# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/161 "2005-12-20T15:02:34Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Evidence justifying serious consideration of impeachment has been on the table for over two and a half years, and the Dems haven’t done jack. For one thing, they didn’t have the power in the face of a whipped, party-before-country majority in the House Judiciary Committee. For another, if they had, it would have looked like partisan sniping, simply payback for the anti-Clinton vendetta. But I agree the Congressional Democratic leadership has been behind the public on this lately. **Bricker** , just for the fun of asking, just how the hell can you claim with a straight face that the phrase “not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress” really means “not to exceed fifteen randomly-selected, even nonconsecutive, days following a decision by a shift supervisor”? You don’t seem to be joking. Compared to that, your stretch that impeachment requires an actual violation of an actual law is almost reasonable, however ungrounded in law or precedent. Perhaps there’s a reason you’re having to argue this brief for the defense all by yourself, with nobody joining in to help? ---
**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 20, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/162 "2005-12-20T15:10:39Z")
I’m glad to see that Bush isn’t a flip-flopper. [From the White House April 2004:](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html) > [@George W Bush](#): > > Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. ---
**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 20, 2005, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/163 "2005-12-20T15:11:38Z")
Just to interject a little irony into this. I found Atty. Gen. Gonzales’ reasoning fascinating. I believe what he said can be fairly summed up as, “Things move so fast these days that we don’t have time to follow legal procedures.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/164 "2005-12-20T15:14:59Z")
“When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.” Hadn’t you heard? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/165 "2005-12-20T15:23:49Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I’m glad to see that Bush isn’t a flip-flopper. [From the White House April 2004:](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html) The President was discussing the Patriot Act, and, specifically, monitoring that was within the United States, which does of course require a warrant. The monitoring at issue now was not done under the auspices of the Patriot Act, but under 50 USC § 1811, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and was used only on international calls, not purely domestic calls. ---
**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 20, 2005, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/166 "2005-12-20T15:29:58Z")
Bricker, what is your definition of a declaration of war? To my knowledge, the US has not done so since WW II. Do you interpret the Iraq resolution as a declaration of war? I interpret it solely as an authorization to use force. Where specifically in the resolution does the US declare war on Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/167 "2005-12-20T15:38:04Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Bricker, what is your definition of a declaration of war? To my knowledge, the US has not done so since WW II. Do you interpret the Iraq resolution as a declaration of war? I interpret it solely as an authorization to use force. Where specifically in the resolution does the US declare war on Iraq? “Declaration of war,” while a specific term of art in the War Powers Resolution, has a much more general meaning in §§1811 - the ordinary dictionary definition of war as a conflict involving the armed forces of a nation. The provisions of §§ 1811 would be an absurdity if they apply only to a formal declaration of war, and not to the large-scale commitment of armed forces, since the reasoning behind both a declaration of war and a large-scale commitment of armed forces is precisely the same insofar as surveillance requirements are concerned. Also, consider al Queda. It’s not a nation. Yet its actions, if committed by a nation, would be an act of war. For this reason, it is reasonable to treat al Queda as a hostile nation-state, although obviously a formal declaration of war is impossible when one party is not actually a nation-state. But in responding to that pseudo-act of war, Congress’ authority to the President is, functionally, precisely what it would have been in case of a actual nation-state declaring war. For this reason as well, within the meaning of §§ 1811 only, Congress’ resolution is the same as a declaration of war. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/168 "2005-12-20T15:44:22Z")
