Posted on 12/30/2005 5:09:26 PM PST by Bob Dobolina
Does the Constitution empower the Bush administration to eavesdrop on Americans here at home? Has Congress unwittingly given the President special powers without realizing what they’ve done? The Bush administration believes it can do many things not allowed prior to September 2001. Other politicians, from both sides of the aisle, aren’t so sure. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) thinks that judicially unauthorized domestic spying is “inappropriate.” Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) finds the idea “troubling.” Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) fears that “Big Brother [has already] run amok.” Such are samples of the reaction to news that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor phone calls and e-mails from people inside the U.S., bypassing the legally established method of first obtaining a warrant. In his Dec. 17 radio address, President Bush explained his decision to authorize domestic spying: “To fight the war on terror, I am using authority vested in me by Congress, including the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force, which passed overwhelmingly in the first week after September the 11th. I’m also using constitutional authority vested in me as Commander-in-Chief.” Bush further stated, “In the first weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.”
President Bush argued that his NSA spying program was “crucial to our national security.” Those who revealed the program’s existence, he said, are blameworthy. “As a result,” he explained, “our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk.”
According to President Bush, “The NSA’s activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and the NSA’s top legal officials, including NSA’s general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it.” By way of final justification, the President declared, “The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I’m the President of the United States.”
Already the ACLU and the Council for American Islamic Relations have characterized President Bush’s actions as “unconstitutional.” Civil libertarians believe the administration has acted illegally. Those on the President’s side, who point to Public Law 107-40, will quote from that law as follows: “Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and … such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self defense … the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.”
Consider the significance of Public Law 107-40. In passing this law, Congress handed President Bush the power to wage war on several countries, should he so choose. Section 2 of this law states: “IN GENERAL. – That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or … in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States….” Public Law 107-40 is, in fact, a Congressional declaration of war on terror around the world. It also authorizes the president to do what is “necessary and appropriate” in terms of national defense. If Congress wants to change this situation, then Public Law 107-40 must be changed.
Terrorism expert Paul Williams has pointed out the absurdity of a “war on terror.” But that is what Congress has declared. The wording is remarkable. The President can use military force against any persons, groups or countries “in order to prevent” future acts of terrorism. He can spy on known associates of al Qaeda, on U.S. soil, without regard for civil liberties. He can invade sovereign countries. Think of Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons, or Syria’s support for international terrorism, or North Korea’s insane threats to scorch America with nuclear fire. Already President Bush has justified his invasion of Iraq by saying that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States. Those that do not credit the President’s arguments should read Public Law 107-40, which states: “the President is authorized to use all necessary … force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines….”
In September 2001 a war began. Congress unleashed the U.S. President against a vague and shadowy enemy. Congress’s declaration of war was broad and open-ended. It could be used to make war on countries such as Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Iran or former Soviet republics. Any country that supports terrorism may be attacked by order of the President. The administration was empowered to wage war at home and abroad, as the Commander-in-Chief determines. Any legal challenge to the President’s empowerment will find itself up against Public Law 107-40.
And now, consider the recent visit of CIA Director Porter Goss to Turkey. The Turkish press is reporting that Goss told Ankara to prepare for “possible U.S. air operations against Iran and Syria.” Goss is allegedly warning that Iran already has nuclear weapons, that Iran is supporting terrorism and working with al Qaeda. With Public Law 107-40 in effect, President Bush is authorized to make war on Iran and Syria. He is following the logic of Public Law 107-40, prosecuting the “war against terror” so that America will never suffer another 9/11/01. The “war against terror” is said to be a long war. This is because it is an open-ended war – authorized by Congress. And so it continues, and promises to widen.
© 2005 Jeffrey R. Nyquist Email l Website l FSO Archives
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) thinks that judicially unauthorized domestic spying is “inappropriate.” Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) finds the idea “troubling.”
The usual RINO suspects, at work again.
You signed up yesterday to post this garbage
Anti American RHINOS
Nyquist anxiously awaits the final war. Maybe he will be right this time.
Do you know where you are?
What exactly about it is garbage?
Finacial sense?
Please.
This entire subject matter is nothing more than a red herring.
Bush is going to be seen as one of the greatest presidents of all time.
Spying is something to be concerned about if left unchecked. The grandstanding that is going on is BS though. They had plenty of opportunity in Congress to see what was going on and yet they want to pile on when the story breaks.
The question any politician should be asked is:
"To what ends are you willing to fight AQ?" A wimpy liberal answer should tell you all you need to know.
It is an article that provides a defense of the Presiden's authority to wage war. I don't see what the trouble is here.
Its the sound the cats make when they jump on the cans
IB4TZ?
What and who is his source for this nonsense,
do I really I need to explain why this is garbage
Any candidate for office or political party that tries to keep the president from protecting the American people will be defeated so fast it will make their head spin.
I took a historical look at the current Democratic and Repubican strategies and at time when the same strategies were tried before.
It occurs to me that Demcorats never learn from Republican mistakes. But George W. Bush has learned a ton from both parties mistakes.
Click here for the 'tator take on the 2006 election.
McLain know nothing about a land war....He was the son of a Navy Admiral.....who from all reports was not the greatest stick in the world who was shot down..and became a Veteran setting in the Hilton....something I have great respect for him doing. However, that being said...he still knows diddly squat about what it really takes to win a war and watching his actions in the last few years....begs the question as it has been reported....the boy came out of the Hilton weighing a couple of pounds more than his last flight physical before his shootdown..........
I really don't think you understand that the article iswritten in support of what the President is doing. You seem to be under exactly the wrong impression.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.