NY Times discloses secret Executive Order: NSA is spying domestically

[Burnsys]

See above - and "seditious" [views]? This is America, Art - there is no such thing.

------------------------------
The Sedition Act of 1798

Just a few years after the First Amendment was added to the Constitution, the federal government passed a law restricting freedom of speech. In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act

Congress and President John Adams believed that the Sedition Act would help control pro-French troublemakers by forbidding criticism of the federal government. "Sedition" generally means the incitement of violent revolution against the government. The Sedition Act of 1798, however, went far beyond this. It required criminal penalties for persons who said or published anything "false, scandalous, or malicious" against the federal government, Congress or the president.
------------------------------------
Another major attempt to regulate freedom of speech occurred during World War I. In 1917, Congress passed the Federal Espionage Act. This law prohibited all false statements intending to interfere with the military forces of the country or to promote the success of its enemies. In addition, penalties of up to $10,000 and/or 20 years in prison were established for anyone attempting to obstruct the recruitment of men into the military.
---------------------------
In 1918, another law was passed by Congress forbidding any statements expressing disrespect for the U.S. government, the Constitution, the flag, or army and navy uniforms.
-------------------
The Alien Registration Act of 1940, usually called the Smith Act because the antisedition section was authored by Representative Howard W. Smith of Virginia, was adopted at 54 Statutes at Large 670-671 (1940). The Act has been amended several times and can now be found at 18 U.S. Code § 2385 (2000).
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
(I wonder if pat roberson readed this )
----------------------------------

Now, just imagine The Sedition Act of 1798 combined with the government actual power to ear every comunication and intercept any internet trafic at will.. Dictatorship is knocking at your door...

 

[BobG]

Both how it is illegal (specific law would be helpful) and how it is unConstitutional.

The current NSA domestic surveillance violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The issue is whether FISA unconstitutionally restricts the powers of the President as a Commander in Chief acting in war time.

Considering the Communist blacklists of the 50's, the FBI's COINTELPRO operation of the 60's (which just an extension of their anti-Communist blacklists), and considering the pressure Nixon tried to exert on the FBI to direct their surveillance activities towards Nixon's targets, I think the FISA act was necessary and constitutional. It prevents executive branch abuse of powers rather than restricts legitimate powers as Commander in Chief.

In other words, the big, long-term picture is more important than any benefits Bush may believe he's getting from surveillance conducted without warrants.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[arildno]

NSA workers aren't stupid. .

Neither were the guys in Stasi.

 

[russ_watters]

The current NSA domestic surveillance violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The issue is whether FISA unconstitutionally restricts the powers of the President as a Commander in Chief acting in war time.

In other words, the big, long-term picture is more important than any benefits Bush may believe he's getting from surveillance conducted without warrants.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

You and I have a different idea of what that long-term picture looks like, though. And I'd be very interested to hear a court weigh-in on whether this was a justified expansion of his power - or rather, the FISA was a justifiable restriction of his power. This has a good chance of turning out like every War Powers Act fight has: Congress drops the issue because they don't want to risk losing the law.

Considering the Communist blacklists of the 50's, the FBI's COINTELPRO operation of the 60's (which just an extension of their anti-Communist blacklists), and considering the pressure Nixon tried to exert on the FBI to direct their surveillance activities towards Nixon's targets, I think the FISA act was necessary and constitutional. It prevents executive branch abuse of powers rather than restricts legitimate powers as Commander in Chief.

That's fine, but as of yet, I haven't seen any indication that this was used in a similar manner, so I don't consider Nixon's/McCarthy's abuses relevant. Nixon/McCarthy used/abused their powers for political vendettas. If Bush did violate a Constitutional and applicable law, he did it strictly for national security reasons, and that makes it very different from those cases you mentioned.

Cheney said recently:

The vice president also told reporters that in his view, presidential authority has been eroded since the 1970s through laws such as the War Powers Act and anti-impoundment laws.

"Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam both during the '70s served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area," Cheney said. But he also said the administration has been able to restore some of "the legitimate authority of the presidency."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-12-20-cheney_x.htm

And I tend to agree.

Furthermore, even if after all is said and done on this issue, it is found that Bush violated a Constitutional and applicable law, he won't be and shouldn't be impeached, for exactly the same reasons Lincoln wasn't: what he did was still the right thing to do.

