1.  Thanks so much to John Nowak for the Ed Wood SE DVD.  A great flick, and I look forward to poring through the extras.

2.  After my weeks of doing battle over the NSA “domestic spying” controversy, I am now alerted that Pajamas Media will be covering the (inevitably grandstanding) “hearings” into the legality of the NSA’s foreign surveillance program—a classic media, soundbite-friendly kangaroo court-moment in which Congress, the very branch of government who has willed itself the power to write statutes such as FISA in order to constrain the President’s constitutional war time authority (an authority Congress itself set in motion by signing the AUMF)—sits in judgment over its own desires to grab power from the executive and “adjust” the “living Constitution” much like a chiropractor presumes to adjust a troublesome spine.

PJM, who will also be carrying video feeds of the proceedings, has asked me to participate in the punditry that will inevitably surround these proceedings.  Sadly, though, I jumped the gun and posted, what?—20 or so essays on this subject?—from legal debates with civil rights attorneys to close readings of statutory language—weeks ago, and have no desire at the moment to rewrite those same arguments for a new audience.

I will, however, offer you this link for the time being, along with a few brief recapitulatory observations.

To wit:  this story has never been about NSA misconduct or presidential lawbreaking.  It has ALWAYS—and how many times can I stress this, really?—ALWAYS been about Separation of Powers and a desire by the Congress to expand its own authority (or maintain previous expansions, if you prefer) vs. a Chief Executive who is concerned with returning to the office of the presidency constitutional mandates granted to that office, among them, Article II powers.

Arlen Specter—a Republican, sure, but still a lawmaker, first and foremost—claims not to understand why the President did not, should FISA under its current incarnation prove to be unworkable with the technologies (still unknown and highly classified, for all the speculation) being brought to bear against Al Qaeda cells / operatives presumed to be working from within the homeland, simply ask the Congress with greater authority, or a relaxation of certain FISA regulations.

But the answer to that question is so blindingly obvious that it makes these entire proceedings a giant question beg:  The President didn’t ask, first and foremost, because to do so would have been to tacitly admit that the authority lay under the purview of Congress, which it simply does not (see Justice O’Connor, who notes it is of “no moment” that, once the AUMF passes, the document itself contained no specific authorization for what is traditionally thought of as military action, in that case, the detaining of enemy combattants—but, as other courts have made clear, such a description would match, too, the gathering of signals intel); and secondly—and pragmatically—Congress is a sieve.  And who doubts that such a “public” (or, at the very least, extensive) airing of the program’s particulars to partisan lawmakers with their own agendas would not have led to the very kind of public grandstanding we are now seeing via some leak.

Finally—though the Executive branch, the NSA, and the DoJ have show it some deference, and have followed its guidelines in certain key instances (for instance, Gen Hayden and AG Gonzales have said repeatedly that in domestic to domestic situations, FISA warrants were used)—FISA was never meant to constrain the President’s war time powers, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out by recalling its legislative history (as well as the words of Carter AG Griffin Bell); a deference to Article II powers was understood as part of the passage of the legislation—legislation many believe may prove unconstitutional, should SCOTUS be forced to take up the issue, something they are loathe to do in Separation of Powers disputes such as this is.

The FISA review court, as have other lower courts, have concluded that the President’s power to conduct foreign intel is understood, and that, consequently, FISA cannot presume to curtail that authority.  What Congress is demanding is, in essence, a line item veto on the CiC’s war strategy; but this is not what the Constitution demands—and the very fact that we are even having these hearings is a testament to the aggressive Congressional creep that critics of the President are spinning as some new imperial presidential unitary authority.

For those of you interested, you can find my previous discourses on the topic (which include comprehensive sourcing of primary and secondary documents) here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Also, keep checking in at the Corner, where Andrew McCarthy, John Podheretz, Mark Levin, Cliff May and others have done a great job—though from a pointed political angle—laying out the major questions and concerns raised (or that its critics pretend to raise, depending on your point of view) about the program.

3.  Steve Gilliard and quantum string theor:  two great tastes that—oh, who am I kidding. 

4.  More FISA/NSA material:  AG Gonzales, in the WSJ (h/t Terry Hastings); and then this, from the Times Online, which shows the sham of these NSA proceedings:

The senior Democrat on the panel, Senator Patrick Leahy, said in his opening statement that Mr Bush had trampled on the civil liberties of innocent citizens: “My concern is for peaceful Quakers who are being spied upon, and other law-abiding Americans and babies and nuns who are placed on terrorist watch lists,” he said.

Leahy seems to be confusing the FBI’s domestic counterterrorism activities with the NSA’s military signals intel gathering program—but hey, no matter.  Why have the facts before you start pressing the AG in a time of war about his knowledge of the law.

(h/t Confederate Yankee)

See also, Stop the ACLU, who notes that the ACLU has already convicted the President.  Mumia?  Jury’s still out.

And Mark Coffey at Decision ‘08, “The Quick and Dirty Guide to the NSA Hearing”

5.  As we ponder multiculturalism, tolerance, and the unassailability of faith that make pluralism an outmoded and unworkable model for human cohabitation—these past couple hundred years in the great melting pot being but an historical fluke that will most assuredly unravel now that Samuel Alito has taken the bench to assault Amanda Marcotte’s vagina and the rights of secularists not to be assailed by religious carroling or mention of metaphysical philosophies that submit as a first cause an intelligent designer (rightly or wrongly—just SHUT THEM UP)—Newslinker reminds us of the Taliban-led destruction of ancient Buddhist sculptures back in 2001.

Which, as we all remember, had Steve Gilliard frothing at the presumptuousness of the Buddhists for registering complaints, most of which took the form of firebombings and threats of beheadings and destruction of the middle east and the west (whose blow back was really responsible for the Taliban in the first place).

6.  And finally, I mentioned this in the comments to a previous post over the weekend, but I’m not certain how many of you saw it.  I have a spare, mint copy of Henry:  Portrait of a Serial Killer on DVD.  This is the Director’s edition, uncut, with extras. 

Voted by Entertainment Weekly one of the 20 scariest films of all time, the story present a terrifyingly realistic portrait of sociopathology.  Or, er, so I’m told.

Brand new, it still goes for $19.  First $10 takes it, which included domestic shipping.

*****

7.  Oh yeah.  Almost forgot.  This is still going on.  [update:  Actually, voting ended Feb 2; in the Humor category, I once again got beaten by a comic strip; in Mega blog category, I was thrashed soundly by LGF]