Barron's [subscription required] editorial calls for Congress to consider impeachment Barron's editorial page editor Thomas G. Donlan penned a column for Monday's edition entitled "Unwarranted Executive Power" which calls on members of the House Judiciary Committee to investigate if the Bush Administration violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and to either change the law or consider impeachment, RAW STORY has learned. Barron's Magazine is a weekly publication for investors published by the Wall Street Journal. Excerpts from the subscriber only editorial: ...Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. The president has no powers except those specified in the Constitution and those enacted by law. President Bush is stretching the power of commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy by indicating that he can order the military and its agencies, such as the National Security Agency, to do whatever furthers the defense of the country from terrorists, regardless of whether actual force is involved. Surely the "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary eventually will point out what a stretch this is. The most important presidential responsibility under Article II is that he must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That includes following the requirements of laws that limit executive power. There's not much fidelity in an executive who debates and lobbies Congress to shape a law to his liking and then goes beyond its writ. Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment. # The rest of the editorial can be read by WSJ subscribers at this link. http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Barrons_editorial_calls_for_Congress_to_1224.html
What is lost in all this Bush-hating impeachment talk is the motivations behind the wiretapping that was done. The motivation behind Bush's moves were to protect the nation. There can be no other explanation. Clinton on the other hand, was motivated to lie under oath to save his hide from his self-indulgent spree in the Oval Office. That's what is lost in all of this. Bush did what he did because he thought it was in the best interest of the nation. (putting aside whether it was Constitutional, which it was, and the fact that this has been done for decades) Bush's intentions were good -- and if the liberals think they have a chance to impeach him in Congress.... well ... good luck with that.
No other explanation except that this administration has constantly worked to increase the power of the executive branch. It's been a power grab since day one. This is no different. Cheney Upholds Power of the Presidency http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22190-2005Jan19.html The vice president has been at the forefront of an effort by the Bush White House to promote an expansive view of presidential power by frequently invoking constitutional principle in refusing to hand over documents to Congress or allowing administration officials to testify before congressional committees. The White House, for example, initially refused a request by the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks to allow national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify, on the grounds that it would erode the separation of powers between the executive branch. Eventually the White House relented, and she testified. Cheney himself has been in the middle of a controversy over shielding the internal workings of the 2001 energy task force he headed. Public interest groups sued to be allowed to examine the task force's records, but the case has been tied up in the courts. Cheney said that the "low point" of presidential power occurred at the beginning of Gerald R. Ford's presidency and that "over time" it has been restored, despite such challenges as the Iran-contra investigation under President Ronald Reagan, which Cheney characterized as an attempt to "criminalize a policy difference" between the president and Congress. "I think, in fact, there has been over time a restoration, if you will, of the power and authority of the president," Cheney said. Cheney was especially critical of anything that would undermine the president's powers as commander in chief. He said he agrees with many who believe the War Powers Act, which was passed in 1973 and attempts to restrict the president's use of military force, is "unconstitutional," though that has not been fully tested in the courts. "That made a change in the institutional arrangements that I don't think is healthy," the vice president said. "I don't think you should restrict the president's authority to deploy military forces because of the Vietnam experience."
he might use the same logic to convince himself that Hitler did what he thought was the 'right' things for his nation. I would trust the constition way more than Bush and company's judgement.
TJ, I don't WANT that type of protection, and the constitution....PROTECTS US from that type of tyranny. If they impeach Bush...so be it....the country would be better off....and ironically...MUCH more secure. DD
You don't think we should eavesdrop on al Qaeda when given the opportunity? This is the type of sacrifice we'll have to make when fighting against terrorists. We can not afford to be wrong. We have to trust that the authorities will use it with the correct motivations in mind, which in this case they did (snooping on al Qaeda).
so why did he did not get the warrant retroactively? you want to talk about article 2 again? you were everyones' biatch in that other thread..