 

[russ_watters]

The Sedition Act of 1798

Now, just imagine The Sedition Act of 1798 combined with the government actual power to ear every comunication and intercept any internet trafic at will.. Dictatorship is knocking at your door... [emphasis added]

The sedition act is not in effect today (in reality, it never was), and your imagination is not reality.

 

[Art]

The sedition act is not in effect today (in reality, it never was), and your imagination is not reality.

"There are none so blind as those that will not see"

Russ your 'patriotism' is both naive and sadly misplaced. The Bush admin are the greatest threat to american democracy and values for many a long year which is why the true patriots are calling for him and his regime to be reigned in.

In contrast to what you and your fellow neo-cons believe the end does not justify the means.

 

[BobG]

You and I have a different idea of what that long-term picture looks like, though. And I'd be very interested to hear a court weigh-in on whether this was a justified expansion of his power - or rather, the FISA was a justifiable restriction of his power. This has a good chance of turning out like every War Powers Act fight has: Congress drops the issue because they don't want to risk losing the law. That's fine, but as of yet, I haven't seen any indication that this was used in a similar manner, so I don't consider Nixon's/McCarthy's abuses relevant. Nixon/McCarthy used/abused their powers for political vendettas. If Bush did violate a Constitutional and applicable law, he did it strictly for national security reasons, and that makes it very different from those cases you mentioned.
Cheney said recently: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-12-20-cheney_x.htm
And I tend to agree.
Furthermore, even if after all is said and done on this issue, it is found that Bush violated a Constitutional and applicable law, he won't be and shouldn't be impeached, for exactly the same reasons Lincoln wasn't: what he did was still the right thing to do.

The only way for this (or the War Powers Act) to go to the US Supreme Court for a decision is for a president to challenge it either directly by bringing a suit against Congress or indirectly by ignoring it and daring Congress to impeach him.

You won't have a president challenge it directly for the same reason Congress is scared to send it to the Supreme Court - neither side wants to risk a Supreme Court decision.

That makes Bush's action pretty bold, at least on the surface. He's risking impeachment by violating a law Congress passed. In practice, you're right that Congress wouldn't be willing to risk losing at least the threat of the law unless they also had evidence of malicious abuse (like in the 50's and 60's). The fact that you have a Republican controlled Congress doesn't make impeachment any more likely, either, but both parties should be able to see the nightmare scenarios that could come out of this. Successfully impeaching a president for violation of either law, and then having the president appeal the decision based on the law's constitutionality, would be an even worse situation than having the 2000 election go to the Supreme Court.

Bush will eventually have to give in, though. This is as hard an issue to sell as his stance against prohibiting inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees - both sound like the policies of the dictator we removed from Iraq. It comes down to whether or not obtaining warrants for the surveillance is such a great hindrance that Bush is willing to sacrifice any other issues he may like to get support for. Already, he's having to fly Cheney back to Washington in case he's needed as the tiebreaking vote on the deficit reduction bill - a bill that could depend on the vote of Democrat Ben Nelson even in a Republican controlled Congress.

 

[russ_watters]

The only way for this (or the War Powers Act) to go to the US Supreme Court for a decision is for a president to challenge it either directly by bringing a suit against Congress or indirectly by ignoring it and daring Congress to impeach him.

#2 is exactly what Presidents have been doing. There is a reason Congress authorized Bush's attack on Iraq after he announced it and without him asking: they didn't want to risk a war powers fight (or, rather, they didn't want to instantaneously invalidate it).

You won't have a president challenge it directly for the same reason Congress is scared to send it to the Supreme Court - neither side wants to risk a Supreme Court decision.

I'm not so sure a President can challenge it directly - the way such things generally work (as in the case in this thread), to challenge a law that prevents you from doing something, you have to violate it. So by simply ignoring it (in both the War Powers Act and with FISA), Bush puts the ball in Congress's court, and as with the War Powers Act, I'd be surprised if they will call his bluff.

That makes Bush's action pretty bold, at least on the surface. He's risking impeachment by violating a law Congress passed.

In practice, you're right that Congress wouldn't be willing to risk losing at least the threat of the law unless they also had evidence of malicious abuse (like in the 50's and 60's).

