Alberto Gonzales Sets the Record Straight on Surveillance

It is going to take more than someone saying the courts approve of the program. We are actually going to have to see the case they are referring to, and be able to read the justices writing on the decision. You are the one lacking valid proof.

Rivkin and Casey are the ones who are just saying it is, but providing nothing to support their evidence. What the liberals have as evidence is called the United States Constitution.

You have failed to even address the question I put to you about where the oversight and checks and balances are if the warrantless wiretaps of U.S. citizens are legal.

 

Youngstown Sheet and FISA to name just two. Look 'em up, Time_Share.

Myself and others have provided MULTIPLE arguments that you choose to ignore because you have no earthly idea what you are talking about. You are arguing from a point of weakness because all you can do is repeat talking points concocted by others.



I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

You call people liars and then come out with this? THIS IS A LIE!!!!

If not, please cite the case and decision and provide a link to the majority opinion.

Thanks in advance.

 

OK, let's. Except this time, someone other than you gets to make the other case since you seem completely unable to even begin to grasp the arguments.

American case: The president has engaged in behavior that is specifically prohibited by a law passed in 1978.

These are both lies. Nobody, not even Gonzalez, ahs cited even a single case where any federal judge has ruled in favor of this program. In fact, when a judge was made aware that information from warrantless wiretaps was used to get a warrant, she was "furious" as a result. See the article above.

No, the section in the AUMF that would have given Bush this power was EXCLUDED because Congress did not want to give him so much power. How is it that Bush can claim a power that was specifically excluded from the AUMF?

Leading to the law passed in 1978 which explicitly prohibits these actions.

Which doesn't matter since legislation has been passed to prohibit it.

Which is supposed to be the trump card for any argument against Bush. If the program is so vital to fighting terror, Bush needs to push for a law that will allow it and overturn the 1978 law which prohibits such actions.


Again, it is no wonder that you continue to run away from a structured debate with me.

 

Yes! Some of us still believe in the rule of law and refuse to **** on the constitution. Unlike some people.

Are you really that dense or can you not read?

 

Hamdi has already been shattered as valid evidence.

Here is the evidence.

www.usconstitution.net/

 

Hamdi?

Laughable.

http://jordan-lfw.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/7/03642/66551

Yes, it's dailykos; but rather than bash it you might open your eyes and read it. (Before you run away.)

Gonzales abuses Hamdi decision
by Pericles
Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 10:36:42 PM PDT

In his testimony today, Attorney General Gonzales repeatedly mentioned the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi case as supporting the administration's warrantless wiretapping program.


Importantly, the Supreme Court has already interpreted the force resolution in the Hamdi case. There the question was whether the president had the authority to detain an American citizen as an enemy combatant and to do so despite a specific statute that said that no American citizen could be detained except as provided by Congress.

A majority of the justices in Hamdi concluded that the broad language of the force resolution gave the president the authority to employ the traditional incidents of waging war. Justice O'Connor explained that these traditional powers include the right to detain enemy combatants and to do so even if they happen to be American citizens.

Not so fast, sir.

Yaser Hamdi, to recap, had been captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and sent to Guantanamo, where it was discovered that he was an American citizen. The administration asserted that it could hold him indefinitely as an enemy combatant.

Superficially, the situation resembles the wiretap case. There is a statute, the Non-Detention Act of 1971, that says Americans can't be detained "except pursuant to an Act of Congress." The administration claimed that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution constituted such an Act, and so it was not violating the Non-Detention Act.

Similarly now, the administration claims it is not violating FISA, because the FISA law makes room for other statutes to authorize what it doesn't authorize. The adminstration again claims the AUMF does the job.

Gonzales even makes Hamdi seem like overkill:

If the detention of an American citizen who fought with Al Qaida is authorized by the force resolution as an incident of waging war, how can it be that merely listening to Al Qaida phone calls into and out of the country in order to disrupt their plots is not?

Just in case we missed it the first time, Senator Sessions repeats this talking point:

Would you not agree that listening on a conversation is less intrusive than putting an American citizen in jail?

Translation: So why should you care if we're listening to your phone calls when the Supreme Court already said we could put you in jail?

Except that it didn't. Here's what Justice O'Connor (writing for the plurality) actually said in Hamdi:


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 [the September 11] 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.

By a 5-4 vote (with Scalia on our side, interestingly enough), the Court thought the AUMF stretched far enough to allow the detention of an American citizen who had carried a gun on a battlefield for our enemies. They didn't allow scooping up Americans by the thousands because two or three of them might be associated with Al Qaeda.