I.e., “a declaration of war by Congress” entails neither a declaration nor Congress. Amazing. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/169 "2005-12-20T18:06:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Declaration of war,” while a specific term of art in the War Powers Resolution, has a much more general meaning in §§1811 - the ordinary dictionary definition of war as a conflict involving the armed forces of a nation. Where do you get that? Sec. 1801, which is the section with the definitions, doesn’t provide one for “declaration of war.” Sorry, but everyone _knows_ what a declaration of war is, and that we haven’t had one since WWII. > [@](#): > > The provisions of §§ 1811 would be an absurdity if they apply only to a formal declaration of war, and not to the large-scale commitment of armed forces, since the reasoning behind both a declaration of war and a large-scale commitment of armed forces is precisely the same insofar as surveillance requirements are concerned. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t this law written _after_ Vietnam? If so, I think we have every right to assume that its authors knew quite well that you could have a damned big war without a declaration of war, and would have made it quite clear that it applied to both kinds if that’s what they meant to say. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/170 "2005-12-20T18:16:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Never before in history has a serious impeachment effort proceeded without alleging a violation of law. Johnson broke the Tenure in Office Act (irrelevantly later found to be unconstitutional), Nixon for obstruction of justice for using federal agency power to derail the investigation into the Watergate burglary, Clinton for perjury. > > What was the actual violation of law two and a half years ago? Wow - a whole three data points. Color me unimpressed. It was never a violation of law for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfie, etc. to repeatedly lie us into this war. [Nor was it a violation of law for them to make essentially no provision in the war plans for dealing with the alleged threat that the war was supposedly about - the WMDs.](http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines03/0511-01.htm) But if you tell the country we’ve got to go to war because Saddam has WMDs that might fall into the hands of the terrorists, and we do nothing to protect the sites purportedly containing those WMDs from being looted by potential terrorists once they’re under our control, it gives the lie to the stated rationale for war. That’s what we’ve known ever since May 11, 2003. It wasn’t a violation of law; it was abuse of power. But Article 2 of the Nixon impeachment articles was an abuse-of-power count. It passed the House Judiciary Committee by 28-10. And they were most emphatically making the point that an impeachment charge did **not** need to be tied to a violation of statute. ---
**Author:** ![Fat\_Chance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8baadc/32.png) [@Fat\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fat_Chance)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/171 "2005-12-20T19:11:15Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] **Bricker** , just for the fun of asking, just how the hell can you claim with a straight face that the phrase “not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress” really means “not to exceed fifteen randomly-selected, even nonconsecutive, days following a decision by a shift supervisor”? You don’t seem to be joking. QUOTE] I have asked Bricker that same question 2 or 3 times in the related Pit thread, and he still won’t answer. He has responded to other parts of my posts, and has repeatedly told me I was wrong, and that his definition of the 15 days is correct, but won’t tell us how he came to that conclusion. The fact is, Bush has basically admitted he broke this part of the law, and will continue to do so. In fact, the administration isn’t even arguing that they haven’t, instead saying the Bush’s inherent role ass Commander in Chief gives him the right to do this, essentially putting him above this law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/172 "2005-12-20T19:13:52Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Where do you get that? Sec. 1801, which is the section with the definitions, doesn’t provide one for “declaration of war.” > > Sorry, but everyone _knows_ what a declaration of war is, and that we haven’t had one since WWII. > > Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t this law written _after_ Vietnam? If so, I think we have every right to assume that its authors knew quite well that you could have a damned big war without a declaration of war, and would have made it quite clear that it applied to both kinds if that’s what they meant to say. Or they could have said, “…a declaration of war as defined in section xxx of the War Powers Resolution.” But since they didn’t say that, they intended it to mean war in the dictionary sense of the use of armed forces, not in the “as opposed to an authorization of force.” Look - I absolutely agree that your interpretation is not unreasonable. It may be entirely correct. But neither is my interpretation entirely unreasonable. Of course Congress can impeach the President for wearing ties that don’t match his suit. But as a matter of realism, they need to allege a clear criminal violation. ---
**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 20, 2005, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/173 "2005-12-20T19:22:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Declaration of war,” while a specific term of art in the War Powers Resolution, has a much more general meaning in §§1811 - the ordinary dictionary definition of war as a conflict involving the armed forces of a nation. Hold on. The statute specifically references a “declaration of war.” There are plenty of statutes that make reference to powers coming into effect during a “time of war” or during a national emergency. 