Agreed. But you know what they say about bluffing: every now and then, you have to be holding the winning hand. And it simply isn't worth the risk for Congress, so they will whine about it then let it go for now.

The fact that you have a Republican controlled Congress doesn't make impeachment any more likely, either, but both parties should be able to see the nightmare scenarios that could come out of this. Successfully impeaching a president for violation of either law, and then having the president appeal the decision based on the law's constitutionality, would be an even worse situation than having the 2000 election go to the Supreme Court.

Agreed, again.

Bush will eventually have to give in, though. This is as hard an issue to sell as his stance against prohibiting inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees - both sound like the policies of the dictator we removed from Iraq. It comes down to whether or not obtaining warrants for the surveillance is such a great hindrance that Bush is willing to sacrifice any other issues he may like to get support for. Already, he's having to fly Cheney back to Washington in case he's needed as the tiebreaking vote on the deficit reduction bill - a bill that could depend on the vote of Democrat Ben Nelson even in a Republican controlled Congress.

That's something I'm not sure of. The fact that (as you said) there are no allegations of actual abuse related to this, I think that makes this issue very different from the torture issue/deal that just passed. But we'll see.

 

[russ_watters]

"There are none so blind as those that will not see"

Russ your 'patriotism' is both naive and sadly misplaced. The Bush admin are the greatest threat to american democracy and values for many a long year which is why the true patriots are calling for him and his regime to be reigned in.

In contrast to what you and your fellow neo-cons believe the end does not justify the means.

I guess we all see what we want to, Art. You will see me as a neo-con you will not allow yourself the possibility of believing that I can think for myself. But if you can get over that, try responding to one of my actual arguments instead of just calling me names.

 

[Informal Logic]

Christ, I suppose those defending the Bush regime would argue that suspension of elections or martial law is okay too. Just because the man somehow became president does not mean he is above the law no matter what. Please at least explain why you defend him for not obtaining retroactive FISA court orders. He is a frigging fascist. Can you not see this now?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Could you explain both of those, please? Both how it is illegal (specific law would be helpful) and how it is unConstitutional.

Where have you been? The FISA law in particular allows for approval retroactively, but only after judicial review, and Bush never requested approval. He simply authorized spying. So the burden of proof is not for me to prove he didn't have the authority, the burden is for you to prove that he did; and from where. This is what Russert kept asking - there was no answer. Also, by and large it was reported on CNN yesterday that nearly every senator agress that this was illegal. Also note that this was already addressed during the time of Nixon. The supreme court has ruled on this before.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Russ, let me explain how it works. If under the Constitution, the President is not given explicit legal authority to take a certain action, then he doesn't have the power to do so.

 

[SOS2008]

Could you cite some of these expert opinions, please?

I don't know what news you watch--I surf between CNN, MSNBC, PBS for broadcast news plus news on the internet (Newsweek, etc.). Already there are discussions/interviews with experts--very quickly such as this:

KING: Political uproar aside, the central question is whether or not the president's secret domestic spying program violates the law. Mr. Bush has invoked the constitution and Congress in defending his actions. Is he on solid ground? CNN's Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin is here, to help us clear this out.

Let's just begin simply with the president's explanation that he needs to move quickly and needs to get the wiretaps right away, so he won't go to the secret court in most cases because he needs to move quickly. Does that hold up?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: You know, I don't think it does, John. The FISA law has a provision that says if you need to work really fast, as you sometimes need to do in intelligence matters, you can go after you've done the wiretap and get retroactive permission to -- retroactive warrant. So, that argument, I think just is factually not supported.

KING: Well, the other argument is did the constitution and or the resolution Congress passed after 9/11 that gave him the power to launch military strikes in Afghanistan, give him the power to do this? I have a copy of that resolution here. This is the resolution they passed, essentially authorizing the president to use all military force to respond to the 9/11 attacks. Is it in here somewhere?

TOOBIN: It's not obviously in there. And you've had many members of Congress, especially democrats saying, we didn't think in authorizing the use of force in Afghanistan, we were authorizing domestic spying…

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/19/acd.01.html

And we will be hearing a lot more from various legal analysts, of course more from those who are experts on the constitution. I don’t think you will like what they have to say. Though in view of another jump in the polls for approval of Bush, I don’t guess staunch Republicans give a rat’s ass about the law, which would be consistent with the track record to date.

