# IS IT IMPEACHMAS YET?Surveillance reserved for overseas?This bug's for you... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 16, 2005, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882 "2005-12-16T07:24:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/221 "2005-12-21T03:46:00Z")
> [@treis](#): > > No there is a difference. Congress makes the laws and once the President approves that law he can not revoke it. Since Congress made the law they have the power to change the law. It is reversed in the case of treaties. It is the President that makes those treaties and the Senate that consents to them. Since the President makes the treaty he has the power to change or void it. My bad. _Goldwater v. Carter_ in 1978 declared that the president can abrogate a treaty without consent from Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/222 "2005-12-21T04:14:24Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > We know there are legal minds out there that think this is OK. Some of them reside in the Bush administration. Does your post mean that you \*\*would \*\*like to bet on the ulitimate legality of this action? 🙂 I’d be happy to be make a bet on this. My bet is that it is illegal. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/223 "2005-12-21T04:42:53Z")
[QUOTE=treis] Why not? The President has the power to make treaties why does he not have the power to declare them void? [quote] I guess the President can abrogate treaties but I don’t think the procedure to do that is to have the military start violating an existing treaty without any prior notice. > [@](#): > > I believe that refers to things like the UMJC not limiting the type of orders the President can issue. The UCMJ governs all acts of members of the military. Even in war no officer including the Commander in Chief can legally issue an illegal command, for example ordering that prisoners be summarily shot. Or an order to mistreat prisoners as was the case at Abu Graihb (sp?) The UCMJ also incorporates the rules for land warfare as determined by various treaties. I think there are no special regulations for when soldiers are in rear areas as distinct from when they are actually engaged in combat. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/224 "2005-12-21T04:50:34Z")
Great balls of fire. Let me straighten out that codng. > [@treis](#): > > Why not? The President has the power to make treaties why does he not have the power to declare them void? I guess the President can abrogate treaties but I don’t think the procedure to do that is to have the military start violating an existing treaty without any prior notice. > [@](#): > > I believe that refers to things like the UMJC not limiting the type of orders the President can issue. The UCMJ governs all acts of members of the military. Even in war no officer including the Commander in Chief can legally issue an illegal command, for example ordering that prisoners be summarily shot. Or an order to mistreat prisoners as was the case at Abu Graihb The UCMJ also incorporates the rules for warfare as determined by various treaties. I think there are no special regulations for when soldiers are in rear areas as distinct from when they are actually engaged in combat. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/225 "2005-12-21T05:19:54Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > I guess the President can abrogate treaties but I don’t think the procedure to do that is to have the military start violating an existing treaty without any prior notice. Who does he have to give notice to? > [@David Simmons](#): > > The UCMJ governs all acts of members of the military. Even in war no officer including the Commander in Chief can legally issue an illegal command, for example ordering that prisoners be summarily shot. Or an order to mistreat prisoners as was the case at Abu Graihb The UCMJ also incorporates the rules for warfare as determined by various treaties. I think there are no special regulations for when soldiers are in rear areas as distinct from when they are actually engaged in combat. Yes I agree that Congress has that power but it doesn’t have the power to make laws regarding how the military can conduct a war. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/226 "2005-12-21T05:35:50Z")
> [@](#): > > A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush’s secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources. > > U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John D. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation. > > Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court’s work. Source: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10538136/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10538136/) The cracks begin to widen. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/227 "2005-12-21T05:38:04Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Who does he have to give notice to? Beats the shit out of me, sir, but I would think that secretly ordering the military to start shooting all prisoners because he had secretly decided to no longer follow the rules of the Geneva Convention would cause a bit of a stir. By the way, that “sir” wasn’t to be a smart ass. I was just taken back to the only three permissible answers for an Aviation Cadet. “Yes, sir.” “No, sir.” “Beats the shit out of me, sir.” > [@](#): > > Yes I agree that Congress has that power but it doesn’t have the power to make laws regarding how the military can conduct a war. But it does regulate their detailed activities in implementing the President’s instructions. He cannot, repeat cannot, legally order them to perform acts in violation of the UCMJ in the conduct of that war. _Ergo_ his freedom to conduct a war in any way he wants doesn’t exist. And that’s what started this chain of posts. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/228 "2005-12-21T05:40:41Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Beats the shit out of me, sir, but I would think that secretly ordering the military to start shooting all prisoners because he had secretly decided to no longer follow the rules of the Geneva Convention would cause a bit of a stir. Of course it would. Nonetheless, my reading of the constitution is that the President can ignore treaties especially in regards to military matters. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/229 "2005-12-21T05:57:42Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Of course it would. Nonetheless, my reading of the constitution is that the President can ignore treaties especially in regards to military matters. I think so too. For a more general example of Congress power than battlefield behavior. In WWI the British and French wanted US troops to be incorporated into their formations and be made of part of their military. Pershing refused and kept the US Army separate and under an independent command subject only to consultation with our allies on operations… I believe that had it chosen to do so Congress could have ordered the President to order Pershing to place himself and his army at the disposal of the British and French commanders and to carry out their orders without regard to Pershing’s or Wilson’s ideas on how to conduct the war. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/230 "2005-12-21T06:00:53Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > how much time did they get? > > (those that lived…) Enough. We have a Forum for cheap shots and this is not it. (And it wasn’t sufficiently funny the first time much less double-posting it) [/moderator mode] ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/231 "2005-12-21T07:27:13Z")
