• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Constitution Cannot be Amended by Arrogant Public Officials

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
President Bush has broken the law, no 2 ways about it.

Our forefathers said:
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[/FONT]
There is a big difference between conducting governmental affairs in a legal manner, and making an assertation that one is above the laws dictated to us by the Constitution and using that assertation to brazenly break the law. In the end, nobody, not even the President of the United States, is above the law.

Article is here.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] [/FONT]
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
danarhea said:
President Bush has broken the law, no 2 ways about it.



There is a big difference between conducting governmental affairs in a legal manner, and making an assertation that one is above the laws dictated to us by the Constitution and using that assertation to brazenly break the law. In the end, nobody, not even the President of the United States, is above the law.

Article is here.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] [/FONT]
Rockwell writes nice editorials.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
KCConservative said:
Rockwell writes nice editorials.
Does that mean you agree with the article? If not, then please state your disagreements, if any.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
danarhea said:
President Bush has broken the law, no 2 ways about it.



There is a big difference between conducting governmental affairs in a legal manner, and making an assertation that one is above the laws dictated to us by the Constitution and using that assertation to brazenly break the law. In the end, nobody, not even the President of the United States, is above the law.

Article is here.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] [/FONT]
Oh the Constitution well alright maybe you've read this part:

Article 2
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Or this one:
Article 1
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


To borrow money on the credit of the United States;


To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;


To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;


To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;


To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;


To establish post offices and post roads;


To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;


To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;


To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;


To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;


To provide and maintain a navy;


To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;


To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And


To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof
Or perhaps this:
Joint Resolution Authorizing The Use Of Force Against Terrorists
September 14, 2001
This is the text of the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists, adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives:

To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements


Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.


Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Now where exactly in the Constitution does it say that the judicial branch have any inherent war powers? Oh that's right the FISA Court doesn't have any war powers what so ever.
 
Last edited:

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,030
Reaction score
2,051
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Trajan,

Not that I expected anything less, but those sections of the constitution you quoted don't have anything to do with allowing the president to conduct, allow, or commission domestic warrantless spying. Nor do any of them provide power to the President to do a number of other things that he's done. Part of the notion of having a consitution like ours is that it gives specific instructions about what The President, Congress, etc. may not do. When they invoke the various laws that were made as a result of 9-11 as justification for domestic warrantless spying, they are acting against the consitution, and to the extent that those laws provide for such actions, they are themselves unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ashurbanipal said:
Trajan,

Not that I expected anything less, but those sections of the constitution you quoted don't have anything to do with allowing the president to conduct, allow, or commission domestic warrantless spying. Nor do any of them provide power to the President to do a number of other things that he's done. Part of the notion of having a consitution like ours is that it gives specific instructions about what The President, Congress, etc. may not do. When they invoke the various laws that were made as a result of 9-11 as justification for domestic warrantless spying, they are acting against the consitution, and to the extent that those laws provide for such actions, they are themselves unconstitutional.
Ahh, thank you for pointing this out.

Oh, and Trajan:

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Why don't you do some reading up on what "force" means? Somehow, I don't think that it means conducting warrantless wiretapping........
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Lets just make it easier and give them road maps and key cards to whatever targets they want to destroy. Then when it is all over and the clean up has started we can complain that nothing was done to keep it from happening. Doesn't this solve all the problems
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Jeez, do we gotta start this all over again? Aren't there enough threads on this topic already?

With respect to the editorial cited,

Hence, the public-relations campaign, which consists of the president and his minions fanning out to make speeches asserting that what he did was both legal and necessary. The operative word is "asserting." An assertion is not a fact. It is merely a claim.
Notice the use of the word "assert" in its various forms. Exactly the same language can be applied to those objecting to the legality of the program. That is, those positing illegality/unconstitutionality are asserting such. It is their opinion, based on their interpretations of whatever statutes, legal opinions and/or so-called scholarly opinions they might have read. Various legal- and psuedo-legal scholars have opined both in the affirmative and the negative about the legality of the NSA program. Nobody, but nobody, can perforce espouse anything but assertions unless or until the matter is adjudicated.