 

[moose]

I can't believe that people are being so nonchalant about our right to privacy and our right to no warrant-less searches. Seriously, "If you aren't planning on causing some terror (!), then the government will take no interest in you anyway?" Am I actually reading this? I thought that no one seriously used that line an argument. It's about our right to privacy, which is one of our most fundamental rights, much more so than our "right" to bear arms.

Do you honestly care about your privacy? I think that crossing the line would be broadcasting everything you do, to everyone else online or something. What is being done is fine.

 

[Burnsys]

Do you honestly care about your privacy? I think that crossing the line would be broadcasting everything you do, to everyone else online or something. What is being done is fine.

Yes i would like that politicians to give up their privacy. There should be a website to broadcast everything they do. And cameras folowing them all the time. That would be nice.
They are the ones that must be controlled by the people not the other way.
But everytime they are more secret and we more public, who are the ones that are doing bad things? who are the ones paranoid, who are the ones that have a lot of things to hide...

 

[Skyhunter]

Do you honestly care about your privacy? I think that crossing the line would be broadcasting everything you do, to everyone else online or something. What is being done is fine.

So you don't care about personal privacy.

What about corporate privacy?

Should corporations be allowed to keep trade secrets?

 

[Skyhunter]

Maybe this should go into the lies thread but I thought it was more appropriate here.

At an http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html aimed at talking up the Patriot Act in April 2004, Bush addressed the question of wiretaps. "Now, by the way," he said, "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. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think 'Patriot Act,' constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

As opposed to what he is saying now.

Russ how do you know he is using these warrant less wiretaps for the defense of the nation?

Who is he spying on that he does not want a secret court to know about?

None of his arguments hold water. If you know something we don't could you share it please?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, let me explain how it works. If under the Constitution, the President is not given explicit legal authority to take a certain action, then he doesn't have the power to do so.

Ivan, that's just not true and you know it. If it were true, there'd be no need for laws saying what the President can't do. The War Powers Act is a perfect example: the the Constitution does not give the President explicit legal authority to do anything, but merely states that the President is "commander in chief" of the armed forces. What, specifically, does that mean? It doesn't say. So that gives the President implicit authority to do a great many things, but a lot of those things had to be figured out along the way.

Where have you been? The FISA law in particular allows for approval retroactively, but only after judicial review, and Bush never requested approval. He simply authorized spying.

I apologize for that first part - honestly, I hadn't paid much attention to this issue when it first came out and I really was simply asking for information. Reading a couple of articles would have provided that information.

However, the issues in the rest of my post...Bob and I have a pretty interesting discussion going...

 

[russ_watters]

Russ how do you know he is using these warrant less wiretaps for the defense of the nation?

The same way you "know" that he isn't, Skyhunter...

The difference is, there is a legal principle that requires a default assumption about it...

 

[russ_watters]

Christ, I suppose those defending the Bush regime would argue that suspension of elections or martial law is okay too. Just because the man somehow became president does not mean he is above the law no matter what. He is a frigging fascist. Can you not see this now?

Allow me to be perfectly clear (something these forums have been lacking of late):

If Bush suspends a national election or institutes martial law for any reason short of a national disaster that day, I'll be opposed to it and I'll line up to support impeachment.

Perhaps you guys should bookmark this post so that you can refer to it the next time you think about posting that I'd support anything Bush would do.

Please at least explain why you defend him for not obtaining retroactive FISA court orders.

You (and pretty much everyone except Bob) completely ignored the explanation. Don't ask for it: scroll back and read it!

 

[SOS2008]

In regard to privacy, it isn’t how serious the intrusion, but rather the erosive nature of such activity that is important. Germany did not come under Nazi control over night.

Yes i would like that politicians to give up their privacy. There should be a website to broadcast everything they do. And cameras folowing them all the time. That would be nice.

They are the ones that must be controlled by the people not the other way. But everytime they are more secret and we more public, who are the ones that are doing bad things? who are the ones paranoid, who are the ones that have a lot of things to hide...

Excellent point. This is one of the many things that is wrong about Bush's spying. Aside from the Bush administration being a very secretive (if not the most secretive) administration, congressional representatives on the intelligence committee, which consists of all of eight committee members, were sworn to secrecy. What kind of oversight is this supposed to be? It's absurdly obvious that it isn't. The Bush cabal makes Nixon look like an angel.

