- May 22, 2004
- 2,179
- 0
- 0
Article II of the Constitution
Designates president as commander-in-chief and gives him authority over foreign affairs.
Bush Administration:
Says Article II gives the president "all necessary authority" to protect the nation from further attacks. Argues that the president's power to conduct secret surveillance for the conduct of foreign affairs has long been recognized.
Congressional Research Service:
Says broad claim of presidential power contradicts the will of Congress when it passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. That law intended for the government to seek warrants from a special FISA court before conducting such surveillance.
My take:
As the congress never declared war against anyone but instead authorized the use of force against 9/11 perps I do not believe the president has the authority to go outside statute in order to conduct the types of domestic surveillance activity he has done.
Authorization to Use Military Force
Resolution passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, allows the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. Preamble asserts the president's constitutional authority "to deter and prevent" terrorist acts against the United States.
Bush Administration:
Asserts that communications intelligence is an essential part of waging war that "must be included in any natural reading" of the authorization. Engaging in warrant less surveillance is a common and critical practice for wartime presidents, the Justice Department says, citing George Washington's interception of British mail as an example.
Congressional Research Service:
Acknowledges that surveillance is an important facet of warfare. But the CRS analysis says that "it is not clear that the collection of intelligence constitutes a use of force" authorized under the resolution passed by Congress.
My take:
Indeed communications intelligence is an essential part of waging war, however we have a FISA court to approve domestic eavesdropping. there is no circumstance save for a full scale invasion of the homeland that would give the President carte balance to conduct any sort of of warrentless surveillance
'Hamdi v. Rumsfeld'
The 2004 Supreme Court ruling found that the authorization to use force passed by Congress allowed the detention of an American citizen captured on a foreign battlefield -- in spite of a federal law prohibiting such detentions unless authorized by Congress. The high court's ruling recognized the right to detain combatants "based on longstanding law-of-war principles."
Bush Administration:
Interprets the Hamdi ruling to mean that Congress' force authorization implicitly gave the president the power to conduct any activity considered an essential aspect of waging war -- including warrant less electronic surveillance -- at home and abroad.
Congressional Research Service:
Argues that the Hamdi ruling merely confirmed the authority to capture enemy combatants on a foreign battlefield. Suggests it's a huge stretch to say that the force authorization also covers domestic surveillance as an essential aspect of waging war.
My take:
The idea of holding anyone indefinitely even if they are a threat is just wrong, the United States has really lost the moral high ground here.The intelligence value of these interrogations is highly doubtfully in my mind.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
Law known as "FISA" created a legal process for authorizing foreign intelligence wiretaps. Allows a 15-day grace period for warrant less wiretapping during times of war and provides for retroactive warrants. Provides an exception to warrant requirements "where authorized by statute."
Bush Administration:
Argues FISA cannot take away the president's inherent constitutional power to wiretap in the name of national security. Contends that the 2001 congressional authorization to use force fulfills FISA's mandate that a warrant is required "except where authorized by statute."
Congressional Research Service:
Says FISA reflects Congress' view that it has the authority to regulate the president's use of any inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrant less surveillance. Suggests Congress did not intend for FISA's warrant exceptions to be expansive.
My take:
the Administrations ignoring the fisa statute is a felony and needs to be prosecuted by the people. He could have gone about creating statute with the help of congress he is arrogant and dictatorial in his opinions
Designates president as commander-in-chief and gives him authority over foreign affairs.
Bush Administration:
Says Article II gives the president "all necessary authority" to protect the nation from further attacks. Argues that the president's power to conduct secret surveillance for the conduct of foreign affairs has long been recognized.
Congressional Research Service:
Says broad claim of presidential power contradicts the will of Congress when it passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. That law intended for the government to seek warrants from a special FISA court before conducting such surveillance.
My take:
As the congress never declared war against anyone but instead authorized the use of force against 9/11 perps I do not believe the president has the authority to go outside statute in order to conduct the types of domestic surveillance activity he has done.
Authorization to Use Military Force
Resolution passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, allows the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. Preamble asserts the president's constitutional authority "to deter and prevent" terrorist acts against the United States.
Bush Administration:
Asserts that communications intelligence is an essential part of waging war that "must be included in any natural reading" of the authorization. Engaging in warrant less surveillance is a common and critical practice for wartime presidents, the Justice Department says, citing George Washington's interception of British mail as an example.
Congressional Research Service:
Acknowledges that surveillance is an important facet of warfare. But the CRS analysis says that "it is not clear that the collection of intelligence constitutes a use of force" authorized under the resolution passed by Congress.
My take:
Indeed communications intelligence is an essential part of waging war, however we have a FISA court to approve domestic eavesdropping. there is no circumstance save for a full scale invasion of the homeland that would give the President carte balance to conduct any sort of of warrentless surveillance
'Hamdi v. Rumsfeld'
The 2004 Supreme Court ruling found that the authorization to use force passed by Congress allowed the detention of an American citizen captured on a foreign battlefield -- in spite of a federal law prohibiting such detentions unless authorized by Congress. The high court's ruling recognized the right to detain combatants "based on longstanding law-of-war principles."
Bush Administration:
Interprets the Hamdi ruling to mean that Congress' force authorization implicitly gave the president the power to conduct any activity considered an essential aspect of waging war -- including warrant less electronic surveillance -- at home and abroad.
Congressional Research Service:
Argues that the Hamdi ruling merely confirmed the authority to capture enemy combatants on a foreign battlefield. Suggests it's a huge stretch to say that the force authorization also covers domestic surveillance as an essential aspect of waging war.
My take:
The idea of holding anyone indefinitely even if they are a threat is just wrong, the United States has really lost the moral high ground here.The intelligence value of these interrogations is highly doubtfully in my mind.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
Law known as "FISA" created a legal process for authorizing foreign intelligence wiretaps. Allows a 15-day grace period for warrant less wiretapping during times of war and provides for retroactive warrants. Provides an exception to warrant requirements "where authorized by statute."
Bush Administration:
Argues FISA cannot take away the president's inherent constitutional power to wiretap in the name of national security. Contends that the 2001 congressional authorization to use force fulfills FISA's mandate that a warrant is required "except where authorized by statute."
Congressional Research Service:
Says FISA reflects Congress' view that it has the authority to regulate the president's use of any inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrant less surveillance. Suggests Congress did not intend for FISA's warrant exceptions to be expansive.
My take:
the Administrations ignoring the fisa statute is a felony and needs to be prosecuted by the people. He could have gone about creating statute with the help of congress he is arrogant and dictatorial in his opinions
Facebook
Twitter