HUGH HEWITT (hat tip Professor Reynolds) suggests that if the Democrats don't like Bush's "terrorist surveillance program" that's currently being operated by the NSA, that they pass a "sense of the Congress resolution" banning it.
I OFFER IT UP AS A CHALLENGE. After all, Bush is arguing - correctly I believe - that it is the long established "law of the land" that when Congress authorizes the use of force it also tacitly authorizes the POTUS - as CiC - to use ALL the tools which are necessarily incidental to waging that war effectively - like gathering sigint and detaining enemy combatants. (The SCOTUS and several other courts have CONSISTENTLY ruled this way for DECADES!)
THEREFORE, if the Democrats don't want the POTUS - as CiC - to also have the authority to use ALL the tools which are necessarily incidental to waging war, then they MUST specifically amend the 2001 AUMF to specifically ban surveillance of the enemy in the USA without a FISA warrant - and even take away the president's authority to designate anyone an enemy combatant, while they're at it - if they want to.
IMHO: This would play out exactly like when Duncan Black introduced the MURTHA RESOLUTION (calling for IMMEDIATE "redeployment" of our troops OUT OF IRAQ) - which of course went down to ignominous defeat, as it should have.
Do the Democrats FEAR that a resolution banning the POTUS from gathering sigint of the enemy would lose? YES THEY DO; THEY KNOW IT WOULD LOSE BIGTIME.
And, after we all watch the Democrats in Congress squirm over having to choose between their Left-wing base and doing the right thing - we could ALL MOVE ON.
BTW: I've been watching MOST of the Gonzales, and I come away feeling VERY impressed with him and even more impressed with the president's case. Combining the arguments of the 1972 SCOTUS Keith decision, the FISCR decision, the enemy combatant decision, the precedents of Wilson aduting WW1, and FDR during WW2, and of Clinton - and appealing to BOTH the "safety valve" within FISA - (US CODE TITLE 59, 1809, a, 1), and the AUMF - makes it an absofrigginlutely iron-clad case.
MORE ON THE HEARINGS HERE.
I OFFER IT UP AS A CHALLENGE. After all, Bush is arguing - correctly I believe - that it is the long established "law of the land" that when Congress authorizes the use of force it also tacitly authorizes the POTUS - as CiC - to use ALL the tools which are necessarily incidental to waging that war effectively - like gathering sigint and detaining enemy combatants. (The SCOTUS and several other courts have CONSISTENTLY ruled this way for DECADES!)
THEREFORE, if the Democrats don't want the POTUS - as CiC - to also have the authority to use ALL the tools which are necessarily incidental to waging war, then they MUST specifically amend the 2001 AUMF to specifically ban surveillance of the enemy in the USA without a FISA warrant - and even take away the president's authority to designate anyone an enemy combatant, while they're at it - if they want to.
IMHO: This would play out exactly like when Duncan Black introduced the MURTHA RESOLUTION (calling for IMMEDIATE "redeployment" of our troops OUT OF IRAQ) - which of course went down to ignominous defeat, as it should have.
Do the Democrats FEAR that a resolution banning the POTUS from gathering sigint of the enemy would lose? YES THEY DO; THEY KNOW IT WOULD LOSE BIGTIME.
And, after we all watch the Democrats in Congress squirm over having to choose between their Left-wing base and doing the right thing - we could ALL MOVE ON.
BTW: I've been watching MOST of the Gonzales, and I come away feeling VERY impressed with him and even more impressed with the president's case. Combining the arguments of the 1972 SCOTUS Keith decision, the FISCR decision, the enemy combatant decision, the precedents of Wilson aduting WW1, and FDR during WW2, and of Clinton - and appealing to BOTH the "safety valve" within FISA - (US CODE TITLE 59, 1809, a, 1), and the AUMF - makes it an absofrigginlutely iron-clad case.
MORE ON THE HEARINGS HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment