If you’re correct, then why didn’t Hamdi’s detention violate 18 U. S. C. §4001(a)?
Because detention of enemies caught in a foreign combat zone is a fundamental incident of waging war, and thus covered by the AUMF. But you already knew that.
Becuase the Court found that the AUMF included the authority to detain US citizens captured in the course of combat. If it hadn’t, then Hamdi’s detention would have been illegal. If the Court finds that the AUMF did not authorize what the administration believes it did then they have committed a crime and should be held accountable. Even if the court finds for the administration their actions are still reprehensible. Ignoring the law merely becuase it is inconvinient is inexcusable.
It now appears that you are changing your avenue of argument here. Tell me, are you starting with the assumption that Bush did nothing criminal and attempting to justify that opinion? Or are you taking an impartial look at the facts and the appropiate law and coming to a conclusion?
Outrage, from Bricker? It is to laugh. His persona here on the Dope is of an automaton. I saw something like this in the Cyberdyne Systems catalogue: the Pedant 3000.
Funny, Bricker, how your basis for argument has shifted. Originally you shrugged your shoulders and said this wasn’t “un-American” or immoral:
(Emphasis mine, of course. Bricker doesn’t boldface words – it’s tacky to display emotion like that.)
Next you tried to argue that your REAL point is that the unwarranted wiretapping wasn’t unconstitutional. After all, since you used to work as an attorney of some kind in the past, you’re entitled to dismiss arguments from actual constitutional scholars such as John Dean, Jonathan Turley, and Geoffrey Stone – not to mention members of congress. To you, they’re all on the “left,” which translates as anyone who disagrees with the GWB administration. Even Republicans such as Arlen Specter, Lindsay Graham and Chuck Hegel are lefties.
But now the ledge you’ve been standing on has crumbled even further away. You’re reduced to the position that duh, naturally this is un-American, unconstitutional, immoral, and unwise, any fool can see that, but MY whole point is that it’s not illegal, and if y’all weren’t so ignorant and blinded by what you humans call “emotion” you’d see that.
Well, fuck that. I don’t care if it’s illegal or not, although I am surprised to hear that it’s legal for a president to deny citizens their civil rights and subvert the constitution. But like it or not, Bricker, “legality” is not the be-all and end-all for humanity, or for what’s right and wrong in this world. Sometimes one has to get outraged at things in order to effect change. Who could claim with any seriousness that in the 1800s that it was wrong to get upset about slavery, since it was perfectly legal and arguably constitutional to hold slaves at the time?
Bush and his gang swore to uphold the constitution, but have denied Americans their civil rights to privacy and due process. Despite being able to get approvals for 17,992 out of 18,000 warrants in the past, despite having the ability to swoop in first and ask for warrants later, this administration was still unwilling and/or afraid to go up and reveal certain instances of surveillance before a panel of judges whose very purpose is to keep secrets.
It does not take a tinfoil chapeau-wearer get outraged at contemplating what activity was so scary and unlikely to be approved that the administration was afraid to reveal it. Spying on civilians? Spying on those who disagree with their policies? Spying on John Kerry? Outright sabotage, for God’s sake? Who the fuck knows? We won’t until we get a full investigation into their activity and get these officials under oath. And that won’t happen until enough of us get angry enough to demand it.
But Bricker doesn’t get outraged about stuff like this, and he finds it abhorrent and silly that others do.
If Bush raised his taxes, OTOH…
Why didn’t you quote the specific post of Bricker’s where he said he thought this was either un-American, unconstitutional, or immoral? He said that an argument could be made for it being unconstitutional, which isn’t at all the same as saying it **is **so, and he certainly never said “immoral” or “un-American”. Where are you reading that he did???
Y’know, maybe Bricker has somewhat of a point, although probably NOT the one he meant to convey. If the controversial actions really ARE legal, then it’s a totally different fight than if it’s not. If it’s illegal, we’d be focusing on Bush, on stuff like possible impeachment. If it isn’t, then our energy needs to be directed elsewhere, to changing the laws and going to the courts and Congress. It’s a relatively subtle difference, but I think it’s important. It’s no good yelling at someone when we really need to be yelling at someone else.
I get the feeling the Bricker is trying to persuade us that Bush committed no criminal acts. 
When this whole mess appeared in the N.Y.Times, I thought, typical Bushista abuse of presidential powers, but Bush’ll get away with it, because it’s probably technically not against the law.
Now, speaking for myself as a non-legal expert, but as someone who has read through this thread carefully, Bricker has convinced me of the exact opposite. Bricker’s reasoning (that what Bush has authorized is legal) requires such tortured logic that I can no longer accept that possibility.
Impeach the son-of-a-bitch. Now. Tell everyone.
Hey choie, it looks like Brick might not be alone on that ledge. 
I know this is the pit and all, but we’ve kept this thread pretty straight forward. Pit the argument, not the man, k? The good points you made got lost in the hostility.
Bricker, I’d like to hear your answer to this question as well. It seems that you are just acting as the defense attorney again. Throw out a bunch of defenses, as they get shot down, ignore them and try something else, and on and on.
This is what you appeared to do with the 15 day discussion we had in previous days. You argued your point, myself and a few others argued ours. I think we came up with a clear explanation for our side, and I even provided cites from other legal scholars who agreed.
And
You never responded, never commented, never agreed, nothing. You simply moved on to another avenue of argument.
That may be good tactics as a defense attorney, but this is a casual online debate forum. The point, to me anyway, is to argue, debate, learn, concede, not do anything possible to trick the other people into giving up.
But if the Court finds for the administration on this issue, then they didn’t “ignore” the law. Their conduct will have conformed to the law.
I’m not changing anything. I’m responding to different arguments that are advanced to me. If someone claims that Bush’s actions were un-American, I respond to that. If the next hitter up to bat says that Bush’s actions were criminal, then I respond to THAT.
Indeed and if the court finds against the administration then they not only ignored the law they broke it. Do you not agree?
Does this mean you still contend that the actions were justified under 1811? I had assumed you dropped this argument becuase you started claiming that the AUMF authoized these wiretaps directly instead of continue to defend you claim that this was a declaration of war under 1811.
Yes, I said that.
This is why I didn’t hire you to be my spokesman.
In fact, that isn’t my position. I still disagree that this in un-American, that it’s unconstitutional, and immoral. I agree - and always have - that it was unwise. (Hey, look! Red AND bold. Must be a veritable emotional storm!)
Not me. And I’m not saying it’s wrong to get upset about this action, seeing as how it’s unwise, poor public policy. I’m saying that in 1800, if you said slavery was illegal and unconstitutional, i would have heaped scorn on your richly deserving argument, because slavery was in fact legal and constitutional. And you would have stalked away in a huff, muttering about how I was defending slavery… all the while missing the point that I wasn’t defending slavery, simply defending the POINT that slavery wasn’t illegal and wasn’t unconstitutional.
Much like what’s happening here.
You believe that your view concerning constitutional guarantees of due process and privacy is the only right one, and I disagree with you.
Who is opposing an investigation? Me?
No. I find in abhorrent and silly that you’re unable to separate “illegal” and “unconstitutional” from other perjoratives.
I answered this point repeatedly. I acknowledge your arguments; I find them iunpersuasive. What more do I need to do?
This is an excellent point. If Congress is now outraged that they gave the President authority they never met to give, then they should pass legislation fixing that oversight.
Listen – I am a strong believer in the principle of self-governance, and that means that Congress is presumed to speak for the people when it comes to making laws. If Congress’ will is being thwarted in the field of legislation, then they should fix it. I’m all about that.
Yes.
I do still contend it. I also believe that the AUMF independently and adequately permitted it.
Bush is claiming, though, that he has not only the statutory authority, but also the Constitutional authority to do this. Congress can pass all the laws it wants, but if Bush is basing his actions on perceived constitutional authority, Congress’ actions will be moot. Clearly, this will require a SCOTUS review for resolution.
Oh for goodness’ sake, I made it pretty clear that my phrasing was not literal. Fine, he never specifically said “immoral” or “un-American.” (He never said “duh” either.) He just said that the activities were despotic, “arguably” unconstitutional, arrogant, and idiotic.
Hey, that ledge is so small there’s definitely not room for both of us. I can have my own ledge, thankyouverymuch.
Sorry, NurseCarmen. I appreciate your gentle tap on the shoulder, and normally I don’t get personal. But good lord, this is the Pit, and just 'cause folks have turned it into a Great Debate thread doesn’t mean I can’t spew a little now and then. And this topic is so infuriating and horrifying that it’s incomprehensible to me that so many have let it devolve into a debate about nitpicking legal bullshit.
I know it’s mandatory to begin a response to Bricker with something like, “I respect you, O noble and worthy opponent, as you’re soooo intelligent and reasoned and talk real good; thank Og you’re not like New Iskander or Updike!” That drives me nuts. The truth is that such ice-cold, amoral, legalistic equivocation as Bricker’s displayed here creeps me out, and I find it far more contemptible than the crap coming from the nameless one-trick dunderheads to whom Bricker is so often favorably compared. So I just had to vent already. On the plus side, no one pays much attention to me anyway, good points or inanities, so I’m sure most will just blip over my post either way!
Dang. Never thought I’d be chastized for tone here in the Pit! :eek: 
Wow, if that’s your version of clarity, I’d hate to see your version of vagueness. You should ask a cross section of readers how they read that post of yours…
I believe I was the one who called the illegal wiretaps “unAmerican”. And I stand by that statement.
Doesn’t that perceived constitutional authority he has also trump the SCOTUS?