The editorial claims that Gen Hayden was wrong in stating that that the standard of the 4th Amendment was 'reasonableness', not 'probable cause'. The editorial writer clearly did not have his editorial reviewed by a constitutional lawyer. The General was correct: the standard is 'reasonable'. The amendment reads, "against unreasonable searches and seizures", and "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." The criteria by which reasonableness is measured is 'probable cause'. Simply put, if there is insufficient probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, then the search is unreasonable. And vice-versa. At least, thats how a constitutional lawyer explained it to me.

The statement that the administration did something "illegal and unconstitutional" is simply the author's own assertion: not a fact, merely a claim. Seems to me that it is Charley Reese who has "made a fool of himself".

Source: same as above.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
ashurbanipal said:
Trajan,

Not that I expected anything less, but those sections of the constitution you quoted don't have anything to do with allowing the president to conduct, allow, or commission domestic warrantless spying. Nor do any of them provide power to the President to do a number of other things that he's done. Part of the notion of having a consitution like ours is that it gives specific instructions about what The President, Congress, etc. may not do. When they invoke the various laws that were made as a result of 9-11 as justification for domestic warrantless spying, they are acting against the consitution, and to the extent that those laws provide for such actions, they are themselves unconstitutional.

No ever since Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the civil war the Presidents have executed broader Constitutional authority, during war time, under Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution, it's called the inherent war powers of the president and make no mistake about it we are and have been since 9-11 in a state of war.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
aps said:
Ahh, thank you for pointing this out.

Oh, and Trajan:



Why don't you do some reading up on what "force" means? Somehow, I don't think that it means conducting warrantless wiretapping........

All necessary force includes all necessary actions taken to defeat AlQaeda, all appropriate is relative, all necessary is not. Furthermore; in the resolution the Congress made no attempt to specify the definition of the terms all necessary and appropriate force, and instead left that up to the Presidents perogative.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
All necessary force includes all necessary actions taken to defeat AlQaeda, all appropriate is relative, all necessary is not. Furthermore; in the resolution the Congress made no attempt to specify the definition of the terms all necessary and appropriate force, and instead left that up to the Presidents perogative.
Sorry--wrong again. They left it up for the president to define? Okaaaaaaaaay. In the Supreme Court's holding in Hamdi, the Court allowed the detention of Hamdi as falling within the meaning of "all necessary and appropriate force." "Force" involves actual force--not wiretapping. Again, do some research on this issue.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I guess I am not understanding peoples desire to hamstring our government. If this has the ability (Which it does) to catch peoples in the act of planning or carrying out a terrorist attack, then whats the major issue. Is it you would rather see the explosion, or just a desire to see something else go wrong. Or is it that your your individula rights are more valubale then that of the whole?
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aps said:
Again, do some research on this issue.
Taking you up on your suggestion, the Supremes majority opinion reads as follows:

The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government’s alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi’s detention, through the AUMF.
...
The AUMF authorizes the President to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against “nations, organizations, or persons” associated with the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 115 Stat. 224. There can be no doubt that individuals who fought against the United States in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban, an organization known to have supported the al Qaeda terrorist network responsible for those attacks, are individuals Congress sought to target in passing the AUMF. We conclude that detention of individuals falling into the limited category we are considering, for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured, is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the “necessary and appropriate force” Congress has authorized the President to use.[emphasis added]
Source.

It has been the position of the AG that the collection of signals intelligence is also "so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the “necessary and appropriate force” Congress has authorized the President to use." The AG's position seems strongly buttressed by the Supreme Court decision in the Hamdi case.

