Arlen Specter and the White House’s “Preposterous” Defense

NRO ^ | March 28, 2006 | Byron York

[ARCADIA]

Specter should be fired.

[MamaLucci]

Unfortunately, Specter owes his continuance in office to President Bush.
They don't call the GOP the stupid party for nothing.

[Txsleuth]

Now....who are we going to believe Specter or Feingold...not that it matters...they both spoke (LOL).

Just curious if the hearing WILL happen on Friday now.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the post!

[neverdem]

Thanks for the links!

[sefarkas]

Please, remind me why Specter was so desperate to be Judiciary Chairman.

[pointsal]

Arlen is returning just so, so many favors... /sarcasm

[Dante3]

Is Senator Specter corrupt? A sleeper agent? Or merely mentally unbalanced?

[peyton randolph]

Specter is corrupt. Been so since his days on the Philly City Council.

[Dante3]

This does not surprise me.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Wow. Thanks.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I don't believe the AUMF argument was weak. And I do think it was necessary in order to assert long-held principles.

If congress authorises the president to take ALL steps necessary to prosecute a war, the President should be able to take that to include spying on americans who might be communicating with the enemy. That is certainly a step to prosecute the war.

TO the degree that was a necessary step, congress could easily enumerate the things it is NOT allowing the president to do, or could enumerate the powers it is giving the president. It probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster for the reasons given above, but the courts hate to restrict things when congress didn't bother to do so.

[longtermmemmory]

FIRST and FOREMOST: THIS IS AMNESTY PURE AND SIMPLE.

Attempting to say it is not amnest is an insult to any intligence.

This is about as absurd as clinton's attempt to say tax increases were "contributions"

The fact these people are illegal should ban them from EVER obtaining citizenship.

When you consider the CURRENT LAW HOLDS you have to hide for 10 years, the McCain bill is a RELAXING of current law!

[exit82]

Agreed. Especially his "magic bullet" theory before the Warren Commission. He must have gotten a gold plated shovel for slinging that BS.

[Dan(9698)]

"The FISA Court has an unblemished record of integrity and the ability to maintain a secret," Specter said.

That is a misstatement. The FISA Judge refused to recognize the Patriot act, and then told the New York Times the President was violating the law.

The FISA Court of Review smacked them down over it. One of the FISA Judges resigned after the Court of Review said the President was right, and the FISA Judge was wrong.

He is probably one of the "sources".

[Cboldt]

I don't believe the AUMF argument was weak.

I disagree with your point, for numerous reasons. But you are certainly entitled to keep your position on this, and you have well laid out why you hold the way you do.

I'm not going to flesh out my rationale here, but will give bullet points.

• Numerous congressmen assert that the President is now applying the AUMF within its intent - he is stretching the AUMF, and persisting in misinterpretation will have an unhealthy effect on future legislation and congressional cooperation
• The language of the AUMF implicates War Powers Resolution, and very much implicates activity on foreign soil rather than activity "on US soil"
• Technically, we are not at war. Being so would trigger the wartime clauses in FISA
• The need for this sort of surveillance may well exist in peacetime - and it's shortsighted to hang a rightful executive power to surveil on a congressional act that resembles wartime
• Historically, Congress HAS passed separate legislation. See the First War Powers Act (WWII) langauge relating to censorship, for example.

  Whenever, during the present war, the President shall deem . . . public safety demands it, he may cause to be censored under such rules and regulations as he may, from time to time establish, communications by mail, cable, radio, or other means of transmission passing between the United States and any foreign country.

  U.S. Censorship of Enemy Alien Mail in World War II

If (I think it's a matter of "when") the DoJ drops the AUMF argument, will you think it was a weak argument, or a strong argument?

[Cboldt]

Correcting what should be an obvious typo in my first bullet point ...

• Numerous congressmen assert that the President is nowNOT applying the AUMF within its intent - he is stretching the AUMF, and persisting in misinterpretation will have an unhealthy effect on future legislation and congressional cooperation

[Cboldt]

The Byron York article you cite was discussed here ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597387/posts

More detail on In re: Sealed Case ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598058/posts?page=278#278

I said, " ... it's an error in logic, on several levels, to point to In Re: Sealed case and say 'that stands for the proposition that the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program is Constitutional.'"

First, In re: Sealed Case wasn't on the issue of what constitutes the extent of permissible wiretapping - it never got to a 4th amendment analysis. Second, we don't know what sort of "probable cause" (shorthand for finding a connection to foreign attachment) is present in the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program. It's not possible to draw a reasoned opinion on constitutionality until a fact pattern is presented. Third, the cases that In re: Sealed Case relies on, primarily Truong and Keith, a) involved judicial oversight and b) resulted in some evidence being tossed for failure to meet 4th amendment requirements.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598058/posts?page=321#321

[Cboldt]

I don't believe the AUMF argument was weak.

I just bumped into an earlier post of mine on the same subject ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1573554/posts?page=95#95