The thousands of Americans who appear to be victims of the administration's warrantless wiretapping have not carried guns for the enemy. The vast majority of them have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. They are not "individuals Congress sought to target in passing the AUMF."

What's more, the Court ruled that Hamdi still had due process rights -- the adminstration could not unlaterally slam the door on him without giving him "a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker." O'Connor allowed that this might happen in a special court, like a military tribunal.

In the wiretap situation, a special court already exists. The whole point of FISA is to provide the "neutral decision-maker" that keeps the government from running roughshod over an individual's rights. So I see nothing in the Hamdi decision to indicate that the Supreme Court would bless the administration's going around FISA.

So yes, the Supreme Court did interpret the force resolution in the Hamdi case. But it didn't interpret it the way Gonzales does.

 

Apparently, you lack the ability to read or to comprehend the written word. I will thank you in advance for providing a point by point rebuttal of my posts in this thread. Until then,

"CONQUISTADOR" CONQUERED

 

If it is such partisan filth you should have problem debunking it. Please address the substance rather than talk about some one's nom de plume.

 

Wouldn't be the first time. Wouldn't even be the first time this week. Probably won't be the last time, or the last time this week, either.

 

The deadline haas passed for you to turn in your homework to me Time_Share. As a result you have failed this thread.

Here is the correct answer to the Youngstown Sheet question:

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer (the Steel Seizure case) (1952)

Relevant Facts: The country was at war with Korea. The war effort called for more weapons, and they were made from steel. Steel industry demanded an increase for all the extra work it was doing. In relation to some concerns from the Senate, a 3-way dispute broke out between the steel union, the companies and the Government, as the companies didn't want to spend extra monies for the increase, and the Government resisted.

Union announces it was going to strike. President Truman didn't want to invoke the Taft-Hartley Act of '47, the Selective Service Act of '48, or Title II of the Defense Production Act of 1950, which all gave the executive branch extensive authority to regulate wages, settle disputes and run the shops if it had to. And that's what Truman did, as he authorized Sec. of Commerce Sawyer to take possession of the steel industry and keep the mills operating to provide goods for a national emergency. Arguments come to this Court.

Issue: Under constitutional law, does the President of the United States have executive power to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to seize the nation's steel mills when he uses the war powers, executive authority vested in him in article 2 of the constitution, or any implied powers gleaned therein?

Holding: No. Although the separation of powers is more blurred then definite in scope and action, the President has no such explicit or implicit authority in which to enact such action.

Court's Rationale/Reasoning: Mills say this act should've been done by the legislature. The Government says they were tying to avoid a national crisis. There is no explicit statute or act (of Congress) which authorizes the President to act in such a manner. The only 2 statutes which authorize acquiring personal and real property are not met here. Not only are they unauthorized, but Congress refused to act in such a manner to begin with, in regards to Taft-Hartley's legislative history. Congress wanted to ensure a process of mediation and investigation of claims, and their issue in public reports.

If the President could do this, it would have to found somewhere explicitly in the Constitution, or implicitly in some historical context or foundation. The reliance is the rule stated (below), but has nothing to do with the "war powers." It would not be faithful to the constitutional system. Nor is there any constitutional provision which grants such an action either. Article I, however, clearly spells out who has such responsibility: Congress.

The President cannot order policy; he can only suggest it, to which Congress can then legislate upon it. Congress can approve any proposal for regulation, policy, settlement of disputes, wages, and working conditions. None of this is delegated to the President. This may have happened in this past, but this doesn't mean the right to limit this extension of authority is not available. A textual approach of the Constitution says the President's powers are curbed in this extension.

Rule: Section 1 of Article II. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Section 2 of Article II of Constitution: "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."

Concurring: (Justice Frankfurter):Traditional ways give meaning to the text. FDR's actions during the Great Depression resulted in all sorts of extensions of the executive authority, but his authority was not violative, as 3 laws were already enacted by Congress when FDR enacted his policy, and 6 more were only enacted after Congress declared war, thereby falling under the "war powers."

(Justice Jackson): There is no definite proof from authority on this issue; stuff has to be gleaned from previous actions. Since government is not definite, and sometimes the three areas blend in with one another, there are three general areas which executive authority work with other powers:

1. When President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress.

2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority. When this is the case, the test depends on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.

3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, this is the lowest level he can extend his authority.