Conclusion: no, its not the use of 'force' per se. It is the authorization to use force that carries with it the approval to engage in all things fundamental and incidental to the use of force that nations do in wartime in order to prevail over an enemy. That most certainly includes the collection of signals intelligence, and as long as at least one party to a communication is a suspected terrorist, the NSA appropriately targets that communication.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
Taking you up on your suggestion, the Supremes majority opinion reads as follows:



Source.

It has been the position of the AG that the collection of signals intelligence is also "so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the “necessary and appropriate force” Congress has authorized the President to use." The AG's position seems strongly buttressed by the Supreme Court decision in the Hamdi case.

Conclusion: no, its not the use of 'force' per se. It is the authorization to use force that carries with it the approval to engage in all things fundamental and incidental to the use of force that nations do in wartime in order to prevail over an enemy. That most certainly includes the collection of signals intelligence, and as long as at least one party to a communication is a suspected terrorist, the NSA appropriately targets that communication.
I agree with you about what the holding of Hamdi said. I read through the entire decision. One of the things they talk about in determining that the US was entitled to detain him was that at the time he was detained, Hamdi was actively fighting against the US and by detaining him, the US prevents him from going back out there and fighting with us, or something to that effect. It was under that kind of analysis that the Court determined that the language of the AUMF allowed Hamdi to be detained. I just don't see how that translates into warrantless surveillance.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
I agree with you about what the holding of Hamdi said. I read through the entire decision. One of the things they talk about in determining that the US was entitled to detain him was that at the time he was detained, Hamdi was actively fighting against the US and by detaining him, the US prevents him from going back out there and fighting with us, or something to that effect. It was under that kind of analysis that the Court determined that the language of the AUMF allowed Hamdi to be detained. I just don't see how that translates into warrantless surveillance.
It doesnt. These guys are more nuanced than John Kerry.:lol:
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
aps said:
Sorry--wrong again. They left it up for the president to define? Okaaaaaaaaay. In the Supreme Court's holding in Hamdi, the Court allowed the detention of Hamdi as falling within the meaning of "all necessary and appropriate force." "Force" involves actual force--not wiretapping. Again, do some research on this issue.
Tell me again where are the inherent war powers of the Judicial branch located in the Constitution? That's what I thought. Not to mention that the Hamdi case didn't define the terms of force anyways and that the Judiciary has no business defining the legislatures intent in the first place , the Congress left the definition of Force to be left up to the President, wire tapping certainly does fall into the concept of using force against AlQaeda. That's like saying that the president isn't allowed to use the logistical aspects of the U.S. military because technically that's not a use of force it's intelligence gathering, you're playing semantics here. The Congress didn't define what they meant by force for a reason they wanted to leave it up to the President to decide what was necessary and what was appropriate, wire tapping terrorists seems to me both necessary and appropriate.
 
Last edited:

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Tell me again where are the inherent war powers of the Judicial branch located in the Constitution? That's what I thought.
That's your argument? I'm unimpressed.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
aps said:
That's your argument? I'm unimpressed.
Oh I edited it.

Tell me again where are the inherent war powers of the Judicial branch located in the Constitution? That's what I thought. Not to mention that the Hamdi case didn't define the terms of force anyways and that the Judiciary has no business defining the legislatures intent in the first place , the Congress left the definition of Force to be left up to the President, wire tapping certainly does fall into the concept of using force against AlQaeda. That's like saying that the president isn't allowed to use the logistical aspects of the U.S. military because technically that's not a use of force it's intelligence gathering, you're playing semantics here. The Congress didn't define what they meant by force for a reason they wanted to leave it up to the President to decide what was necessary and what was appropriate, wire tapping terrorists seems to me both necessary and appropriate.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Oh I edited it.

