Former Sen. Tom Daschle wrote an interesting commentary for The Washington Post challenging the White House’s assertion that Congress granted it power to wiretap U.S. citizens without warrants when it passed legislation in 2001 authorizing force against al-Qaida.
Daschle points out that the president asked for a last-minute change in the wording of the legislation that would have granted him the right to use the expansive powers in the United States as well as overseas. The change was denied.
Daschle wrote, “The Bush administration now argues those powers were inherently contained in the resolution adopted by Congress — but at the time, the administration clearly felt they weren’t or it wouldn’t have tried to insert the additional language.”
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Skeptic on Jail consultants straining patience
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
28 Comments
LOL
Great post, Joe!
And a very Merry Christmas to all of my friends on both sides out in blogland. Best wishes, and God bless!
Wouldn’t you know, the lying goes on, and on, and on. If it isn’t one thing, it’s another….http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/24/domestic.spying.ap/index.html
Thanks, XXX! Merry ho ho ho to you to, Joe, and everyone else!
Now, back to the subject:A longstanding rule for interpreting statutes is, when there’s a dispute, you look at the legislative history. Well, I took a quick look at the House debate on the Use of Force resolution.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r107:./temp/~r107NxgVZV
A text search for “wiretap” or “surveillance” turned up nothing. There are several uses of “intelligence,” but most refer to failed intelligence, and none suggested any change in the rules. If fact, most of the “debate” was the kind of blathering oratory you would except from politicians 3 days after a national tragedy.
Ironically, the strongest case for Bush’s position came from someone expressing reservations, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.:
“The literal language of this legislation can be read as broadly as executive interpreters want to read it, which gives the President awesome and undefined power. As written, the resolution could be interpreted, if read literally, to give the President the authority to deploy or use our armed forces domestically.”
Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Oops, the Thomas link expired. My bad.
The following is a link to the NYTimes article the CNN blurb mentions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html?hp&ex=1135486800&en=7e76956223502390&ei=5094&partner=homepage
It looks like Bush’s dipping into data was a lot more extensive than he is fessing up to. I want the NSA and Bush/Cheney to know who is calling Osama from the U.S., but please stay out of my e-mail.
The following is a link to the NYTimes editorial on the “Cheney Imperial Presidency”. Does anybody else think that Cheney could be suffering from PTSD?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/opinion/23fri1.html?incamp=article_popular
It should be obvious to everyone that Bush doesn’t care anything about the rule of law. I mean, how many times must he beat us over the head with his “the constitution is just a G-d piece of paper” before we get it through our thick skulls that this jerk and his buddy Ariel Sharon are going to rule the world?
The constitution keeps getting in the way of his empyreal attitude.
Somehow, we need to get busy and impeach this clown. We need the FBI to raid AIPAC and find-out which members have been bought-off. send them all, both the receivers and senders, to jail and get-on with the impeachment.
As long as we keep playing his “terrorism” game this is what we can expect, because this is what the “terrorism” game was intended and designed to do.
We’re being “had.”
Now, do you finally “get it?”
Ed,I like the neologism: “empyreal”. It’s almost as good as my favorite:”empTyV”.
Apologies for the off-topic digression. And, Merry Christmas to all.
Merry Christmas Steven…. and I was trying for “empirical” and the speller gave me “empyreal” so, being Christmas, I thought I would venture out and try whatever that is….
Steven, “empyreal” is a real word and means what I was after. It sure doesn’t look very real, but then again, come to think of it, neither does Bush.
Ed:With my cheap (read – “free”) e-dictionary, I can only find “empyrean” which means “an ideal state or government”.
I thought you were going for a combination of empty and imperial. What does “empyreal” mean?
I DON’T NEED NO LAW! I DON’T NEED NO CONSTITUTION! I’M KING OF THE WORLD! GOD TOLD ME SO!
Steven
empyreal
ineptitude that rises to empyreal absurdity……Not to be excelled; supreme……Inspiring awe; impressive…. the highest heaven or heavenly sphere in ancient and medieval cosmology usually consisting of fire or light…….. the true and ultimate heavenly paradise
{ More than you ever wanted to know? }……Best, Ed
Merry Christmas everybody. Also Happy New Year to XXX, you’re a good debater.
Ed! I’m not for sure if I’m part of a conspiracy or not, but I hope I get a nice tin foil hat for christmas to help protect me.
It’s as relevant today as it was the day I wrote it. I think I had more “fire” then, something I really don’t want to lose as long as our soldiers are dying.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2005/08/mans_best_terro_1.html
Another 600 million Katrina victims can kiss goodbye { got slipped-out the backdoor }.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/661833.html
It even has a nickname: “the donkey procedure.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=661708&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
If they have the authority in question then why do they need the patriot act?
If they have the authority, why do we need a Constitution at all? After all, isn’t it “just a G-D scrap of paper”? Half of the people in this country (repubs) would be satisfied to live by royal edict from His Higness, King George.
http://www.vipcrewlinks.com/http://www.welivetogetherlinks.com/http://www.whiteslavewhoreslinks.com/
http://www.whorewagonlinks.com/http://www.wildpornpasslinks.com/http://www.xxxproposallinks.com/
http://www.asianparadelinks.com/http://www.backseatbangerslinks.com/http://www.bangboatlinks.com/
http://www.blackcockswhiteslutslinks.com/http://www.boobexamscamlinks.com/http://www.bubblebuttsgalorelinks.com/
http://www.collegewildpartieslinks.com/http://www.couplesseduceteenslinks.com/http://www.firsttimeswallowslinks.com/
http://www.gangbangsquadlinks.com/http://www.gayblinddatesexlinks.com/http://www.gaycollegesexpartieslinks.com/
http://www.herfirstanalsexlinks.com/http://www.herfirstbigcocklinks.com/http://www.herfirstdplinks.com/
http://www.herfirstlesbiansexlinks.com/http://www.hisfirstfaciallinks.com/http://www.hisfirstgaysexlinks.com/
http://www.hisfirsthugecocklinks.com/http://www.housewifebangerslinks.com/http://www.hugeboobsgalorelinks.com/