• 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.

Tom Daschle on Meet the Press on Sunday

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Did anyone watch this yesterday? It was very interesting. Russert talked about an op-ed piece that Daschle had written in December 2005. I must have missed it.

In his op-ed, Daschle states that on the evening of September 12, 2001, "the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to 'deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States.'" He states that Congress felt this wording was too broad and "ill defined" and that Congress chose the words that are currently under the authorization statute. Daschle pointed out that Congress chose to NOT give the president more expansive powers in coming up with this language. He added that after this language was chosen by Congress, the president came back and wanted to change it to allow him the following authorization: "'all necessary and appropriate force in the United States and against those nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided' the attacks of Sept. 11." Daschle says he refused to allow those additional words in.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201101_pf.html

So for those who say that AUMF provided the president to conduct warrantless wiretaps, I think your argument has been further debunked (of course assuming that Daschle is telling the truth).
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
Did anyone watch this yesterday? It was very interesting. Russert talked about an op-ed piece that Daschle had written in December 2005. I must have missed it.

In his op-ed, Daschle states that on the evening of September 12, 2001, "the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to 'deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States.'" He states that Congress felt this wording was too broad and "ill defined" and that Congress chose the words that are currently under the authorization statute. Daschle pointed out that Congress chose to NOT give the president more expansive powers in coming up with this language. He added that after this language was chosen by Congress, the president came back and wanted to change it to allow him the following authorization: "'all necessary and appropriate force in the United States and against those nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided' the attacks of Sept. 11." Daschle says he refused to allow those additional words in.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201101_pf.html

So for those who say that AUMF provided the president to conduct warrantless wiretaps, I think your argument has been further debunked (of course assuming that Daschle is telling the truth).
Of course. This is the main reason why Arlen Specter said that the Bush administration's using the AUMF as a reason to spy on Americans was a stretch.
 
Top Bottom