You suspect wrongly. I was wrong, too, if it makes you feel better. Bush **did **“trot out” Gonzales for an explanation.
Gonzales has now said that the authorization to use force given to the president in Sept '01 is the source of his authority. So, they’re going to use the “we’re at war” arguement, and hence subchapter 1802 allows wiretaps w/o a warrant. I hope this goes to the SCOTUS so we can a ruling one way or another.
Going to the SCOTUS shouldn’t be necessary and frankly should not happen. Congress knows whether or not they wanted to declare war and from all reactions that I have seen they clearly didn’t. A declaration of war by congress has very specific wording and it has been that way for a long time.
The Declaration of War against Germany in WWII:
I couldn’t find the declaration of war on Mexico during the Mexican-American war but I suspect its more of the same. That is susbstantially different than authorizing the use of force against those responsible for a crime.
I reiterate my earlier question. How does it come before the court?
there are few scenearia:
A defendant whose conviction was based in part on evidence gathered in one of these intercepts appeals on the grounds the evidence should have been excluded as the fruits of an illegal search. This is unlikely to happen since they are not trying anyone they catch in this net, they snatch them off to Gitmo.
An action is brought against the President by someone who apprehends that they are being surveilled. This is the famous case of Mace v. Bush. Problematic on grounds of plaintiff’s standing to sue, let alone the question of whether in the absence of a showing that he was being tapped, Mace could allege harm which entitled him to sue.
The constitution provides only one remedy when the president violates the law. Even a direct order from scotus that the president due thus and so (cf. Andrew Jackson) which is ignored can only be vindicated, if at all, through impeachment.
sigh Look, the prisoners of war in WWII were, well, prisoners of war. They had rights under the GC and so their was no reason to bring them under our system. Terrorists or ‘unlawful combatants’ however fall in a grey area. They don’t have the same rights under the GC. That very quasi-status would probably have some judge in the US attempting to bring them into our system as criminals instead of unlawful combatants. I could very well see a media circus that could follow bringing them here.
Again, there is no comparison between prisoners of war in WWII and enemy combatants captured without uniform or militia symbols or any other identifying marks or documentation. You seem bound and determined to continue to hammer this point but David it just doesnt work. There is NO comparison between prisoners of war in WWII and these folks as far as this particular discussion is concerned.
What do you base this incredible statement on? Your own desires? Or a close reading of the GC on the subject of non-uniformed combatants?
Are you seriously comparing the Japanese government during WWII and the Taliban? Do you think they are comparable?
As for the US torturing Japanese prisoners…man, you need to grow up. Of COURSE we did. Hell, we locked up all the Japanese CITIZENS in the country into concentration camps for gods sake. You can pretty much take it as a given that more Japanese were tortured (and killed) by Americans during WWII than all the ‘enemy combatants’ in the entire War on Terror. And probably much more brutally. And we were the GOOD guys, and probably more restrained than any other major power during the war.
Whether you buy it or not its pretty obvious that everything IS different now. In the old days folks who fought out of uniform and were captured were SHOT. Probably after an extended and extensive torture session.
As for other countries not going ‘batty’ over terrorist attack, again you need to get your head out. Look up some time what the Brits would do to Irish terrorists they caught. Think the French are better? Take a look at what they do to their REGULAR prisoners some time before making claims. Germans? Right. How about those fun loving Russians and their Chechen, er, problem?
Who do you suppose that has had terrorist attack them that turned the other cheek? Could you give me some examples of a nation attacked as the US was that put on the velvet gloves? I can’t think of any.
Sigh. They could easily have been classified as prisoners of war as “unlawful combatants.” Look, you said that if they had been brought to the US they would have come into our legal system. I pointed out to you a case where prisoners were not under our legal system even though they were in the US. The main reason for GW, all by himself, not classifying them as POW was to prevent application of the Geneva Convention. Sigh.
Do you know this for a fact in all cases?
I didn’t say there was, I said that they could be in the US without coming into our legal system and they could. They were sent to Guantanamo so that we could have a freer hand in practicing agressive interrogation.
Bataan Death March, anyone?
You need to read. I said that undoubtedly there were cases of individual torture. However it wasn’t US government policy, which seems to be the case now with our “unlawful combatants.”
Yes, that’s the mantra that’s chanted over and over in order to justify the unjustifiable.
Our battiness isn’t about torturing prisoners. It’s about the abridgement of the privacy of US citizens and going overboard on government snooping.
No one is arguning that the other cheek need be turned. However the countermeasures should be effective and not blind striking out, such as forming a whole new government department that isn’t working very well yet, four years down the road; passing a complex law, the USA Patriot Act, without hearings for many members of Congress even knowing what it contained. Things like that.
I can’t just swallow ineffective and misdirected actions like the above, not to mention to the war in Iraq, like the lockstep legions of GW fans can.
And it was a bad mistake not only in its own right but because it set a precent useable in future cases.
At the time I was all for it. Show them dirty Jap bastards, right? But then I was only 20 years old and didn’t know anything. I have since come to the realization of just how wrong and dangerous it was. I would hope that our current citizens have learned a little something since then, but maybe I’m over optimistic on that question. In fact it looks like I am.
And so because it was done in “the old days” we should continue the practice now? If we are going to use the practices of “the old days” I suppose we could classify them as witches and wizards and burn them at the stake after the tortue has extracted all the bad intelligence from them.
I hardly ever come into GD because of the horrid tone between the warring parties, but I have a small comment on that. If it does come out that the Bush administration was acting within the law, then let’s all admit it, and not simply start screaming, “But it came close to being illegal!”
That’s what laws are for. They define exactly what is and is not illegal. Everything not described is legal. Can you imagine what would happen if the government were able to prosecute citzens for “almost” doing something illegal?
If you’re being sarcastic, you’re only joining me in my sarcasm. 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.
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?
My questions:
Has the Attorney General certified in writing under oath that there is no likelihood that the survelillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party? If so, then that’s a lie since we know that indeed US persons were monitored. If not, then this section was not fulfilled. It does not say this applies only within US territory, it covers all communications with a United States person.
If you want to take shelter in 1811, I don’t see how you can justify it. There has been no declaration of war by Congress and there hasn’t been one since WW II. Even if you can stretch the Iraq Resolution to be a declaration of war, they did not confine the surveillance to the first 15 days.
Am I being too simplistic? I just don’t see the gray area. How can you interpret these actions as being in compliance with 1802?
Well, that’s correct. Each of the previous cases was analgous to an indictment: they laid out specific facts that, if true, constitute a criminal offense.
So my question here is: what specific facts, if true, are a criminal offense as a matter of law?
Example: if you said, “The government monitored Joe Smith’s phone calls for 30 days, in violation of the fifteen day requirement in §§ 1811,” that would allege a violation of the law.
But no individual domestic target was monitored for over fifteen days, precisely in order to comply with the law. Of course, if you have evidence to the contrary, then THAT evidence would certainly be an acceptable basis for impeachment.
Do you?
Or do you have some other allegation of fact that, if true, would be a violation of criminal law?
Bush **did **“trot out” Gonzales for an explanation.