# Clinton and Aldrich Ames **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 28, 2005, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396 "2005-12-28T03:23:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/21 "2005-12-28T05:01:53Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Hmmm. After 9/11 wasn’t there a resolution by Congress to authorize the President to do what was necessary to pursue Al Quaeda? [The 9/14/01 resolution authorized only military force:](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html) > [@](#): > > SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. > This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force’. > > SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. > (a) IN GENERAL- 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 September 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- > > (1) 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. > > (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/22 "2005-12-28T05:03:16Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There is no threat to the nation. Your hypothetical does not apply. You’re creating an imaginary crisis. Terrorism, Al Quaeda and 9/11 are imaginary? > [@](#): > > Even so, my answer would be that President needs to follow court orders. The Executive Branch is not autonomous. It sounds like you want an activist presidency where legislative and judical checks do not apply. We just overthrew a government like that. I am not arguing for the unchecked autonomy of an individual. Partly this is why I feel that such decisions belong in the hands of an elected official rather than an appointed judge. It sounds to me like you’re suggesting that the legal branch supersedes the executive branch. I don’t think that was the founders’ intent. They are supposed to be equal. In cases of National Security it appears to me that the executive branch prevails as this is its specific charge. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/23 "2005-12-28T05:05:40Z")
Elvis: Another good link. You’re on a roll. Is monitoring enemy signals intelligence a part of the authorized Presidential war powers? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/24 "2005-12-28T05:12:25Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Terrorism, Al Quaeda and 9/11 are imaginary? 9/11 is a memory. There is no similar threat on the horizon. If the monkey wants to claim that there is, let him prove it. > [@](#): > > I am not arguing for the unchecked autonomy of an individual. Partly this is why I feel that such decisions belong in the hands of an elected official rather than an appointed judge. The Constitution feels differently. > [@](#): > > It sounds to me like you’re suggesting that the legal branch supersedes the executive branch. How so? I’m not asking for any Executive powers to be handed to the Judicial Branch. > [@](#): > > I don’t think that was the founders’ intent. Well that’s how they wrote it down. Should we adopt a new legal standard according to “what Scylla thinks was the founders’ intent?” > [@](#): > > They are supposed to be equal. Exactly. > [@](#): > > In cases of National Security it appears to me that the executive branch prevails as this is its specific charge. I’m suggesting that each branch of government respect the powers and checks assigned to them by the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that says those delineations go away “in cases of National Security.” You are citing an imaginary loophole. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/25 "2005-12-28T05:13:36Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Elvis: > > Another good link. You’re on a roll. > > Is monitoring enemy signals intelligence a part of the authorized Presidential war powers? We’re not at war. We have no defined “enemy.” ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/26 "2005-12-28T05:29:10Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > We’re not at war. We have no defined “enemy.” Thats not true at all. Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda are as much of an enemy as any beligerent nation. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/27 "2005-12-28T05:33:39Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Thats not true at all. Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda are as much of an enemy as any beligerent nation. Practically true, but not **legally** so unless Congress so declares. Or you get to the point where Nixon was, where the Democratic Party becomes “the enemy.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/28 "2005-12-28T05:34:19Z")
But wiretapping is not “military force” either, nor did the resolution in any way supersede any part of the War Powers Act. Psst, Scylla, it ain’t hard at all. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/29 "2005-12-28T05:35:55Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > [This it, Poly? Truman’s seizure of the steel mills to prevent a wartime strike?](http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/12/20/spying/) That’s the beast. Note that Truman’s justification was an almost exact duplicate of what Bush’s supporters say is his: that we were in a state of undeclared war (Korea) and his actions were necessary for the national security. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/30 "2005-12-28T05:41:48Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I agree, but it’s actually a complex problem to figure out what applies here. > > The court scannot, for example, pass a law that outlaws congress and the Presidency and passes all power to judges. > > They cannot pass a law outlawing Congress’ athority to declare war. It is an inherent constitutional power of Congress. > > If as Gorelick argues the President has the “inherent power” to order searches than the court system cannot supersede that power. > > Indeed, it seems to make sense in the tradittion of the founders’ intent which was to have seperate systems of checks and balances. It seems to me pretty clear that the President has war powers and the responsibility to defend the country from threats, not the courts. > > At the same time the courts have the responsibility to uphold our civil liberties. It appears to me to be a direct conflict. > > Let’s look at a hypothetical and you tell me what you think: > > Let’s say the President feels that Osama Bin Laden is hiding in a house in Long Island. > > Let us say that the President feels the evidence that he is there is compelling, so he decides to seek a warrant rather than exercise his “inherent athority (provided such