But how far can we streach that? The constitution and precedent are pretty explicit that the prez gets to appoint the SCOTUS, it’s hardly equivalent to a claim that the president can ignore all laws so long as it’s in pursuit of something that he himself classifies as national defense, especially when congress already has a history of passing laws that effect what the prez can do during wartime.
If we allow the prez to basically interpret his own powers by fiat, congress and the SCOTUS do become more or less superfluous, at least in cases where the SCOTUS is unable to rule and congress is unwilling to go as far as impeachment.
One hopes that Repubs in congress will remember that it might be Hillary or Howard Dean that gets to make up thier own powers in 2008, and that something more then a lot of speechifying to CSPAN will come out of the current hearings.
Well, as I said, we don’t know what legal argument was made to those members of Congress with whom this program was discussed. If you’re talking about the legal argument it made in public, then I agree. But it’s a secret program, so why would you expect the adminstration to discuss it in public?
Can we have a cite for that? I’m not saying I don’t believe you, but I’d like to see the actual wording.
I tend to agree with you on that, but as we’ve been saying all along there is nothing in the system to stop this sort of thing short of impeachment. Maybe the system is broke…?
The cite is H.R. Rep. No. 95-1283, pt. 1, at 24 (1978). But lest you think I’m actually smart, I got the information from the Center for Democracy and Technology, one document of which is here (warning: PDF), and another here. They were letters written by a bunch of scholars, including Dworkin, Epstein, Beth Nolan, William Sessions, and Larry Tribe to discuss the NSA issue. They’re a good resource in dealing withh the issues.
I do think a Congressional investigation, an actual, serious, and, at least in part, secret, investigation is the place to start. I think a real investigation would put pressure on this administration to stop with the stonewalling and conceit. The belief that only the President can know how the program works, and only the President can determine that it is legal and Constitutional, has yet to be seriously challenged. Not only would a serious Congressional investigation into the matter help define the issue, but it would place the President in an awkward position of having to articulate his belief that he, and only he, can determine those things.
No, because that would be an acknowledgement that the constitutional authority is unclear, and that a third body had to arbitrate. The RIGHT way would be to ignore it. This isn’t the boy scouts!
You see, this is a power struggle and whoever blinks first loses. Now, as **Hamlet **pointed out, the constitutional authority that Bush asserts he has to wiretap is a bit, shall we say, less obvioius to the casual reader than is his authority to appoint SCOTUS justices. However, the adminsitration asserts that that authority is no less clear to them. This is not the first time, nor the last, that a president will claim Congress cannot encroach on his authority.
Operational details certainly have a claim to secrecy. But why would the basic legal justification for it be secret? How would discussing that publicly harm the country? The lack of it is doing palpable harm.
Or maybe it works just fine when it’s used as intended. Why do you rule out impeachment as an action Congress can take? Abuse of power by a federal officer is exactly why that remedy exists. To take it out of consideration also takes out of consideration its deterrent value.
What part of the legal justification did he refuse to talk about? If you mean the hypotheitcals that were thrown at him, that’s just good lawyer common sense. Don’t let the oppostion frame the argument. He was there to talk about the legality of this program and this program only. He wasn’t obligated in any way to discuss other, hypothetical operations.
I don’t rule out impeachment, it’s just that that is such an extreme mearsure and one that is highly political in nature. Given the obvious political hurdles that impeachment involves, I’d like for there to be some better way to resolve this type of issue. But if you’re satisfied with impeachment, that’s fine for you. The only thing is, it ain’t gonna happen.
Thanks. Those are pretty dense documents, so give me some time to read them before I comment.
I agree 100%. Perhaps that will be done when the Intel Committee has its hearings. BTW, I’ve pointed out several times that I see this is a “simple” power stuggle between the executive and legislative branches. That doesn’t mean I agree with the executive. On the contrary, I want to see Congress fight this tooth and nail. And the Pubs would be fools to just take a partisan position and support Bush. They have a legitimate issue that vastly transcends partisan politics here, and they will certianly be on the receiving end of similar issues from future Democratic adminsitrations. I’m sure that is not lost on many of the Republicans.
I did? Where? I honestly don’t remember. If I said that, then I’ll gladly retratct it, but I gotta see where I said it first (exact quotes, please). I said I understood his refusal to talk about operational aspects of the (classified) program, but I certianly didn’t mean to imply that covered the legal aspects as well. And prior to the leak, there would be no way for the administration to speak publicly about the legal framework without revealing the actual program.
I’m still thinking about it, but will certainly post my thoughts if I can come up with something!
For the home audience, would this be the place that Karl Rove would be trying to strongarm Republicans into voting with the President? That is, could these hearings culminate in a vote on whether to have a formal investigation?
Of course they could be. And I’m sure there are plenty of people on this board who don’t need any evidence to believe that they are. But we don’t accept claims like that in my thread with some proof!
Yes, I did ask that in response to the Rove link. But in fact, I’d take a step back and ask if the story is actually true in the first place. The cite linked to clearly has a political agenda… I’d like to see a cite from the mainstream press before I even believe that such pressure is being applied. Again, I’m not saying the story isn’t true, but that we haven’t established its veracity yet.
Update: Congressional pressure seems to be working. Gonzales and Hayden briefed the full House Intelligence Committee today on the operational details of the NSA program. There’s a very good segment on this on the News Hour w/ Jim Leher tonight-- an interview with Jane Harman (ranking Dem on the House Intel Com.) and Lindsey Graham (Pub on Senate Judiciary Com.). Otherwise, there’s this blurb:
