18 am on August 25th, 2007 6
Nick,
“However, both of them fall under the umbrella of ‘illegal without a court order.’”
But of course that’s the real issue, isn’t it? There is a difference between “listening in” on calls and “monitoring calls,” where the latter only tracks where call originate and end, and unless there is reason for suspicion, the monitored call isn’t listened in on.
To me, that’s a significant difference, and one that the FISA law does not address.
10:30 am on August 25th, 2007 7
James,
“To me, that’s a significant difference, and one that the FISA law does not address.”
If by this you mean that the FISA law doesn’t prevent them from monitoring calls, then that doesn’t really matter. It’s not legal simply because there is no law preventing the government from doing it. It’s illegal because there is no constitutional authority for them to do it.
On a side note, and somewhat anecdotal, if I as a private citizen decided that I would start “monitoring” calls, and was found out by the authorities, I imagine that I would be found to be engaging in illegal activities. There really is no valid law that gives the government the authority to do this either. And when I say “valid law”, I’m referring to one that is consistent with the authority given to the Congress by the constitution to make such a law.
12:11 pm on August 25th, 2007 8
Mr. Shott- please keep selling yourself down the river, it is amusing to me.
keep on forfeiting your rights and even defending that forfeiture..
and sir, show me your papers!!!
get ready for the RFID chip that will be in your right hand soon.
then will you finally feel safe and stop wetting your bed.
see, i wouldn’t fight for this country…because i’d have people like you next to me, with a gun, and soiled shorts, and you’d get yourself and real men around you killed.
i salute you fascist!
12:21 pm on August 25th, 2007 9
Nick,
“It’s illegal because there is no constitutional authority for them to do it.”
By that standard most of what our government does is illegal, including education initiatives and funding, welfare, Medicare, etc.
I think that you have missed one important point, which is that the targets of these monitoring activities are not U.S. citizens, except to the extent that some people talking to suspected terrorists may be U.S. citizens, in which case I have to say that I support monitoring their calls. Further, much of that activity involves none of our citizens, but does deal with calls routed through the U.S. There should be no reason those calls can’t be monitored.
And, no, I don’t believe that there would never be abuse of this method, but I will say that I don’t automatically suspect the government of abusing it.
12:22 pm on August 25th, 2007 10
Dave M,
I see the drugs are not helping your paranoia.
12:48 pm on August 25th, 2007 11
read the news buddy, you’re gunna have a barcode on your forehead soon, because you’re scared.
12:49 pm on August 25th, 2007 12
also get yourself a copy of the constitution, and the bill of rights that real men fought for.
2:33 pm on August 25th, 2007 13
“By that standard most of what our government does is illegal, including education initiatives and funding, welfare, Medicare, etc.”
Yes, that’s absolutely correct! I’ve been trying to get people to see this for years. If “we the people” want the government to provide for education, welfare, Medicare, etc., then the Constitution needs to be amended to allow those things.
But yes, you are absolutely right. Most of what the federal government does is illegal because they have not been given the authority to do those things. Of the 535 members of Congress, only one of them stays in-line with the Constitution.
Personally, I don’t believe the federal government should be providing any of those things, partially because they are no good at it. My community is much better at providing for the needs of my community than a centralized government is. In addition, they’re not actually “providing” anything, they are simply redistributing wealth. But I’m getting off-topic, so I digress.
“I think that you have missed one important point, which is that the targets of these monitoring activities are not U.S. citizens, except to the extent that some people talking to suspected terrorists may be U.S. citizens, in which case I have to say that I support monitoring their calls. Further, much of that activity involves none of our citizens, but does deal with calls routed through the U.S. There should be no reason those calls can’t be monitored.”
FISA allows the executive to engage in electronic surveillance without a warrant *only* if none of the parties are US persons (citizens, legal residents, etc). If any of the parties is a US person, then a warrant is required by the FISA courts.
When the executive (the President, Vice President, or any of their organizations) engages in electronic surveillance (which includes listening in on calls as well as monitoring, your distinction) without a warrant, and the surveillance activities involve a US person in any way, a crime has been committed, which is subject to a $10,000 fine, up to give years in prison, or both.
“And, no, I don’t believe that there would never be abuse of this method, but I will say that I don’t automatically suspect the government of abusing it.”
You should study the history of governments, because for thousands of years, those in power chronically abuse it. I think for someone to have the belief that “this is the 21st century, we’re so civilized, our government wouldn’t do that” is naive.