1811 does not say “during time of war” or “during a national emergency.” It says “declaration of war.” (See, for example, 50 USC 191, 50 USC 404(b), the Trading With the Enemy Act, or even 50 USC 1631, 50 USC 1701… I have many more references.) If Title 50 so clearly distinguishes between “time of war” and “declaration of war,” how can you say that the two are interchangable terms? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/174 "2005-12-20T19:29:58Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Hold on. The statute specifically references a “declaration of war.” There are plenty of statutes that make reference to powers coming into effect during a “time of war” or during a national emergency. 1811 does not say “during time of war” or “during a national emergency.” It says “declaration of war.” > > (See, for example, 50 USC 191, 50 USC 404(b), the Trading With the Enemy Act, or even 50 USC 1631, 50 USC 1701… I have many more references.) > > If Title 50 so clearly distinguishes between “time of war” and “declaration of war,” how can you say that the two are interchangable terms? If Title 50 so clearly makes this distinction, why wouldn’t Congress define "time of war? and “national emergency” clearly, and with reference to the War Powers Resolution? Because within Title 50 – or at least within §§ 1811 – there is no fundamental difference between “a time of war” and “declaration of war.” ---
**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 20, 2005, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/175 "2005-12-20T19:30:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Or they could have said, “…a declaration of war as defined in section xxx of the War Powers Resolution.” But since they didn’t say that, they intended it to mean war in the dictionary sense of the use of armed forces, not in the “as opposed to an authorization of force.” > > Look - I absolutely agree that your interpretation is not unreasonable. It may be entirely correct. But neither is my interpretation entirely unreasonable. > > Of course Congress can impeach the President for wearing ties that don’t match his suit. But as a matter of realism, they need to allege a clear criminal violation. I made a point to watch 3 News Analysis shows yesterday (Jim Leher News Hour, Brit Hume’s Special Report, and Chris Matthew’s Hardball). Most of the legal scholar guests these guys had on seemed to think the action is illegal. Just for kicks I watched O’Reilly, too. He had two guys on-- one who said it might technically be legal if you stretched things real far, and one who just said “illegal”. Now, that’s not a scientific sample, but I don’t thinkthis is looking particular good for Bush. He better have some additional facts that we’re unaware of… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/176 "2005-12-20T19:32:44Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I made a point to watch 3 News Analysis shows yesterday (Jim Leher News Hour, Brit Hume’s Special Report, and Chris Matthew’s Hardball). Most of the legal scholar guests these guys had on seemed to think the action is illegal. Just for kicks I watched O’Reilly, too. He had two guys on-- one who said it might technically be legal if you stretched things real far, and one who just said “illegal”. I _know_ you’re not suggesting we take a poll to determine this. Because if most people think it’s illegal… ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/177 "2005-12-20T19:33:35Z")
**Bricker** , can you please explain why the phrase “to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress” shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that warrantless surveillance is illegal after 15 days following a _declaration_ of a war. More than one of us has noticed that you ignore this question and persist in interpreting this statement in a way that supports your case. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/178 "2005-12-20T19:34:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Or they could have said, “…a declaration of war as defined in section xxx of the War Powers Resolution.” But since they didn’t say that, they intended it to mean war in the dictionary sense of the use of armed forces, not in the “as opposed to an authorization of force.” ??? I’m _sure_ they meant ‘war’ “in the dictionary sense of the use of armed forces”; the ‘declaration’ part, however, is a specific form of authorization, discussed in the Constitution. You know: Article I, Section 8? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/179 "2005-12-20T19:36:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I _know_ you’re not suggesting we take a poll to determine this. Because if most people think it’s illegal… OTOH, if most _legal scholars_ think it’s illegal, the fact that you’re a lawyer and you’re saying it’s legal doesn’t mean so much. ---
**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 20, 2005, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/180 "2005-12-20T19:38:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I _know_ you’re not suggesting we take a poll to determine this. Because if most people think it’s illegal… Of course not. But these guys were mostly professors of Constutional law. My point is that the experts aren’t on Bush’s side right now. That’s not a good thing. And it’s the best indication I’ve got right now of how the courts will see this. Of course, Bush could be right. But would you want to bet on that? 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882.md?page=10)