Sunstein on Presidential Wiretaps
Here is Cass Sunstein’s statement on the viability of the argument that Bush’s surveillance program was permissible under the authorization to use military force.
Via Pejman, who has more.
P.S. You should also read Byron York’s pieces from December 19 and December 20. (H/t: Andrew.) Also, read John Hinderaker on the inherent authority argument.
P.P.S. A commenter points out that the relevant authorization of force is not the one relating to Iraq, and I have removed the words “in Iraq” from the description.
I think Sunstein’s argument rest on the authorization to use force in Afghanistan and against Al Quaeda, not Iraq.
TAS (9cb187) — 12/21/2005 @ 7:24 amNo “U” after the “Q” in Arabic.
For example, the country is “Qatar,” not “Quatar.”
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 12/21/2005 @ 7:25 amArabic transliteration I should say.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 12/21/2005 @ 7:25 amDidn’t we fight a war to change that?
Xrlq (e2795d) — 12/21/2005 @ 8:50 amIf we don’t put the U’s after the Q’s, that means the terrorists will have won.
Justice Frankfurter (2dcd84) — 12/21/2005 @ 10:46 amMaybe we should let states opt out of the wiretaps. If, for example, the New York delegation doesn’t want the President to be able to order electronic surveillance without getting the FISA court’s approval, then no such surveillance would be conducted in New York — and of course, this would be public information. Isn’t Hillary up for re-election? I wonder how her constituents would react to the idea that her partisanship has turned NY into a surveillance-free zone.
TNugent (6128b4) — 12/21/2005 @ 1:22 pmByron York has yet another excellent piece dated December 21 on the same subject. http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512211147.asp
York links to an op/ed in the Chicago Tribune by one of Clinton’s associate attorneys general, who says Bush’s surveillance program is legal.
Andrew (08ba2c) — 12/21/2005 @ 10:16 pmLegal, Smeagal,
It doesn’t matter one iota what these morons say. Ignore them and their idiot complaints. It isn’t a worthwhile use of time to even read their foolishness, much less respond to it. And, yes, I’m guilty of doing both.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 12/22/2005 @ 11:21 amYork has, however, written several excellent articles this past week regarding the considerable problems with the FISA court process and why the president’s actions post 9/11 are quite reasonable. In short he provides context and background that has gone wanting in many of the discussions on this subject to date.
Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 12/22/2005 @ 12:39 pmNo “U” after the “Q” in Arabic.
Didn’t we fight a war to change that?
I think that was the war in Iraqu.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) (dfa1f1) — 12/22/2005 @ 1:10 pmLinked the following article on Pat’sMore Links on the Surveillance Program thread:
John Schmidt, an associate attorney general in the Clinton Justice Department, agrees in this Chicago Tribune article.
He had this to say in summary:
FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.
Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.
But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.
Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 12/22/2005 @ 1:59 pmHey Black Jack, Andrew and Harry Arthur I guess you guys think this wiretap thing is legal, is that right? Can you answer a question for me if that is true?
Charlie (8ea405) — 12/22/2005 @ 2:02 pmSee you guys are all basically whimps.. I challenged you once before.. if I could prove Bush lied would you believe he was a liar, and not one of you took me up on that.. Ok lets move on.. I want to hear from you that you think Bush had the right to wiretap without court order and any statements to the contrary are… ( you complete the sentence)
Charlie (8ea405) — 12/22/2005 @ 2:07 pmYep, Jamie Gorelick, John Schmidt and I do think the president had the authority to authorize the NSA to monitor phone conversations between foreign agents and US participants without a warrant. So do many legal scholars, pundits and pontificators.
Others disagree. You might be especially interested in the 9/11 Commission’s take on what the FBI should have done with respect to Moussaoui’s computer.
Wimp? You’re quite certain? I’m personally aghast! I’m mortified! I’m deeply insulted! I feel a small tear forming in my eye. Perhaps you should take the time to read my response to your comment next time before you mouth off about something which you are certainly in no position to know. I believe Dana provided you with an answer also.
I’ll choose to answer on my time frame, thank you very much. I believe my last answer was to leave the ball in your court while I waited for “several citations” illustrating the president’s lack of veracity which I agreed to discuss once I could examine the full context and timing of his alleged “lies”.
Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 12/22/2005 @ 2:25 pmhere’s what the wimp said:
So, please do provide the quotation and citation so we can discuss the quotation in context and then we’ll argue whether it makes sense that the factually incorrect statement or statements was/were intentionally deceptive. Only then can we legitimately apply the “liar” label. Otherwise we’re just continuing to play the “horse hocky game” which seems so in vogue these days.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 12/22/2005 @ 10:20 am
If the president is a “liar” in the pathological sense, several citations demonstrating his consistent lack of veracity should be easy to locate and provide.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 12/22/2005 @ 10:24 am
Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 12/22/2005 @ 2:43 pmThis is an incredible joke.. Here is what Conservatives were saying about this when the shoe was on the other foot..
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a27337612f5.htm
Notice the date and tell me this is not hypocricy…typical Bushies..
Charlie (8ea405) — 2/12/2006 @ 5:28 pm