Maybe this should go into the lies thread but I thought it was more appropriate here. …As opposed to what he is saying now.

Russ how do you know he is using these warrant less wiretaps for the defense of the nation?

Who is he spying on that he does not want a secret court to know about? None of his arguments hold water. If you know something we don't could you share it please?

Even if the information has been/is being used for national defense, if the information is being obtained contrary to law, the constitution, and civil liberties it is wrong. How people can trust this man who’s been caught lying time and again is mind boggling.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In regard to privacy, it isn’t how serious the intrusion, but rather the erosive nature of such activity that is important. Germany did not come under Nazi control over night.

That actually took about a week in March of '33, depending on how you want to look at it, and depended heavily on the illegal arrests and murder of those politicians that stood in the way and Hitler dissolving the current governing body to replace it with Nazi party members. That last part was actually requested for a couple months before the actual burning of the Riechstag and the Riechstag Fire Decree. Either way it wasn't done through gradual erosion of rights, it was just done.

The Bush cabal makes Nixon look like an angel.

Just... wow...

 

[edward]

That actually took about a week in March of '33, depending on how you want to look at it, and depended heavily on the illegal arrests and murder of those politicians that stood in the way

A week to round them up, but how long did it take and what methods were used to determine exactly who they were?? Hmm a bit of secret domestic spying perhaps, the same type of secret spying that is going on in this country right now.

and Hitler dissolving the current governing body to replace it with Nazi party members.

Hitler axed a lot of people other than just the "current governing body".

The Bush Cabal is the most secretive group of people in the history of this nation.

 

[Wishbone]

allright, put down the micheal moore videotapes, its time for a little lesson called, "being the president"
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm"

 

[Skyhunter]

allright, put down the micheal moore videotapes, its time for a little lesson called, "being the president"
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm"

We have already discussed retroactive warrants. This is nothing new.

No need for the ad hominem.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, that's just not true and you know it. If it were true, there'd be no need for laws saying what the President can't do. The War Powers Act is a perfect example: the the Constitution does not give the President explicit legal authority to do anything, but merely states that the President is "commander in chief" of the armed forces. What, specifically, does that mean? It doesn't say. So that gives the President implicit authority to do a great many things, but a lot of those things had to be figured out along the way.

I apologize for that first part - honestly, I hadn't paid much attention to this issue when it first came out and I really was simply asking for information. Reading a couple of articles would have provided that information.

However, the issues in the rest of my post...Bob and I have a pretty interesting discussion going...

Explicit authority was meant to apply to the over-riding principle that rights not surrendered are reserved, but even in the most general sense,

Bush said his decision was "fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities." And the president's lawyers have maintained that the commander in chief has the "inherent" authority to act in the interest of national security, even if he overrides the law.

But the Supreme Court did not accept that claim when it was tested in the past.

In 1972, the justices unanimously rejected President Nixon's contention that he had the power to order wiretapping without a warrant to protect national security. The decision came in the case of three men who had allegedly plotted to bomb a CIA facility in Michigan. After the ruling, charges in the case were dismissed...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...y?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

 

[Skyhunter]

The same way you "know" that he isn't, Skyhunter...
The difference is, there is a legal principle that requires a default assumption about it...

I don't know that he isn't. I suspect that he is spying on journalists.

No the difference is he has no good reason not to request a retro-active warrant.

Could you provide an example of a scenario where he would need to keep secret the identity of the people he is spying on from the secret FISA court?

If you believe there is no right to personal privacy, do you believe that corporations should have a right to privacy?

What about the secrets that Bush and his cabinet keep by invoking executive privilege?

Like Cheneys energy task force.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Distinct from the right of publicity protected by state common or statutory law, a broader right of privacy has been inferred in the Constitution. Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left alone.' This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined. The Constitutional right of privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which limits access to personal information. The Federal Trade Commission overwhelmingly enforces this statutory right of privacy, and the rise of privacy policies and privacy statements are evidence of its work. In all of its forms, however, the right of privacy must be balanced against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life. These distinct rights of privacy are examined separately on the following pages:[continued]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/donors/solicit.php?http_referer=/wex/index.php/

 

[Moonbear]

The difference is, there is a legal principle that requires a default assumption about it...

