Al Gore's 'Living Constitution' Leaves U.S. Vulnerable to Another 9/11

When Al Gore ran for president in 2000 he said “our Constitution is a living and breathing document” that changes its meaning over time. This week we learned that among the things changing in Gore’s Constitution is the war power. It meant one thing when Bill Clinton was president, but means another thing now.

Seven years ago, then-Vice President Gore supported Clinton in launching a war Congress didn’t authorize. Now, he says the Constitution denies President Bush the power merely to intercept an enemy’s communications in and out of the U.S.--without permission from a federal judge--in the midst of a war Congress did authorize.

The program in question has been described by Gen. Michael Hayden, principal deputy director for national intelligence, as yielding information about terrorists that could not have been gleaned through court-ordered wiretaps, while intercepting only international communications involving persons linked to al Qaeda.

Yet, on Monday, Gore described the program as “eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens” and claimed it “virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law, repeatedly and insistently.”

While the liberal ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights are bringing lawsuits against the program, Gore is calling for a special counsel to investigate Bush.

Now flash back to 1999--the year when only a failed Senate impeachment prosecution stood between Gore and the presidency.

On March 23, 1999, President Clinton ordered U.S. forces to begin bombing Yugoslavia because of its treatment of people in Kosovo. Clinton bombed for three months. The day the war started, then-White House Spokesman Joe Lockhart was asked whether Clinton believed congressional support was “constitutionally necessary.” Lockhart said, “Well, I don’t think he believes it’s constitutionally necessary because we don’t believe that.”

Congress, in fact, declined to authorize it. The Senate voted 58 to 41 for a resolution “authorizing the President of the United States to conduct military air operations and missile strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.” But the House defeated the resolution, 213 to 213.

Gore aggressively backed Clinton’s unauthorized war, suggesting its critics were guilty of “politics.” “I think the American people want to see politics removed from any kind of action where our military forces are involved overseas,” he said on the April 2, 1999 edition of CNN’s “Larry King Live.”

As I have argued before, citing Louis Fisher’s Presidential War Power, the Framers unambiguously denied the President the power to initiate offensive military action. But as Framers James Madison and Elbridge Gerry, authors of the war-powers clause, explained at the Constitutional Convention, they did leave “to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.”

In the Founding era no one doubted Congress needed to approve any act of war beyond what was necessary for the President “to repel sudden attacks.” In the 1801 case Talbot v. Seeman, involving a ship seized as a war prize, Chief Justice Marshall explained: “The whole powers of war being, by the Constitution of the United States, vested in Congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this inquiry. It is not denied, nor in the course of the argument has it been denied, that Congress may authorize general hostilities, in which case the general laws of war apply to our situation; or partial hostilities, in which case the laws of war, so far as they actually apply to our situation, must be noticed.”

Was Clinton repelling a sudden attack on the U.S. when he bombed Yugoslavia? Even Gore never claimed that.

In the war against al Qaeda--including his order for the NSA to intercept al Qaeda-linked communications in and out of the U.S.--was President Bush acting either under a congressional war authorization or his own authority to repel sudden attacks?

After 9/11, Congress authorized the President to make war against “those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks.” If this authorized the President to invade Afghanistan, surely it authorized him to intercept communications between the U.S. and suspected terrorists in Afghanistan.

But even if Congress hadn’t authorized a war, it is reasonable to conclude the President could intercept al Qaeda-linked communications in and out of the U.S. even in circumstances where a court-order could not be secured. Surely, the President’s authority to repel sudden attacks includes the authority to listen at our frontier for sounds from the enemy.

But--at least so long as there is a Republican in the White House--it seems that Gore’s “living and breathing” Constitution would put earplugs in the sentries who guard the border between us and the next 9/11.

"On March 23, 1999, President Clinton ordered U.S. forces to begin bombing Yugoslavia because of its treatment of people in Kosovo. Clinton bombed for three months. The day the war started, then-White House Spokesman Joe Lockhart was asked whether Clinton believed congressional support was “constitutionally necessary.” Lockhart said, “Well, I don’t think he believes it’s constitutionally necessary because we don’t believe that.” "

****** More to it...the war in the Balkans was absolutely fabricated and made from one of the most grandiose hoax's that the world has any idea. The U.S. Administration then, and NATO generated an incredible set of circumstances that justified our entrance into the Balkans. One example, there were no 8,000 Muslims murdered in Srebrenica. It is confirmed that 3,010 voted in next years Bosnian election. There were NO mass graves of Albanians in Kosovo. I was there for five years from 1999 to 2004 as security chief and no mass graves were discovered, except later last year of 22 Serbs.

All this is confirmed and one example of a changed policy is following:

Everything I am telling you is documented. Finally check out these quotes, by Holbrooke and the transitional thinking…..

Holbrooke said the following, (Circa 1998):

“There's a military insurrection that is taking shape, backed by the
members of the Albania Diaspora in Germany, Switzerland, and right here
in New York City, where a lot of Albanians and Albanian-Americans are
sending a lot of money and support to Kosovo. (Gosh - NYC? -SG)

Holbrooke: An independent Kosovo would "unravel Southeastern Europe."

JIM LEHRER: And they want an independent Kosovo ruled by Albanians,
right?

RICHARD HOLBROOKE: Yes. And more. I met with several Albanian leaders
in Kosovo who said their goal is an independent Kosovo, their goal is
to recreate the Greater Albania that existed briefly during the 30's and 40's, which includes Albania, Kosovo, and part of Macedonia. That, I can tell you, Jim, would unravel Southeastern Europe and dramatically
increase the chances of a general war. And that's why the situation is
both not the same as Bosnia and why it's so dangerous
I really need to stress this point so people do not misunderstand it. The Kosovo Albanians have been very badly treated for over a decade by the Serb minority in Kosovo. Their rights have been denied and the Yugoslav federal constitution was changed to reduce their powers. This was entirely wrong, and it led to the inevitable reaction which we're now seeing. At the same time, the violent solution which is being advocated by the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army, which is really not an army but a lot of different groups that are gradually forming an infrastructure of resistance, this approach is highly dangerous to stability in the region.

******this was the truth as it stands even now and then. This is a direct quote from Holbrooke mind you. Also on

Sept. 10, 2002

Cumberland, Md.: Where you aware of the KLA and Bosnian Muslims' ties
to Osama bin Laden at the time you were negotiating with them?

Richard C. Holbrooke: Yes. In fact, we were so concerned about this
issue that we wrote into the Dayton Peace Agreements a clause requiring
the withdrawal of all "foreign elements" within a short time after the
agreement took force. When we found elements that had remained behind,
we launched raids against them. Not all of these people were removed,
and the effort is still continuing. Without the peace in Bosnia, there is a real chance that bin Laden would have been able to set up in the
Balkans what he did in Afghanistan with far greater danger to the West.

******This was the truth as well. Now--fast-forward to the following:

Nov 8 2005:

Holbrooke, the architect of the 1995 Bosnian peace deal, who said that
independence was the only way forward for Kosovo and its mainly Muslim
Albanians.

"I cannot see any final status for Kosovo other than independence," said Holbrooke, who forged the Dayton Peace Accords that ended Bosnia's 1992-95 war.

"But at the same time ... this cannot be achieved without ironclad guarantees for the safety, security, and protection of the rights of the Serbs who live in Kosovo and the protection of their magnificent monuments," he said.

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.