3:52 pm on August 25th, 2007 14
nick, good for you!!
you’ve compared the gestapo to medicare!!!
you win the dummy prize.
do you have any ailing grandparents?
you’re stupid.
and you’ll suffer for it.
and sadly, you almost sound smart.
all apologies,
kurt C
4:02 pm on August 25th, 2007 15
Dave M:
“because you’re scared.”
That’s an interesting twist on reality, given that you’re the one that sees government agents behind every tree.
4:22 pm on August 25th, 2007 16
Nick,
I’ve given up trying to get people to understand that the government’s power is limited well beyond its current activities, and I just accept the current situation as the new reality. It’s kind of like the illegal alien situation: Sure there are millions of illegals in the country, but it just isn’t possible to deport them all. Similarly, there is no way to walk away from these government programs, despite the fact that they are improper functions of government.
However, one of the legitimate functions of our government is protecting the nation from attack/national defense. Given the “new reality” and the (as I see it) government’s absolute duty to try to fend off terrorist attacks, I’m willing to allow the government to monitor (a different activity than “wiretapping”) phone, email and other similar activity that involves suspected terrorists. FISA is old and out of date with technology, and certain situations exist that render it useless as a guideline/regulation. I see no harm, and no illegal activity, in the government tracking potential terrorist activity, given its Constitutional duty to defend the nation against attack.
I fully recognize the propensity of government to abuse power, otherwise I would not realize just how much our government does that it isn’t empowered to do. I consider myself a long way from naïve, but at the same time I am not so impractical as to believe that every effort to catch the bad guys is an excuse for some bureaucrat to listen in when I talk to my kids.
10:45 pm on August 25th, 2007 17
Dave/Kurt/whatever you’re calling yourself,
“nick, good for you!!
you’ve compared the gestapo to medicare!!!”
I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion. But it’s odd that you would recommend that James get a copy of the constitution, and then in the next breathe attack me for stating that the constitution doesn’t allow the government to provide Medicare. If you’re going to troll, at least be consistent about it.
11:00 pm on August 25th, 2007 18
James,
“I’ve given up trying to get people to understand that the government’s power is limited well beyond its current activities, and I just accept the current situation as the new reality.”
If we’re in agreement that the government is acting well beyond its authority, then I’m not sure what the point of this discussion is. I guess the only difference is that I fall into the group of people that are willing to fight, both verbally and physically, to put things right; while you’re more “go with the flow.” That’s not intended as an insult, just an observation.
“It’s kind of like the illegal alien situation: Sure there are millions of illegals in the country, but it just isn’t possible to deport them all. Similarly, there is no way to walk away from these government programs, despite the fact that they are improper functions of government.”
I don’t think the latter is true. In 1776 we did exactly that, and I see no reason why it couldn’t happen again. Not today, but in a decade or two perhaps. Hopefully it won’t come to that.
“However, one of the legitimate functions of our government is protecting the nation from attack/national defense. Given the “new reality” and the (as I see it) government’s absolute duty to try to fend off terrorist attacks, I’m willing to allow the government to monitor (a different activity than “wiretapping”) phone, email and other similar activity that involves suspected terrorists.”
I think our government’s sole purpose is to protect our individual freedoms. And that extends to protecting us from terrorists and other enemies (foreign and domestic). However, I don’t think it’s acceptable to encroach on our freedoms in order to protect our freedoms.
If you research “blowback” and realize that our government has done a better job of fueling terrorist activities than preventing them, you might be feel the same about current government actions.
In brief, our government has been involved in many regime changes in the Middle East where we’ve gotten rid of legitimate leaders to install leaders that suit our interests, not the interest of the Middle Eastern population. These actions have caused a cumulative millions of Middle Easterners to lost their lives, and a group of them blame the US for those consequences and with no other recourse resort to terrorist activities. Their actions are certainly unwarranted, but there’s an actual motive behind them. The idea that “we’re good, they’re evil, we must kill them” is absurd. If we understood that it’s our intervention in foreign countries that actually causes terrorism, and we acted appropriately on that understanding, we’d be much safer and have no need for constitutionally-challenged legislation like the Patriot Act, etc.
“I fully recognize the propensity of government to abuse power, otherwise I would not realize just how much our government does that it isn’t empowered to do. I consider myself a long way from naive, but at the same time I am not so impractical as to believe that every effort to catch the bad guys is an excuse for some bureaucrat to listen in when I talk to my kids.”
Social Security was not meant to make people less capable of retiring, but it does that. Welfare was not meant to make poor people dependent, but it does that. The Federal Reserve was not meant to transfer wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich, but.. oh, wait, it was meant to do that.
3:03 pm on August 26th, 2007 19
Nick,
“I guess the only difference is that I fall into the group of people that are willing to fight, both verbally and physically, to put things right; while you’re more ‘go with the flow.’”
In this world we have idealists and pragmatists; you are an idealist (not that there’s anything wrong with that), and I am a pragmatist. Please don’t misunderstand; I appreciate idealism, particularly where our Constitution is concerned, but idealism isn’t going to change much, al by itself.
I don’t like what I see going on, and I want to see change, but short of a revolution (to which you alluded) the only way things will be corrected is through incremental changes brought on by people working within the system. The first step in restoring government to its proper limits is, in my opinion, a conservative judiciary, and here I’m talking about judicial conservatism, not political conservatism; originalist judges, strict constructionist judges, at all levels, starting with the Supreme Court and moving as quickly as possible to the appellate level.
“However, I don’t think it’s acceptable to encroach on our freedoms in order to protect our freedoms.”
This is the real issue, isn’t it: Absolute freedom is a prescription for failure for abundant and obvious reasons, yet exactly where does one draw the line? How much individual freedom is possible in a successful and enduring society, and at what point does the best interest of the many become more important than the freedom of the individual? Dave M called me a fascist because I draw the line in a different place than he. Intolerance for differing opinions and juvenile flaming rhetoric are two of the most destructive and divisive elements in society today, and people like Dave M are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
“If we understood that it’s our intervention in foreign countries that actually causes terrorism, and we acted appropriately on that understanding, we’d be much safer and have no need for constitutionally-challenged legislation like the Patriot Act, etc.”
The United States does not, and cannot, exist in a vacuum. Every nation on the planet also does not and cannot exist in a vacuum. Every nation acts in its own best interest, and those of adequate size and influence have a wider sphere in which they make friends and enemies. It can not be otherwise; human nature won’t allow it.
Your statement is a gross oversimplification of a complex set of factors, and I challenge you to show, rather than just claim, that the U.S. is unilaterally responsible for terrorism. I’d also like to read your specific suggestions for how the U. S. can extricate itself from those activities that you believe are generating terrorists, and what the likely repercussions might be.
As you said, much of the improper activities in which our government is involved began with the best of intentions; helping the poor, whom you seem to think wouldn’t be poor without the help of the Federal Reserve, can’t be a bad thing, now, can it? Liberals would argue in favor of even more help, and are responsible for much, if not most, of the over-reaching we both lament today.
6:00 pm on August 26th, 2007 20
most evil deeds begin with ‘good’ intentions.
this country is armed to the teeth.
the new slave is the immigrant.
the us should look to role models like switzerland, or norway: countries that don’t interfere with everything else. europe had electric cars 25 years ago…
6:08 pm on August 26th, 2007 21
nick their is a distintction between the patriot act surveilance games olympics and socialized health care, but you probably prefer hmos’. March on Capitalism!!!!
let the market decideth they say!!!!!!
10:12 pm on August 26th, 2007 22
Dave,
“nick their is a distintction between the patriot act surveilance games olympics and socialized health care,”
Yes, there is, but not the distinction you think. One invades privacy rights, one invades personal finance rights; but both are illegal.
“but you probably prefer hmos’. March on Capitalism!!!!
let the market decideth they say!!!!!!”
HMOs are not products of the free market, they are products of the government. Any more brilliant examples of how the government has “improved” health care?
12:05 am on August 27th, 2007 23
James,
“Please don’t misunderstand; I appreciate idealism, particularly where our Constitution is concerned, but idealism isn’t going to change much, al by itself.”
Of course not, but idealism coupled with activism will.
“I don’t like what I see going on, and I want to see change, but short of a revolution (to which you alluded) the only way things will be corrected is through incremental changes brought on by people working within the system.”
I agree.. I’m active in trying to change the system using the system (i.e. getting the right people into the right places). I do a lot more than sitting here responding to blog posts
.
“The first step in restoring government to its proper limits is, in my opinion, a conservative judiciary, and here I’m talking about judicial conservatism, not political conservatism; originalist judges, strict constructionist judges, at all levels, starting with the Supreme Court and moving as quickly as possible to the appellate level.”
I think that is a very important part of the process. The President appoints Supreme Court justices (and Congress has to approve them), so getting the proper justices in place started with having the right President in place. Most of my activism is focused on getting Ron Paul elected. That end goal may or may not happen, but at least in the process a lot of people will be made aware.
