Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cboldt
Yes, but it is within the bounds of the broad power given to him by Congress right after 9-11, some would call that legal (despite the fact that Daschle is now running around trying to claim that is not what they meant to do).
134 posted on 01/02/2006 7:14:26 AM PST by SunSetSam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies ]


To: SunSetSam
Yes, but it is within the bounds of the broad power given to him by Congress right after 9-11, some would call that legal (despite the fact that Daschle is now running around trying to claim that is not what they meant to do).

The DoJ laid its arguments out pretty well in Assistant Attorney General's Letters to Senate Intelligence Committee, and the AUMF is an integral part of some justifications asserted therein.

I certainly prefer the more precise descriptions of "within the inherent power of the executive as augmented granted by the AUMF" to the less precise labels of "legal" and "illegal." And in the broad scheme of things, having some give and take, some tension between the branches of government, is something that I think is good for the Republic.

There is an opposite point of view, that relatively secret (and therefore not entirely, but relatively without oversight) executive actions are entirely appropriate; and the existence of actions undertaken thereby should be forever hidden from public scrutiny. No trials, no hearings, just "secret" action.

139 posted on 01/02/2006 7:45:07 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson