Monday, August 14

Ladies and Gentlemen, and fans of mine (who very likely do not fall into either of the first categories), I present to you

Paul Stevenson, of Danville, Illinois, one of approximately three people (other than my older brothers) who can truthfully say he kicked my ass.

Would have been about third grade, I guess. Maybe fourth. It's important to note, here, that I was the biggest kid in my class. Strongest too, at the time. And Paul was just about the smallest. Though he was quick as a snake, which is also significant to the following story.

So we're in the door line at Roselawn Elementary (the doorline is where the neighborhood kids lined up to wait for the bell to ring and the front doors to open, and I notice Paul's lips are bright red. Now, I knew very well what was up: this was the result of a plaque-dye passed out at school the day before. It stains dental plaque red so you can judge how well you're brushing your teeth. Most of us -- myself included -- used them at night, and were able to scrub off the residue by the next morning.

Paul, apparently, used his in the morning. In my usual charming manner, I asked him if his mother had tried a dress on him while she was helping him with his lipstick.

Instead of taking a shot back -- which was what I'd been expecting -- he blitzed me.

Now, in those days I was also the fastest runner in the class (usually -- sometimes a kid named Chris Nelson could beat me, and sometimes a girl named Rhonda Drews. But I could also beat them.) so I scampered away, laughing, fully secure in the knowledge that there was no way Paul could catch me.

As has occasionally happened in my life, I overestimated my ability.

Before I entirely understood what was happening, he had tackled me and was proceeding to belabor me about the head and shoulders. He didn't actually hurt me -- don't think he was actually trying to; he was merely providing a public demonstration of the simple fact that I could easily get stomped by a guy wearing lipstick. More or less.

Which lesson I have never, by the way, forgotten.

Thanks for dropping by, Paul. I'll be in touch.

Saturday, August 12

On the9/11 conspiracy thing --

Check out www.911myths.com.

They seem to have the healthiest attitude, to wit:

"This is what we found. Don't take our word for it. Check for yourself. Here are our sources."


On other fronts:

The surgery went fine, and according to my orthopedic surgeon, it was entirely successful. In fact, my rehab may be shorter than he originally predicted. Though I am currently in considerable discomfort, it's actually less painful than it was before the surgery.

Also, we closed on the house on Thursday. I am now an official grown-up.

Finally, I need to quit screwing with conspiracy shit and get back to work on CBK.

Monday, August 7

The garage sale went well. The surgery comes up next week, and has been described as routine, though I have to take it under a general, which I hate . . . The Celebrex ain't workin' so much. There may be narcotics in my short-term future after all.

And in response to AzrofD, regarding TRAITOR and my style:

I don't think of myself as even HAVING a style.

I take every story as its own thing, and throw as much of my poor battered brain at each particular wall as I can make stick. In other words, I write balls-out for glory, and never think about whether something I'm putting down is "my style." I think about whether what I'm putting down is the STORY's style: if it suits the feel I'm trying to create.

This, I should add (to paraphrase Steve Stone) for all you Young Writers out there, is roughly how the great EB White recommended all writers should go about "their style." In his seminal book on elegant writing (which he co-authored with the legendary William Strunk), THE ELEMENTS OF STYLE, White recommended that a writer should aim for clarity above all else, and should never even THINK about His or Her Own Style, as your true style is an expression of your true self: it arises with no conscious thought on your part, because it is what you are.

Everything else is affectation.

" . . . brevity is the soul of wit, and tediousness its limbs and outward flourishes . . ."





Oh, and Jenn?

You're wrong. You don't want to seee her angry. At anyone.

Trust me on this.



And kiss the boyo for the LOCKE LAMORA aut'd edition, in case I can't deliver said kiss myself. I'm still hoping -- given good progress with the knee and moving into the new house -- that I and the Fabulous Robyn might be able to make it to the wedding . . .

Saturday, August 5

Your sympathies are appreciated.

Good news on the narcotics front: turns out I can take Celebrex, one of the advanced Cox-2 inhibitors, and it works pretty well. And as Justin suggested below: it's a routine surgery these days, and I'm expected to recover fully.

Now I'm off to help with our garage sale today, before the Fabulous Robyn turns into her evil twin, the Velocirobyn.

You wouldn't liker her when she's angry . . .

Thursday, August 3

Hey, kids.

Thanks to all who still stop by here once in a while, despite my absence for four and a half months.

Mostly working very hard. And struggling with my health. In these days of powerful psychoactive drugs that you have to gradually titrate, changing meds is a a lot like being boned up the ass with a razor-wire dildo.

CAINE BLACK KNIFE proceeds apace. It's gotten a little weird, but I, personally, think it'll -- eventually -- be really good.

The fact that I think so (today) means that this is a good day.

Other Stover news: I managed to destroy my right knee while at my night job about two-and-change weeks ago, and I'm still waiting for workman's comp to authorize the surgery that everyone knows I need. Since it's a day-to-day thing, I can't even take aspirin or ibuprofen (or any NSAID), so I'm popping Tylenol 3, a mild codeine-containing narcotic that works pretty damn well. The problem is that if W/C doesn't get off their collective butt, I'm going to end up with an opiate addiction.

Wee-HEE!

Also: the Fabulous Robyn and I are about to close on a house of our own -- next Monday, give or take. A four-bedroom Deco all-brick from 1930, with leaded glass windows, oak and maple woodwork and floors throughout, original cut-glass chandeliers and (I swear to all gods) an honest-to-shit front door of iron-bound oak.

God bless George Bush for fucking up the economy -- last year, we couldn't have TOUCHED this house . . . Hell, we still couldn't affordf it without the heroic effforts of Joshua Taylor at Charter Funding -- who is himself a character worthy of a full-length novel . . .

Another also: I'm gonna be a Guest of Honor at I-Con, which is a gaming convention in Springfield IL, from September 7-10. So anybody in the central Illinois area is welcome to drop by. Mostly I'll just be hanging out and being my genial (*hack-aff*) self.

And finally: though most of the people who ever read this blog already know, Scott Lynch's brilliant debut novel, THE LIES OF LOCKE LAMORA was released in the US just over a month ago. All you folks who are tired of waiting for a new book from me should go pick this up. He writes like I do, only better. This is a terrific novel, and there will be plenty more to come.

And that's the news. I'm outta here.

Tuesday, March 14

So . . .

Yesterday, Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) introduced a Motion of Censure on the floor of the US Senate, to formally take Our Commander in Cheat to task for violating the Constitution and the law in his illegal domestic wiretapping program. Astonishingly enough, the main response from the Republican leadership (specifically, Dr. Bill "I've seen the videotape and in my medical opinion she's conscious" Frist) was they they couldn't support the motion on the grounds that -- and this is a direct quote -- "it would send the wrong signal around the world."

This is the man, by the way, who wants to be the next Republican President of the United States.

None of these idiots seems to comprehend that invading a nation which has not attacked us, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians (the current best estimate, which our Pentagon continues to suppress, is 25-30,000 Iraqi civilians died in the actual fighting, and the bump in overall death rate from all factors, comparing pre- and post-invasion, suggests that the invasion of Iraq was responsible, by the end of 2004, for 130,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. And we wonder why they hate us . . .), kidnapping innocent citizens of friendly nations and shipping them off without trial or even the faintest shred of evidentiary review to be tortured -- not to mention maintaining our own officially-sanctioned torture chambers in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan, and having an executive banch of government (Constitutionally charged with enforcing the our nation's laws) openly declaring that our nation's law does not apply to them . . .

I mean, how much more wrong can our fucking signals get?

Ahhh, anyway.

Anyone still wondering about the actual legality of the domestic wiretap program might want to check out the details here:

www.nybooks.com/articles/18650



All this goes toward a problem I've been facing with my work lately (in addition to the recent space-monkey attack). All of you who've stuck with me this long know that I'm not interested in merely producing entertainment. Not that I frown upon "mere entertainment" -- in fact, I admire it, and enjoy it immensely when it's produced by others. I just don't do it myself. Because, I guess, I have adult ADD, and I just can't keep myself interested in something unless I'm grinding away at something resembling truth.

The problem I had during this last attack was that the space-monkeys kept whispering in my ears "Look! Look at the world around you! Look at the country you live in! Don't you get it? Truth is irrelevant . . ."

Nietzsche wrote, in one of the early passages of BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, that a philosopher makes a leap of faith as profound as any priest's, when he decides to believe that truth is worth more than a useful lie.

There is no evidence for the intrinsic value of truth.

In fact, as Mr Bush & Co. have shown, the opposite has become the case.

This makes it very hard to believe in what I do. However, having escaped the space-monkeys for the nonce, I do have at least the answer sergeants have been giving to uncomfortable questions since before there were sergeants.

"Soldier, shut up and soldier!"

I am not, never have been and never will be a soldier. But I know how to shut up and soldier nonetheless.

Monday, February 20

I have hit my fucking limit.

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/02/20/opinion/20herbert.html

For this of you not subscribed to the TimeSelect service (the New York Times subscription upgrade) what Bob Herbert's writing about is the Maher Arar case -- the Syrian-born Canadian software engineer who was kidnapped at Kennedy Airport by the US government and flown to Syria, where he was held (and tortured) for 10 months in a rat-infested underground cell the size of a grave.

At which point he was released, because (even under torture) nobody could find any evidence he had any link to terrorists.

So Arar, as the resident of a Western democracy and a believer in due process, sought the kind of legal remedy a law-abiding citizen should: he went to court, seeking redress for the illegal and unconstitutional abuse of his person.

His lawsuit was dismissed yesterday.

Not because it was without merit. That's the thing. Exactly the opposite.

The judge who dismissed it threw the case out because discovery might have, for example, uncovered the Canadian Goverment's complicity in this illegal action, and thus precipitated an international incident . . .

Basically, the judge admits the US Government acted illegally. And that there's nothing the judicial branch can do about it, because revealing the details of this illegal activity might harm US international relations.

You get it?

This federal judge says THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CAN DETAIN AND TORTURE INNOCENT PEOPLE OPENLY AND AT WILL, AND THERE'S NOTHING ANYONE CAN DO ABOUT IT.


Except whine.

And vote the cocksuckers out of office this year.

Yeah: I'm talking the 2006 Congressional election.

Because if the Democrats can take back Congress, we can impeach the fuckers.


Do it.


Now, finally, I'm a Democrat. Why?



BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THE FUCKING REPUBLICANS.

Saturday, February 11

Go . . . SCOOTER!

Sing, boy! SINNNNG!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/politics/10leak.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Friday, February 10

For those of you who might be wondering, STAR WARS ON TRIAL is a non-fiction (and un-LFL-authorized) collection of essays by prominent SFF writers on everything from he politics and ethics of The Saga to its effect on filmmaking and the effect its tie-ins have had on published SFF. David Brin for the Prosecution. Matthew Woodring Stover for the Defense.

Smack down.

But all in fun.

Mostly.

It's part of the SmartPop line from BenBella Books, which is wholly worth checking out -- they've done a bunch of middle-to-highbrow books of essays on everything from THE MATRIX to BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER. Hell, they've even got a book out called FINDING SERENITY, the subject matter of which won't be much of a mystery to my fellow Whedonheads.

As far as Bush goes, well . . .

Not only is Heckuvajob Brownie back in the news, testifying before Congress that Bush lied about the Katrina response, Jack friggin' Abramoff is now saying "I've met Bush about a dozen times -- he jokes with me about my kids. Now he's saying he doesn't know me? I don't think so."

America, America, God shat this waste on thee . . .

Thursday, February 9

I'm not dead.

Nor am I gone.

I have been ill, however, but now I'm better. I have also been busy.

CAINE BLACK KNIFE is moving along. I have also completed (seemingly -- barring further news from the publisher) another project, STAR WARS ON TRIAL, on which I share co-editing credit with the justly-legendary David Brin, and which will be coming out from BenBella Books in June, and which is going to be a non-stop hoot from cover to cover.

The impeachment process requires a majority vote in the House of Representatives, to refer the impeachment to the Senate, where the actual trial is held.

Good fuckin' luck. At least until after the elections.

If the Good Guys can take back the House, though, watch out . . .

The real problem is that if we successfully impeach Bush, we'll end up with fucking Darth Cheney as President. Might as well just set fire to the Constitution before we even start.

Talk about job security.

Wednesday, February 8

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On the President’s Warrantless Wiretapping Program

February 7, 2006

As Prepared for Delivery from the Senate Floor

Mr. President, last week the President of the United States gave his State of the Union address, where he spoke of America’s leadership in the world, and called on all of us to “lead this world toward freedom.” Again and again, he invoked the principle of freedom, and how it can transform nations, and empower people around the world.

But, almost in the same breath, the President openly acknowledged that he has ordered the government to spy on Americans, on American soil, without the warrants required by law.

The President issued a call to spread freedom throughout the world, and then he admitted that he has deprived Americans of one of their most basic freedoms under the Fourth Amendment -- to be free from unjustified government intrusion.

The President was blunt. He said that he had authorized the NSA’s domestic spying program, and he made a number of misleading arguments to defend himself. His words got rousing applause from Republicans, and even some Democrats.

The President was blunt, so I will be blunt: This program is breaking the law, and this President is breaking the law. Not only that, he is misleading the American people in his efforts to justify this program.

How is that worthy of applause? Since when do we celebrate our commander in chief for violating our most basic freedoms, and misleading the American people in the process? When did we start to stand up and cheer for breaking the law? In that moment at the State of the Union, I felt ashamed.

Congress has lost its way if we don’t hold this President accountable for his actions.

The President suggests that anyone who criticizes his illegal wiretapping program doesn’t understand the threat we face. But we do. Every single one of us is committed to stopping the terrorists who threaten us and our families.

Defeating the terrorists should be our top national priority, and we all agree that we need to wiretap them to do it. In fact, it would be irresponsible not to wiretap terrorists. But we have yet to see any reason why we have to trample the laws of the United States to do it. The President’s decision that he can break the law says far more about his attitude toward the rule of law than it does about the laws themselves.

This goes way beyond party, and way beyond politics. What the President has done here is to break faith with the American people. In the State of the Union, he also said that “we must always be clear in our principles” to get support from friends and allies that we need to fight terrorism. So let’s be clear about a basic American principle: When someone breaks the law, when someone misleads the public in an attempt to justify his actions, he needs to be held accountable. The President of the United States has broken the law. The President of the United States is trying to mislead the American people. And he needs to be held accountable.

Unfortunately, the President refuses to provide any details about this domestic spying program. Not even the full Intelligence committees know the details, and they were specifically set up to review classified information and oversee the intelligence activities of our government. Instead, the President says – “Trust me.”

This is not the first time we’ve heard that. In the lead-up to the Iraq war, the Administration went on an offensive to get the American public, the Congress, and the international community to believe its theory that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, and even that he had ties to Al Qaeda. The President painted a dire – and inaccurate – picture of Saddam Hussein’s capability and intent, and we invaded Iraq on that basis. To make matters worse, the Administration misled the country about what it would take to stabilize and reconstruct Iraq after the conflict. We were led to believe that this was going to be a short endeavor, and that our troops would be home soon.

We all recall the President’s “Mission Accomplished” banner on the aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003. In fact, the mission was not even close to being complete. More than 2100 total deaths have occurred after the President declared an end to major combat operations in May of 2003, and over 16,600 American troops have been wounded in Iraq. The President misled the American people and grossly miscalculated the true challenge of stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq.

In December, we found out that the President has authorized wiretaps of Americans without the court orders required by law. He says he is only wiretapping people with links to terrorists, but how do we know? We don’t. The President is unwilling to let a neutral judge make sure that is the case. He will not submit this program to an independent branch of government to make sure he’s not violating the rights of law-abiding Americans.

So I don’t want to hear again that this Administration has shown it can be trusted. It hasn’t. And that is exactly why the law requires a judge to review these wiretaps.

It is up to Congress to hold the President to account. We held a hearing on the domestic spying program in the Judiciary Committee yesterday, where Attorney General Gonzales was a witness. We expect there will be other hearings. That is a start, but it will take more than just hearings to get the job done.

We know that in part because the President’s Attorney General has already shown a willingness to mislead the Congress.

At the hearing yesterday, I reminded the Attorney General about his testimony during his confirmation hearings in January 2005, when I asked him whether the President had the power to authorize warrantless wiretaps in violation of the criminal law. We didn’t know it then, but the President had authorized the NSA program three years before, when the Attorney General was White House Counsel. At his confirmation hearing, the Attorney General first tried to dismiss my question as “hypothetical.” He then testified that “it’s not the policy or the agenda of this President to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.”

Well, Mr. President, wiretapping American citizens on American soil without the required warrant is in direct contravention of our criminal statutes. The Attorney General knew that, and he knew about the NSA program when he sought the Senate’s approval for his nomination to be Attorney General. He wanted the Senate and the American people to think that the President had not acted on the extreme legal theory that the President has the power as Commander in Chief to disobey the criminal laws of this country. But he had. The Attorney General had some explaining to do, and he didn’t do it yesterday. Instead he parsed words, arguing that what he said was truthful because he didn’t believe that the President’s actions violated the law.

But he knew what I was asking, and he knew he was misleading the Committee in his response. If he had been straightforward, he would have told the committee that in his opinion, the President has the authority to authorize warrantless wiretaps. My question wasn’t about whether such illegal wiretapping was going on – like almost everyone in Congress, I didn’t know about the program then. It was a question about how the nominee to be Attorney General viewed the law. This nominee wanted to be confirmed, and so he let a misleading statement about one of the central issues of his confirmation – his view of executive power – stay on the record until the New York Times revealed the program.

The rest of the Attorney General’s performance at yesterday’s hearing certainly did not give me any comfort, either. He continued to push the Administration’s weak legal arguments, continued to insinuate that anyone who questions this program doesn’t want to fight terrorism, and refused to answer basic questions about what powers this Administration is claiming. We still need a lot of answers from this Administration.

But let’s put aside the Attorney General for now. The burden is not just on him to come clean -- the President has some explaining to do. The President’s defense of his actions is deeply cynical, deeply misleading, and deeply troubling.

To find out that the President of the United States has violated the basic rights of the American people is chilling. And then to see him publicly embrace his actions – and to see so many Members of Congress cheer him on – is appalling.

The President has broken the law, and he has made it clear that he will continue to do so. But the President is not a king. And the Congress is not a king’s court. Our job is not to stand up and cheer when the President breaks the law. Our job is to stand up and demand accountability, to stand up and check the power of an out-of-control executive branch.

That is one of the reasons that the framers put us here - to ensure balance between the branches of government, not to act as a professional cheering section.

We need answers. Because no one, not the President, not the Attorney General, and not any of their defenders in this body, has been able to explain why it is necessary to break the law to defend against terrorism. And I think that’s because they can’t explain it.

Instead, this administration reacts to anyone who questions this illegal program by saying that those of us who demand the truth and stand up for our rights and freedoms have a pre-9/11 view of the world.

In fact, the President has a pre-1776 view of the world.

Our Founders lived in dangerous times, and they risked everything for freedom. Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death." The President's pre-1776 mentality is hurting America. It is fracturing the foundation on which our country has stood for 230 years. The President can't just bypass two branches of government, and obey only those laws he wants to obey. Deciding unilaterally which of our freedoms still apply in the fight against terrorism is unacceptable and needs to be stopped immediately.

Let’s examine for a moment some of the President’s attempts to defend his actions. His arguments have changed over time, of course. They have to – none of them hold up under even casual scrutiny, so he can’t rely on one single explanation. As each argument crumbles beneath him, he moves on to a new one, until that, too, is debunked, and on and on he goes.

In the State of the Union, the President referred to Presidents in American history who cited executive authority to order warrantless surveillance. But of course those past presidents – like Wilson and Roosevelt – were acting before the Supreme Court decided in 1967 that our communications are protected by the Fourth Amendment, and before Congress decided in 1978 that the executive branch can no longer unilaterally decide which Americans to wiretap. The Attorney General yesterday was unable to give me one example of a President who, since 1978 when FISA was passed, has authorized warrantless wiretaps outside of FISA.

So that argument is baseless, and it’s deeply troubling that the President of the United States would so obviously mislead the Congress and American public. That hardly honors the founders’ idea that the President should address the Congress on the state of our union.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 to create a secret court, made up of judges who develop national security expertise, to issue warrants for surveillance of terrorists and spies. These are the judges from whom the Bush Administration has obtained thousands of warrants since 9/11. The Administration has almost never had a warrant request rejected by those judges. They have used the FISA Court thousands of times, but at the same time they assert that FISA is an “old law” or “out of date” and they can’t comply with it. Clearly they can and do comply with it – except when they don’t. Then they just arbitrarily decide to go around these judges, and around the law.

The Administration has said that it ignored FISA because it takes too long to get a warrant under that law. But we know that in an emergency, where the Attorney General believes that surveillance must begin before a court order can be obtained, FISA permits the wiretap to be executed immediately as long as the government goes to the court within 72 hours. The Attorney General has complained that the emergency provision does not give him enough flexibility, he has complained that getting a FISA application together or getting the necessary approvals takes too long. But the problems he has cited are bureaucratic barriers that the executive branch put in place, and could easily remove if it wanted.

FISA also permits the Attorney General to authorize unlimited warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during the 15 days following a declaration of war, to allow time to consider any amendments to FISA required by a wartime emergency. That is the time period that Congress specified. Yet the President thinks that he can do this indefinitely.

In the State of the Union, the President also argued that federal courts had approved the use of presidential authority that he was invoking. But that turned out to be misleading as well. When I asked the Attorney General about this, he could point me to no court – not the Supreme Court or any other court – that has considered whether, after FISA was enacted, the President nonetheless had the authority to bypass it and authorize warrantless wiretaps. Not one court. The Administration’s effort to find support for what it has done in snippets of other court decisions would be laughable if this issue were not so serious.

The President knows that FISA makes it a crime to wiretap Americans in the United States without a warrant or a court order. Why else would he have assured the public, over and over again, that he was getting warrants before engaging in domestic surveillance?

Here’s what the President said on April 20, 2004: “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”

And again, on July 14, 2004: “The government can’t move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.”

The President was understandably eager in these speeches to make it clear that under his administration, law enforcement was using the FISA Court to obtain warrants before wiretapping. That is understandable, since wiretapping Americans on American soil without a warrant is against the law.

And listen to what the President said on June 9, 2005: “Law enforcement officers need a federal judge’s permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist’s phone, a federal judge’s permission to track his calls, or a federal judge’s permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S.”

Now that the public knows about the domestic spying program, he has had to change course. He has looked around for arguments to cloak his actions. And all of them are completely threadbare.

The President has argued that Congress gave him authority to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, 2001. Mr. President, that is ridiculous. Members of Congress did not think this resolution gave the President blanket authority to order these warrantless wiretaps. We all know that. Anyone in this body who would tell you otherwise either wasn’t here at the time or isn’t telling the truth. We authorized the President to use military force in Afghanistan, a necessary and justified response to September 11. We did not authorize him to wiretap American citizens on American soil without going through the process that was set up nearly three decades ago precisely to facilitate the domestic surveillance of terrorists – with the approval of a judge. That is why both Republicans and Democrats have questioned this theory.

This particular claim is further undermined by congressional approval of the Patriot Act just a few weeks after we passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The Patriot Act made it easier for law enforcement to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and spies, while maintaining FISA’s baseline requirement of judicial approval for wiretaps of Americans in the U.S. It is ridiculous to think that Congress would have negotiated and enacted all the changes to FISA in the Patriot Act if it thought it had just authorized the President to ignore FISA in the AUMF.

In addition, in the intelligence authorization bill passed in December 2001, we extended the emergency authority in FISA, at the Administration’s request, from 24 to 72 hours. Why do that if the President has the power to ignore FISA? That makes no sense at all.

The President has also said that his inherent executive power gives him the power to approve this program. But here the President is acting in direct violation of a criminal statute. That means his power is, as Justice Jackson said in the steel seizure cases half a century ago, “at its lowest ebb.” A recent letter from a group of law professors and former executive branch officials points out that “every time the Supreme Court has confronted a statute limiting the Commander-in-Chief’s authority, it has upheld the statute.” The Senate reports issued when FISA was enacted confirm the understanding that FISA overrode any pre-existing inherent authority of the President. As the 1978 Senate Judiciary Committee report stated, FISA “recognizes no inherent power of the president in this area.” And “Congress has declared that this statute, not any claimed presidential power, controls.” Contrary to what the President told the country in the State of the Union, no court has ever approved warrantless surveillance in violation of FISA.

The President’s claims of inherent executive authority, and his assertions that the courts have approved this type of activity, are baseless.

The President has argued that periodic internal executive branch review provides an adequate check on the program. He has even characterized this periodic review as a safeguard for civil liberties. But we don’t know what this check involves. And we do know that Congress explicitly rejected this idea of unilateral executive decision-making in this area when it passed FISA.

Finally, the president has tried to claim that informing a handful of congressional leaders, the so-called Gang of Eight, somehow excuses breaking the law. Of course, several of these members said they weren’t given the full story. And all of them were prohibited from discussing what they were told. So the fact that they were informed under these extraordinary circumstances does not constitute congressional oversight, and it most certainly does not constitute congressional approval of the program. Indeed, it doesn’t even comply with the National Security Act, which requires the entire memberships of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee to be “fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States.”

In addition, we now know that some of these members expressed concern about the program. The Administration ignored their protests. Just last week, one of the eight members of Congress who has been briefed about the program, Congresswoman Jane Harman, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she sees no reason why the Administration cannot accomplish its goals within the law as currently written.

None of the President’s arguments explains or excuses his conduct, or the NSA’s domestic spying program. Not one. It is hard to believe that the President has the audacity to claim that they do. It is a strategy that really hinges on the credibility of the office of the Presidency itself. If you just insist that you didn’t break the law, you haven’t broken the law. It reminds me of what Richard Nixon said after he had left office: “Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.” But that is not how our constitutional democracy works. Making those kinds of arguments is damaging the credibility of the Presidency.

And what’s particularly disturbing is how many members of Congress have responded. They stood up and cheered. They stood up and cheered.

Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote: “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

The President’s actions are indefensible. Freedom is an enduring principle. It is not something to celebrate in one breath, and ignore the next. Freedom is at the heart of who we are as a nation, and as a people. We cannot be a beacon of freedom for the world unless we protect our own freedoms here at home.

The President was right about one thing. In his address, he said “We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it.”

Yes, Mr. President. We do love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it. We will fight to defeat the terrorists who threaten the safety and security of our families and loved ones. And we will fight to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans against intrusive government power.

As the President said, we must always be clear in our principles. So let us be clear: We cherish the great and noble principle of freedom, we will fight to keep it, and we will hold this President – and anyone who violates those freedoms – accountable for their actions. In a nation built on freedom, the President is not a king, and no one is above the law.

I yield the floor.






In the words of the Immortal One:

'Nuff Said.