apologies for the double post… ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/232 "2005-12-21T07:45:22Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > . > (And it wasn’t sufficiently funny the first time ] It wasn’t bad. And while we’re on the subject, “this bug’s for you” IS funny, dammit. I have previously remarked that this is a tough room–you guys are GRIM ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/233 "2005-12-21T10:18:41Z")
> [@Duckster](#): > > Source: [MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10538136/) > > The cracks begin to widen. This is about the most damning thing you could ask for. Surely this judge is quite well aware of the legality of Bush’s actions and for him to resign in protest speaks volumes of the seriousness of the charges. The comparison between this and the Elliot Richardson resignation of October 1973 is unavoidable. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/234 "2005-12-21T13:47:05Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Nonetheless, my reading of the constitution is that the President can ignore treaties especially in regards to military matters. Your reading of 11 words – “commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States” – somehow gives you the impression that the President can ignore the law of the land? Which words, exactly, lead you to that conclusion? Does this mean you believe that it would be legal for the President of the United States to commit genocide? As in, “Those Iraqis have become too much of a problem. I’m simply going to slaughter them all.” Are you stating that the Constitution gives the President the lawful authority to order our troops begin mass executions? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/235 "2005-12-21T14:51:28Z")
> **[Purely domestic calls were intercepted / Secret surveillance program...](https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Purely-domestic-calls-were-intercepted-Secret-2587100.php)** > > A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers called Tuesday for a Senate investigation into whether... It seems that purely domestic conversations were captured. This suggests strongly that the capturing took place within these United States. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/236 "2005-12-21T17:09:32Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/21/MNGQ6GB5LM1.DTL](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/21/MNGQ6GB5LM1.DTL) > It seems that purely domestic conversations were captured. This suggests strongly that the capturing took place within these United States. Well, that’s clearly a violation of the President’s order, and appears to have been completely accidental. So no crime there. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/237 "2005-12-21T17:18:32Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > BTW, Bricker, whether or not the president had opinions telling him he was within the law is beyond irrelevant. > > This is not a specific intent crime. The Corpus is clear, and mens rea is established in completing the act. There is no requirement that the violation be inspired by an intent to deprive or otherwise derogate civil rights. \ Upon what authority do you rely in saying this isn’t a specific intent crime? The lack of a scienter requirement in the statute means nothing. Show me any authority for the proposition. > [@](#): > > Stop blowing smoke up the laymen’s asses, counselor. > > I’m guessing that you do estates and trusts–better refer out any little criminal pecadillos that your clients mention to you while your word processor drafts their will. Actually, although I no longer practice law, I was a public defender. I did HUNDREDS of criminal trials, thankyouverymuch. > [@alaricthegoth](#): > > how much time did they get? > > (those that lived…) Nice talk for GD. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/238 "2005-12-21T17:22:43Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > This is about the most damning thing you could ask for. Surely this judge is quite well aware of the legality of Bush’s actions and for him to resign in protest speaks volumes of the seriousness of the charges. The comparison between this and the Elliot Richardson resignation of October 1973 is unavoidable. No. Richardson, a Republican, was being ordered to do illegal things by a Republican president. He resigned from his job in protest, a serious action. This judge, a Clinton appointee, has had no direct contact with the actions at issue. He resigned from his appointment to the FISA court, but continues in his JOB as a district court judge. His action is certainyl comment on his strong disapproval of the program, and how its existence weakens the role of the FISA court, but it’s not definitvely a comment on the program’s legality. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/239 "2005-12-21T17:59:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, that’s clearly a violation of the President’s order, and appears to have been completely accidental. So no crime there. Wasn’t the point, Bricker. Someone was suggesting that the calls were being monitored on the far end. The accidental domestic to domestic surveilance suggests it took place over here. It may still be a crime, just not one to pin on Bush… I’m not sure about the hapless agent. I doubt he’d be charged, though. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/240 "2005-12-21T18:20:40Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Wasn’t the point, Bricker. Someone was suggesting that the calls were being monitored on the far end. The accidental domestic to domestic surveilance suggests it took place over here. > > It may still be a crime, just not one to pin on Bush… I’m not sure about the hapless agent. I doubt he’d be charged, though. I agree it probably took place here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882.md?page=13)