Tell me again where are the inherent war powers of the Judicial branch located in the Constitution? That's what I thought. Not to mention that the Hamdi case didn't define the terms of force anyways and that the Judiciary has no business defining the legislatures intent in the first place , the Congress left the definition of Force to be left up to the President, wire tapping certainly does fall into the concept of using force against AlQaeda. That's like saying that the president isn't allowed to use the logistical aspects of the U.S. military because technically that's not a use of force it's intelligence gathering, you're playing semantics here. The Congress didn't define what they meant by force for a reason they wanted to leave it up to the President to decide what was necessary and what was appropriate, wire tapping terrorists seems to me both necessary and appropriate.
When Congress does not define a particular word, it's not left up to the president as to what the definition of force should be. Where do you get that from? From Trajan's book of statute interpretation? The judiciary will always attempt to determine what Congress's intent was when drafting legislation. Congress has used the word "force" previously, and it has always involved "physical force."

You can claim I am playing semantics, but what do you think interpreting statutes and intent behind statutes involves? There are other issues involved here, Trajan, such as when Congress passed FISA, it indicated that such law was the "exclusive means" for conducting surveillance. The passage of the "force" language does not repeal FISA. That goes against legal docrines. But I won't get into that here.

I am just not buying that warrantless wiretapping can be considered "force."
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aps said:
I am just not buying that warrantless wiretapping can be considered "force."
You are quite right to no do so, IMO. But, you cannot deny that the SC equated the AUMF with the executive branch employing all "fundamental and accepted" incidents of war as to be an exercise of the “necessary and appropriate force” Congress has authorized the President to use. Or, you can simply allege that the SC was wrong and you are right?

aps said:
what do you think interpreting statutes and intent behind statutes involves?
That is a major responsibility of the SC as ultimate arbiter of what is and what is not constitutional.

aps said:
when Congress passed FISA, it indicated that such law was the "exclusive means" for conducting surveillance. The passage of the "force" language does not repeal FISA.
Did you read the entire thing? If you did, you'll recall the proviso in FISA concerning "except as authorized by statute"? The AUMF, consistent with the Hamdi decision, constitutes that authorizing statute.

aps said:
I just don't see how that translates into warrantless surveillance.
What could be clearer? Signals intelligence is a fundamental part of waging war. In Hamdi, the SC clearly stated that the AUMF authorized the administration to engage in all activies 'fundamental and incident' to waging war. One can hardly call the SC statements nuance - couldn't be any more clear than that.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
aps said:
When Congress does not define a particular word, it's not left up to the president as to what the definition of force should be. Where do you get that from? From Trajan's book of statute interpretation? The judiciary will always attempt to determine what Congress's intent was when drafting legislation. Congress has used the word "force" previously, and it has always involved "physical force."

You can claim I am playing semantics, but what do you think interpreting statutes and intent behind statutes involves? There are other issues involved here, Trajan, such as when Congress passed FISA, it indicated that such law was the "exclusive means" for conducting surveillance. The passage of the "force" language does not repeal FISA. That goes against legal docrines. But I won't get into that here.

I am just not buying that warrantless wiretapping can be considered "force."
In normal legislation you're right it's the judiciary who determines what legislation means but this was not normal legislation it was a Joint Resolution of Congress granting the President the war powers and the Judiciary has no inherent war powers it is the congress and the President that do, so if this wire tapping case is brought any further it will not be brought to the Supreme Court it will be tried through congressional hearings just like the impeachment proceedings.

Not to mention that FISA act was never meant to apply to these circumstances anyways the problem is that people keep misinterpreting the FISA act in a way to make it appear broader than it actually is.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
All necessary force includes all necessary actions taken to defeat AlQaeda, all appropriate is relative, all necessary is not. Furthermore; in the resolution the Congress made no attempt to specify the definition of the terms all necessary and appropriate force, and instead left that up to the Presidents perogative.
you are a broken record. "Necessary" and "appropriate" are BOTH subjective and BOTH (because of the word "and") MUST be taken each time. Now, since CONGRESS wrote the law CONGRESS, not the President, gets to decide what they meant by "appropriate." I would surmise congress would not believe violation of congressional acts are "apprioriate."

harp on how "necessary" is was, but the terms are not in isolation, and anything necessary must also always be appropriate, according to social custom, law, and congressional record.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
In normal legislation you're right it's the judiciary who determines what legislation means but this was not normal legislation it was a Joint Resolution of Congress granting the President the war powers and the Judiciary has no inherent war powers it is the congress and the President that do, so if this wire tapping case is brought any further it will not be brought to the Supreme Court it will be tried through congressional hearings just like the impeachment proceedings.