“This is the real issue, isn’t it: Absolute freedom is a prescription for failure for abundant and obvious reasons, yet exactly where does one draw the line?”
Very simply. I have the right to swing my fists around the air in any manner I wish; but my rights end where your nose begins.
“How much individual freedom is possible in a successful and enduring society, and at what point does the best interest of the many become more important than the freedom of the individual?”
Never.
If I have a group of people that would like to break into someone’s house because it would be a net benefit to a lot of us and only violate the rights of one person, would that be okay? How about if there were 100 in my group? How about one million? At what point does it become okay? Never.
“Dave M called me a fascist because I draw the line in a different place than he. Intolerance for differing opinions and juvenile flaming rhetoric are two of the most destructive and divisive elements in society today, and people like Dave M are part of the problem, not part of the solution.”
Dave M appears to be a troll whose purpose is to disagree with everything being said to cause problems. He disagreed with you, then I disagreed with you, then he disagreed with my disagreement of you. I wouldn’t put too much into what he says. He absolutely is part of the problem.
“The United States does not, and cannot, exist in a vacuum. Every nation on the planet also does not and cannot exist in a vacuum.”
I’m not suggesting that we exist in a vacuum or can operate that day. I’m suggesting that we don’t involve ourselves in the internal affairs of other nations. I’m suggesting that we don’t overthrow legitimately-elected leaders to install dictators that oppress and kill the population like we did with Iran in 1953 just so we can station troops on their northern border to spy on the Soviets. And this is just one example of many. I believe I remember someone saying you can find out more about this by searching “secrets of the cia” on YouTube, but I haven’t checked into it.
“Every nation acts in its own best interest, and those of adequate size and influence have a wider sphere in which they make friends and enemies. It can not be otherwise; human nature won’t allow it.”
I own a computer services company in my local area. If I killed off the competition by putting bullets in their heads, I would be extremely successful because I could charge whatever rates I wanted and I would have the business of every customer. Me and my family would live very well. You might even say that if I engaged in such actions, I would be serving my own best interests. But it would be difficult to justify these actions.. you know, killing people and all.
“Your statement is a gross oversimplification of a complex set of factors,”
Of course it was.. it was a basic response to a blog comment, and the goal was to give a simple indication as to the causes of terrorism. And for further explanation, with less simplified details, I recommended that you do some research on “blowback” (which I’m guess you haven’t done). You can do a Google search for “blowback” and click on the first result, you can go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_%28intelligence%29
…or you can look elsewhere.
“and I challenge you to show, rather than just claim, that the U.S. is unilaterally responsible for terrorism. I’d also like to read your specific suggestions for how the U. S. can extricate itself from those activities that you believe are generating terrorists, and what the likely repercussions might be.”
Regarding showing how the U.S. is responsible for terrorism; I would say it’s more accurate to say that U.S. foreign policy is responsible for terrorism, because I don’t want to imply that the American people are directly responsible for it; many other people have already done this very well, so I don’t feel the need to repeat their work. I’ve directed you to a couple of places listed above, and some educated use of Google will turn up all sorts of well-written articles on exactly how this happens.
Regarding asking for how to get out of the terrorist-causing activities and what exactly will happen when we take those actions, you’re asking quite a lot. But if you’d like, I can give you an “oversimplified blog comment” response.
Those who said that Iraq would be a “get in, get out” situation are the same ones that are now saying if we live, Iraq will fall apart, so I believe they’re predictions are unreliable. After years in Vietnam, we walked away in shame. Today, we are engage in trade with Vietnam.
I would suggest that we leave Iraq and the Middle East immediately. My prediction is that it will quickly get worse for a short period of time, then begin to rebound.
I also think we should bring our military personnel home from each of the 130 countries where we’re stationed.. we have no reason for being there. Not only would we not have a military shortage here, but we would have plenty of personnel for defense; which, you know, is what they’re for.
“As you said, much of the improper activities in which our government is involved began with the best of intentions; helping the poor, whom you seem to think wouldn’t be poor without the help of the Federal Reserve, can’t be a bad thing, now, can it? Liberals would argue in favor of even more help, and are responsible for much, if not most, of the over-reaching we both lament today.”
I don’t think that poverty would be abolished without the Federal Reserve, just most of it. It’s impossible to completely abolish poverty, but a free society provides the most prosperity.
But yes, in the last 50 years, it’s primarily liberal policies that have caused much of the over-reaching in our government.