Wouldn't the default assumption be that if he did not obtain warrants, then he might not have had sufficient probable cause for his actions, and therefore knowingly broke the law? Even if he really was only targetting bona fide terrorism suspects, that he circumvented due process is what raises the red warning flags that something is fishy. From a legal standpoint, how are his actions different from the cop who is certain drugs are being dealt out of a certain house, raids the house and finds proof the drugs are there, but never obtained the warrant granting permission to raid the house, which gets the case tossed out of court because none of that evidence is admissible because it was illegally obtained? Circumventing the Constitution is not permitted.

Keep in mind the presidential oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[phcatlantis]

Wouldn't the default assumption be that if he did not obtain warrants, then he might not have had sufficient probable cause for his actions, and therefore knowingly broke the law?

There's no such default assumption specified in law, and considering the Courts will adjudicate on probable cause in warrantless searches [1,2,3]and the fact that the Warren court of all courts refused to step in before FISA [4] , it doesn't seem to hold up anyway.

 

[selfAdjoint]

But phcatlantis, what about the theory that the president is above the law. It appears to me that this assertion goes farther than has been noticed, since the president's legal advisors asserted it holds "in time of war", but presidents have notoriously asserted their right to declare a state of war independent of the constitutional requirement for a congressional declaration, and the congress has seemed to bow to this assertion with the war powers act. So putting the two ideas together, the president can declare a ste of war any time he wants and then can do anything he wants without being constrained by law.

 

[Burnsys]

Keep in mind the presidential oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Well, that explains why the fbi thinks "Defenders of the constitution" are terrorist.

Look at this FBI pamphlet:

http://www.gaianxaos.com/SpecialReports_files/Megiddo_fbi_watch23lg.jpg

It says:
Right-Wing terrorists:
"Defenders" of US constitution against federal government and the UN

And: Those who make numerous references to US constituton.

 

[Burnsys]

Ever heard of the Yoo memo? This is the legal rationale that the Bush administration is relying on to justify nearly every move related to the War on Terror: the denial of habeas corpus to “enemy combatants,” the torture of individuals for information, and most recently spying on American citizens without warrants. The Yoo memorandum essentially argues that no statute passed by Congress “can place any limits on the president’s determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing and nature of the response.” So, if the country is involved in a war, the president is bound by no law, treaty, or oversight; his power is completely unchecked and absolute — in the words of the administration, “plenary.”

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

 

[phcatlantis]

But phcatlantis, what about the theory that the president is above the law.

If there's such a noteworthy theory in American law, I've never heard of it. I'd go as far as to say that there is no Administration that's asserted as much about itself--the phrase "above the law" is inherently pejorative. On the other hand, it reads like you're simply questioning whether presidential power in wartime is as extensive as it is.

It appears to me that this assertion goes farther than has been noticed, since the president's legal advisors asserted it holds "in time of war", but presidents have notoriously asserted their right to declare a state of war independent of the constitutional requirement for a congressional declaration, and the congress has seemed to bow to this assertion with the war powers act.

Which is simply not true in this case. The President consistently and publically refers to Pub. Law No. 107-40 each time he claims special powers, specifically section 2, subsection A. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html ]. We haven't gotten to the point where the executive even feels the need to declare its constitutional wartime privileges in absence of a declaration of war.

So putting the two ideas together, the president can declare a ste of war any time he wants and then can do anything he wants without being constrained by law.

Except there is no finding in law yet that the President isn't constrained by law or is acting otherwise. Put another way, there's no finding whatsoever that the President's actions are extra-legal. Just a lot of opinion-making.

 

[phcatlantis]

Ever heard of the Yoo memo? This is the legal rationale that the Bush administration is relying on to justify nearly every move related to the War on Terror: the denial of habeas corpus to “enemy combatants,” the torture of individuals for information, and most recently spying on American citizens without warrants. The Yoo memorandum essentially argues that no statute passed by Congress “can place any limits on the president’s determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing and nature of the response.” So, if the country is involved in a war, the president is bound by no law, treaty, or oversight; his power is completely unchecked and absolute — in the words of the administration, “plenary.”
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

The President is bound by Congress' power of the purse and power to pursue impeachment and trial. And plenary does not mean unchecked or absolute; or did you think ambassadors in the age of sail simply did as they wished with no strictures whatsoever?