This is a category three action. If the US's commander-in-chief argument is applied, then the executive branch could use its authority over any business/industry under the guise of the relatedness. If their inherent powers are accepted, this Court is essentially making up law. There still is a distinction between the President's paper powers and his real powers, but the Court here will not stretch to such a level where his implied powers are so great. The President is supposed to be checked.

 

Here is the deal, as it turns out, contrary to the mournful screams of liberals, "Bush's wiretaps" were (and remain) completely justified by law. This is an example of a national security success.

I looked up the communication section relevant to the issue and it is as follows (Just do a search for USSID 18):

Under Section 4 of USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court...; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."

Is that correct?...Whoa, the Attorney General is on equal approval footing of the FISA court as it is lawfully written.

Something else about USSID 18, that is noteworthy!

USSID 18 goes on to allow NSA to gather intelligence about a U.S. person outside the United States even without Attorney General sanction in emergencies "when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because...the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security."

It is a clear and present danger that FISA, has been misrepresented by liberals far and wide, and they hark like piggly-wiggly-parrots that the danger amounts to the Attorney General of bypassing the FISA court. This obviously makes sense, since it would be virtually impossible for the government to go before the FISA court every time a terrorist made a telephone call in which someone in the United States was a participant.

These facts are terribly simple. All the neo-liberals who are ranting and raving about illegality has neither the facts (most of which we don't know) or the law and regulations (which weigh heavily in favor of legality) on their side.

The sad thing is the neo-libs continue to kvetch about nonexistent violations of civil liberties. Why do the neo-libbys ignore USSID 18 (abovementioned)?.

O yea,...USSID 18 justifies — at least in part — the actions of President Bush, the NSA, and Attorney General Gonzales.

And admit it, you can't stand it, can you?. You cower in a huddle and make noise, but like Gore, ...don't really say anything

Democrats have done worse is not the best argument — but let's not forget this reality... We should also not forget to read laws before we accuse people of breaking them.

 

ROX I'll ask the same question that I've been asking TJ for three days. Maybe you can answer it.

Can you explain to us lowly liberals why the republicans in congress refused to grant Bush the specific ability to circumvent wiretapping laws in the AUMF?

And if what you say is true about USSID 18, that Gonzales has the power to circumvent FISA, then why would the administration try and convince congress that they needed to have that clause in the AUMF in the first place?

[edit] ROX can you provide a link to your post? thanks

 

That is an interesting point Roxran and I'm wondering why Gonzales or the Admin didn't cite that in their stated arguments since in the letter that you posted along with what I heard of Gonzales' testimony I don't recall the argument that the AG is on equal footing with the FISA court coming up.

I will try to look up that issue when I have some more time.

 

Saving you the trouble S-chang....

ROXRAN - USSID 18 is NOT a statute, it is merely an internal guidebook, and is PWNED by the law of the land, FISA, as well as the Constitution of the United States, something ANY first year law student could tell you, and which you would know if you looked it up yourself as you claim. This is one reason why this argument is DOA and was not seriously made by the President's personal helpers - oh, I mean the AG's office.

Second, I somehow doubt that you looked up Section 18 yourself - I think you looked up a right wing blog like this one:

http://caribpundit.com/archive/2005/12/19

which copies a passage from an article in conservative rag the American Spectator - which paraphrases USSID 18 in the same way YOU did in your post word-for-word.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9169

However, that paraphrasing is not really accurate anyway, as portions of USSID remain classified, so it is impossible to interpret just what it meant
Read it for yourself: (for real this time, not fake like before)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB23/07-11.htm
(Again, however, this assumes it has binding legal effect over FISA in this instance, which it does not.)

So - ROXRAN - stop being such a fraud. It's ok if you link to or copy a blog or article, but don't pretend like you did the research yourself. It makes you look like a fool - particularly when you're plagiarizing research which is wrong anyway.

 

is this your way of setting the record straight?

pretending that you did some "research"

just post the link to the actual blog where you copied this from..

 

That sounds interesting too but not that I don't trust you or Roxran when I have more that half an hour to spare I think I will take a look into it myself.

 

Trust me, I know what I'm doing



But seriously, ROXRAN - putting aside the plagiarism issue - and the argument ripped out of wing nut Bible the American Spectator, is completely bogus. Even if we knew what it said, the NSA guidebook linked to above is of limited to zero value - and certainly doesn't trump FISA and the Constitution. Don't ask me, ask the NSA itself:

http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/standards.html

Your initial suspicions were correct - there's a reason why this wing nut argument isn't found in any of the Admin's purported official defenses - it's complete dogsh-t. It's the Ryan Bowen of justifications.