VL, Why should he have to? He is acting with the full authorization of the Congress and the Constitution. Article 2, granting clause. Please, I never even returned to that thread after I presented the evidence right in your face and everyone else's yet they denied it. They asked for proof, I provided it, they denied it. Incredible. The libs only are able to read what they want to hear apparently...
are you saying he does not have to retroactively get the warrant even if the law says he should? FULL authorization from congress and the constitution? yeah according to Bush and Cheney who are masters of circumventing the law to justify their unjust actions.. not even Gonzales will make a statement to that extent..
Not if it means tying the hands to ask permission to untie the hands from a distant blind guy when dealing with Al Qaeda on the move...
What if it means spying on anyone randomly in the hopes of catching something? anything? ----------------- Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 - The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials. The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said. As part of the program approved by President Bush for domestic surveillance without warrants, the N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications, the officials said. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html?pagewanted=print
Don't any of you find it the least bit ironic that the release of this story by the New York Times just so happened to be at the exact same time as the elections in Iraq were recording a landslide of success? Where were the cries for impeachment when Bill Clinton was selling military secrets to China and North Korea for campaign contributions and political favors?
The Department of Justice Memo, Debunked The Department of Justice has released a memo defending President Bush’s warrantless domestic spying argument. There are two main arguments: 1) Any limitations FISA places on the President’s authority to issue warrantless domestic searches are unconstitutional, and 2) Congress gave the President authority to issue warrantless domestic searches It doesn’t seem like the DOJ has their heart in the first argument. They devote just two paragraphs out of a five page memo to this point. Most of that space is filled by caselaw decided before FISA even became law, making it largely irrelevant since FISA speaks directly to warrantless spying on Americans and declares it illegal. Like other defenders of the President’s program, they place considerable emphasis on a 2002 decision by the FISA Court of Appeals. There are two important things to remember about that case: - The FISA appeals court explicitly says it’s not addressing the issue (”It was incumbent upon the [Truong] court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority [to conduct warrantless searches]…The question before us is the reverse…”) - The FISA appeals court acknowledges the cases it mentions were decided before FISA and didn’t consider the statute (”We reiterate that Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance…it had no occasion to consider the application of the statute…”) In other words, there is a reason that the DOJ is giving short shrift to this argument. There is little evidence to substantiate it. The rest of the memo is devoted to arguing that the 9/18/01 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against al-Qaeda authorized the President’s actions. This argument doesn’t hold water either: 1. The administration tried to get language inserted into the AUMF that would have authorized them to take actions “in the United States.” They failed. [Tom Daschle, 12/23/05] 2. Federal law says that “exclusive means” to conduct electronic surveillance is FISA and Title III (which governs the use of wiretaps by law enforcement). Relying on the AUMF, the administration concedes that neither of those two statutes were used. Federal law says that any surveillance that is not conducted under those two statues is illegal. [18 U.S.C. 2551(2)(f); 50 U.S.C. 1809(a)] 3. FISA has a limited exception that allows warrantless domestic wiretaps after a war is declared, but it only lasts 15 days. The Bush administration program has been going on for more than four years. [50 U.S.C. 1811] The Justice Department advances two theories about why Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program was legal and both of them fail. The truth is simple: the program was illegal because it violated federal criminal law. http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/23/doj-memo-debunked/
It was also 2 days before Christmas when no one is paying attention to the news. What's your point? Oh and as its turning out, the Iraqi elections might not be the landslide success we are hoping for. The US, UN, and Iraqi Election commissions are now looking at fraud allegations and the major minority parties are planning to protest the election results and demand a new election. There's still a lot to be determined there before we can say it was or wasn't a success.
I suppose you've heard the phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I'll give GW Bush the benefit of the doubt that he thought he was doing the right thing but so have many others that have resorted in massive abuses of power. FDR thought he was doing the right thing when he tried to pack the court, J. Edgar Hoover always believed he was doing the right thing by spying on American citizens. The problem is that we have a rule of law rather than a rule by individuals. What you seem to be asking for is a benevolent dictatorship where the President is free to do what he wants as long as his motivations are good. The United States has never been about that and is why our system has so many checks and balances as it does. I would suggest you go back and read the Federalists Papers and other writings by the Founders to understand why a President is still bound by the law.