Not to mention that FISA act was never meant to apply to these circumstances anyways the problem is that people keep misinterpreting the FISA act in a way to make it appear broader than it actually is.
That is a completely bogus argument. In 2003, Bush legally tried to obtain more power under the FISA act, power which he was not allowed to get. This raised such a firestorm, that Bush dropped the request. Also, at the time Bush attempted to legally aquire these powers, he knew that doing this on his own was breaking the law.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
You are quite right to no do so, IMO. But, you cannot deny that the SC equated the AUMF with the executive branch employing all "fundamental and accepted" incidents of war as to be an exercise of the “necessary and appropriate force” Congress has authorized the President to use. Or, you can simply allege that the SC was wrong and you are right?
As I stated above, oldreliable, the Supreme Court provided a detailed rationale for why they determined that the "force" provision allowed the US to detain Hamdi. Again, they talk about how he was actively fighting against the US and that by detaining him, the purpose was to prevent him from going back out and fighting against us. They are discussing "physical force." And they indicated in Hamdi that they were narrowly interpreting the "force" clause.


Did you read the entire thing? If you did, you'll recall the proviso in FISA concerning "except as authorized by statute"? The AUMF, consistent with the Hamdi decision, constitutes that authorizing statute.
Yes I did. Did you read that entire portion of FISA? It allows the president to conduct warrantless wiretapping for the first 15 days "following a declaration of war by the Congress." Do you think that it would have provided a limit if it was going to allow him limitless warrantless wiretapping? NOPE. It doesn't work that way. In the legislative history, Congress explained that if the president needed further warrantless surveillance, he could ask for an amendement to FISA, which, of course, he failed to do.


What could be clearer? Signals intelligence is a fundamental part of waging war. In Hamdi, the SC clearly stated that the AUMF authorized the administration to engage in all activies 'fundamental and incident' to waging war. One can hardly call the SC statements nuance - couldn't be any more clear than that.
See my answer above. In your quote above, you even included the language of how limited their holding was to this factual setting. It possible that they could determine that signals intelligence is a fundamental part of waging war; however, the AUMF cannot repeal FISA unless it states such or if there is "overwhelming evidence," which I doubt exists, particularly when Congress stated specifically that FISA was the "exclusive means" by which surveillance would be conducted.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Calm2Chaos said:
I guess I am not understanding peoples desire to hamstring our government. If this has the ability (Which it does) to catch peoples in the act of planning or carrying out a terrorist attack, then whats the major issue. Is it you would rather see the explosion, or just a desire to see something else go wrong. Or is it that your your individula rights are more valubale then that of the whole?
Becuase, though presidents have long enjoyed the use of National Security concerns, things came to a head after a long series of abuses of power with Nixon, so Congress decided to excercise their explicit consitutional authority to make rules and regulations of the armed Services, and to make laws for the government.

See this authority of the President's has been abused, certainly abused, for political and economic interests. What Congress did, using it's legal and consitutional authority, was narrow the scope to which there is legal use of communications intercepts, and it explicitly restricted communication intercepts in manners when US persons are involved, in order to prevent Political and Economic espionage. However, they did allow for a very reasonable degree of latitude and incorporate mechanisms to allow the attorney General to authorize wiretaps before a warrant could be procured, in the even of an emergency.

This is not a "new issue" for the American Public nor the Government. This is a continuation of decades worth of history that has shown abuse of power for political and economic interests, with no impact on national security.

President's have lied in the past about how they were using and needed this power. That's why this President can not be trusted with it, and has had it restricted since 1978.
 
Top Bottom