still exists”) > > The judge though is obstinate and refuses to grant a warrant. > > The President decides that the risk to the Nation is so great that the opportunity to catch OBL cannot be passed up and that his Constitutional athority to protect the Nation as it’s elected Commander in Chief supersedes the athority of a single appointed judge to refuse a warrant. > > The President asks you your opinion. > > What do you tell him? The courts cannot “pass a law” under any circumstances. They **interpret** the law, including the Constitution. And the President does not have the “inherent power” to order searches. Review the Fourth Amendment. There’s also justification for unwarrantless searches under certain circumstances, and the one you’ve outlined (assuming that Bush’s staff haven’t been passing him what they want him to hear again, and the evidence is sufficiently overwhelming as to justify “probable cause”) would fall into that category. Legal eagles, tell me if I’m wrong on this. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/31 "2005-12-28T05:43:13Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Thats not true at all. Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda are as much of an enemy as any beligerent nation. Not unless Congress formally declares it. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/32 "2005-12-28T05:44:00Z")
The pertinent part of my last post should read: > [@Polycarp](#): > > There’s also justification for warrantless searches under certain circumstances… There’s no justification for “unwarrantless” (searches or otherwise), irregardless of the circumstances! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/33 "2005-12-28T05:44:18Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Practically true, but not **legally** so unless Congress so declares. Or you get to the point where Nixon was, where the Democratic Party becomes “the enemy.” No this is not true. In [[Bas v. Tingy :: 4 U.S. 37 (1800) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center](http://www.justia.us/us/4/37/case.html)](Bas v Tingy) France was found to be an enemy despite an absence of a declaration of war by Congress. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/34 "2005-12-28T05:46:51Z")
> [@treis](#): > > No this is not true. In [[Bas v. Tingy :: 4 U.S. 37 (1800) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center](http://www.justia.us/us/4/37/case.html)](Bas v Tingy) France was found to be an enemy despite an absence of a declaration of war by Congress. Stupid coding: [Bas v Tingy](http://www.justia.us/us/4/37/case.html) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/35 "2005-12-28T05:52:39Z")
> [@treis](#): > > No this is not true. In [[Bas v. Tingy :: 4 U.S. 37 (1800) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center](http://www.justia.us/us/4/37/case.html)](Bas v Tingy) France was found to be an enemy despite an absence of a declaration of war by Congress. Your citing a 205 year old case? You must be kidding. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/36 "2005-12-28T05:54:16Z")
By the way, can anyone prove that everyone (or ANYone) that Bush spied on was actually part of _al Qaeda_? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/37 "2005-12-28T05:55:21Z")
No, I am not kidding. The situation with France, i.e. open undeclared warfare, is no different from what just happened in Iraq. Unless you have a more recent cite that overrules Bas then I see no reason why, besides of course that it proves you wrong, you should not accept it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/38 "2005-12-28T06:01:25Z")
> [@treis](#): > > No, I am not kidding. The situation with France, i.e. open undeclared warfare, is no different from what just happened in Iraq. Unless you have a more recent cite that overrules Bas then I see no reason why, besides of course that it proves you wrong, you should not accept it. Your 205 year old case was a narrow decision which applied only to a specific situation between the US and France in 1800. In what way do you believe this case is applicable to _al Qaeda_? In what way does it justify the president spying on Americans? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/39 "2005-12-28T06:07:29Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Your 205 year old case was a narrow decision which applied only to a specific situation between the US and France in 1800. In what way do you believe this case is applicable to _al Qaeda_? Becuase its nearly an identical situation. If you would just read the case you would see that paragraphs like: > [@](#): > > It is, however, more particularly urged, that the word ‘enemy’ cannot be applied to the French; because the section in which it is used, is confined to such a state of war, as would authorise a re-capture of property belonging to a nation in amity with the United States, and such a state of war, it is said, does not exist between America and France. A number of books have been cited to furnish a glossary on the word enemy; yet, our situation is so extraordinary, that I doubt whether a parallel case can be traced in the history of nations. But, if words are the representatives of ideas, let me ask, by what other word the idea of the relative situation of America and France could be communicated, than by that of hostility, or war? And how can the characters of the parties engaged in hostility or war, be otherwise described than by the denomination of enemies? It is for the honour and dignity of both nations, therefore, that they should be called enemies; for, it is by that description alone, that either could justify or excuse, the scene of bloodshed, depredation and confiscation, which has unhappily occurred; and, surely, congress could only employ the language of the act of June 13, 1798, towards a nation whom she considered as an enemy. If you changed the date to the date of the AUMF, replaced France and French with Al Qaeda and Terrorists does the truth in this paragraph change? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > In what way does it justify the president spying on Americans? I haven’t even made that argument yet. Lets first establish whether or no Al Qaeda and more broadly “The terrorists” can be considered enemies and whether the USA is at war with them. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396/40 "2005-12-28T06:13:00Z")
“The terrorists” is a meaningless word with no definition. No _al Qaeda_ is not an enemy, and no we are not at war with them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-aldrich-ames/337396.md?page=3)