Discussion for article #227334
OK, I give up. What’s “inherent constitutional authority,… an authority that Congress cannot curtail?” That sounds a lot like, “If the President does it, it’s not illegal.”
15 Likes
What justification is that? It’s just an assertion. Where’s the arguments and basis for such an assertion. Nowhere.
9 Likes
GWB made a lot of policy claims - no laws and Congress let him get away with it. SAD.
2 Likes
Is it too late to hang Bush and Cheney?
5 Likes
The Bush administration MO:
If you can find a lawyer to write down on a piece of paper that something you want to do is okay, you’re in the clear. The courts are just a liberal nuisance. Hired counsel for the win!
7 Likes
It’s a right-wing excuse for doing pretty much whatever they wanted to do.
It has no actual justification constitutionally or as a matter of statutory law.
6 Likes
Contrary to the popular belief that the GWB administration had an anti-LGBT agenda, history shows that they gave unprecedented legal authority to the GAYs.
Goldsmith,
Addington,
Yoo.
1 Like
***In 2007, the Bush administration changed its policy, bringing the program under court oversight. ***
you might want to point out what a goddamn farce that court oversight is…
“Is the FISA court a rubber stamp?” NSA chief says no, but in the last two years, they’ve approved ~4,000 orders, with zero rejections.
— EFF Live Tweets (@EFFLive) June 18, 2013
5 Likes
In other words, “we made it all up.”
Seat grand juries today. It’s the only way out of America’s torture nightmare, and its aggression that has killed hundreds of thousands of people since 9/11.
1 Like
This would be a fun one to selectively quote from and post the quotes on conservative websites to watch heads explode over the “imperial presidency” of Obama.
I agree enon on the bs “oversight” provided by the courts for this program
"Let the EAGLE SOAR . . . "
5 Likes
That was exactly how Nixon thought about Watergate.
1 Like
If you can convince them that a vacation at the Hague (it’s really a pretty town btw) is a wonderful and picturesque idea, I would be most grateful. Let us know how kit works out. There are a lot of folks around here that would like to see this scenario happen.
It looks like Jack Goldsmith was setting the stage to destroy the fundamental tenets of the Constitution. He was creating the environment for and abetting authoritarianism, lawlessness and tyranny.
2 Likes
Of course he was—he’s a far-right Republican.
The Bush Administration didn’t “change its policy.” The Bush Administration was forced to change its policy by a Democratic majority in Congress. The FISA amendments, the focus of so much hate and rage by the firebagging purists, were what did that, not a voluntary change by the Bushies.
And yes, for those on my side of that divide, let us not forget that it was leaks of classified information and lawsuits resulting from leaks, were what created the political backlash necessary to enable Congress to do that.
4 Likes
Only Cheney deserves to be hanged. You shouldn’t execute the mentally deficient for crimes that they are incapable of understanding. A nice padded room at Leavenworth and a box of paints would see Dubya out nicely.
7 Likes
That’s what I was referring to. I figured everyone here would immediately get the reference.
1 Like
“We conclude only that when the nation has been thrust into an armed conflict by a foreign attack on the United States and the president determines in his role as commander in chief . . . that it is essential for defense against a further foreign attack to use the [wiretapping] capabilities of the [National Security Agency] within the United States,
he has inherent constitutional authority” to order warrantless wiretapping — “an authority that Congress cannot curtail,” Goldsmith wrote in a redacted 108-page memo dated May 6, 2004."
The 4th amendment reads in part “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…”
There is no “inherent Constitutional authority” here. And warrantless searches ought to be illegal according to the language of this amendment. It seems quite clear to me that what Goldsmith is suggesting ought to land one in jail.
5 Likes