Why Didn't Bush Ask Congress?

Real Clear Politics ^ | December 20, 2005 | George F. Will

[kellynla]

WASHINGTON -- The president's authorization of domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency contravened a statute's clear language. Assuming that urgent facts convinced him that he should proceed anyway and on his own, what argument convinced him that he lawfully could?

Presumably the argument is that the president's implied powers as commander in chief, particularly with the nation under attack and some of the enemy within the gates, are not limited by statutes. A classified legal brief probably makes an argument akin to one Attorney General John Ashcroft made in 2002: ``The Constitution vests in the president inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority.''

Perhaps the brief argues, as its author John Yoo -- now a professor of law at Berkeley, but then a deputy assistant attorney general -- argued 14 days after 9/11 in a memorandum on ``the president's constitutional authority to conduct military operations against terrorists and nations supporting them,'' that the president's constitutional power to take ``military actions'' is ``plenary.'' The Oxford English Dictionary defines ``plenary'' as ``complete, entire, perfect, not deficient in any element or respect.''

The brief should be declassified and debated, beginning with this question: Who decides which tactics -- e.g., domestic surveillance -- should be considered part of taking ``military actions''?

[Lockbar]

"Q: Why didn't Bush as Congress? A: He didn't want the enemy to know what his plans were."

You called it exactly. I'm not exaggerating when I think many congress members would try to make direct contact with bin Ladin to tip him off.

[holdonnow]

Here's why George (from NRO - The Corner):

LISTENING IN [Mark R. Levin]
George Will says in today's column: " ... Congress, if asked, almost certainly would have made such modifications of law [respecting surveillance] as the president's plans required. ..."

In his news conference yesterday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales addressed this.
Question: If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?

Gonzales: ... We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so the decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.
The news conference was actually quite useful in explaining a wide variety of issues and decision. Too bad it was all but ignored by the big media.

[zook]

Will can truly be an idiot sometimes, a useful one for those on the left. It took me a moment to conclude that (1) the intelligence needs were immediate
(2) there was no guarantee that Democrats wouldn't balk
(3) by asking Congress, the program would no longer be secret and we'd be unable to follow up good leads.

Stick to baseball matches, George. And even then, keep it to yourself.

[rabidralph]

The president asked for, and Congress gave him additional authority, through the Patriot Act. I reference some of the past details on this other thread.

[911angelady]

The Commander in Chief decides!!!We are at war, and he is protecting and defending this country,since when does he have to ask permission to do his job? Yes, Congress is directly to blame for the 9/11 tragedies and most of the key players in the Clinton administration,{Jamie Gorelick-remember her?}And ,now the latest decision with the Patriot act...we're going backwards, and sadly,we are destined for another 9/11, maybe on the West coast this time? Las Vegas?

[kellynla]

Excellent points!

[Mia T]

EXCELLENT! BUMP!

 

December 7, 1941+64

AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO

RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton

Dear Concerned Americans,

Hillary Clinton's revisionist tome notwithstanding, 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. It is in that light that I make this not-so-modest proposal on this day, exactly 64 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The context of our concern today--regardless of political affiliation--is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the larger fear is that our democracy may not survive.

We have the requisite machines, power and know-how to defeat the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, but do we have the will?

In particular, do we have the will to identify and defeat the enemy in our midst?

Answerable to no one, heir apparent in her own mind, self-serving in the extreme, Hillary Clinton incarnates this insidious new threat to our survival.

What we decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times.

COMPLETE LETTER

December 7, 1941+64
Mia T
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton


COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

CHENEY: CALL THEM REPREHENSIBLE
THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₅


THE LEFT'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans


pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA


The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)


A CALL TO IMPEACH CLINTON IN ABSENTIA

[MEG33]

Amen

[MEG33]

BUMP!

[CharlesWayneCT]

And if we don't like it, we can vote him out of office in 4 years. And if we really don't like it, we can vote his party out of office to punish them.

And if we are really worried about it, we can make sure to ask our next candidates what their principles are about this, and not elect people who think this would be OK.

That's what's cool about elections -- we elect representatives, and they do what they think is right, and we can replace them if we don't agree.

[BlueStateDepression]

It sure is becoming a very hefty weight to bear when trying to show how the Democratic party is strong on National Defense, especially in a time of war.

The left has not come with anything resembling a plan that entails what they would do to combat terrorism in this war. Simply put, they have spent (at least) the last 15 years opposing fighting it at all.

W touched on this point this weekend and I wish he would do so more often. We spent the majority of the 90's NOT fighting back and that option saw only augmentation in scope of attacks. Claiming that us fighting back is causing this is a flaw from the get go. Claiming that not fighting them will make them stand down is just plain false.

I believe that some folks take a truism of the unconcious mind and attempt to apply it to real life actions. It is said that in the mind, sometimes the only way to win a battle is to deny the battle alltogether. When the 'enemy' considers gaining battle a win then I suppose I can see why people might buy into this strategy. I think this is the strategy that clinton employed. I also think the facts show how much of a failure that really is.

W pulled out the stops. W took action. W acted within the law. W didn't let political ideology or hamstrings based on poll numbers chose his path. He decided that enough was enough and that denying them battle was simply the wrong thing to do. He said he would take the fight to them and he said that he would use all available tools that he could.

W needs to keep speaking these basic truths so that the political hacks on both sides of the aisle are squashed when they try to make this war into a political points gathering effort. So long as W does what he did this weekend i don't think even a Dem controlled house could push through impeachment. I don't think the people of the USA would stand for it.

[BlueStateDepression]

I think one reason they keep getting elected is because of the attitude that all things are blamed on a President and not on congress where the blame mostly belongs.

I think when people wake up and see that Congress holds the majority of the blame, that problem will start to be adressed with other candidates being voted into office.

[Wasanother]

Good point but the congress gave him the blank check when they authorized the President to,"do everything necessary to prevent further attacks". If their authorization was given in the passion of the moment then they should just accept it then amend their authorization not try to backtrack saying they never gave it.

[BlueStateDepression]

Right, congress wants to shift the responsibility to the President so they can blame him for all things. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

I would offer they need to take into account the rate at which information travels these days and take notice of the fact people are starting to wake up to their games.

Congress cannot give the office of President the authority he needs to make the decisions and then claim that he didn't come to them for approval of each and every action.

If Congress wants to hold all the decision making power then by all means declare war and make the decisions then!

Oh wait, that action failed miserably in the past.....why don't they declare war and take responsibility again? LOL

[MJemison]

Off subject, but did you see the look that George Will gave Mohair Sam when he called supporters of Christmas "Yahoos"?

I did. It was like he suddenly smelled the dog doo on Sam's shoes. He looked thoroughly disgusted.

[FlipWilson]

Quote: "The brief should be declassified and debated, beginning with this question: Who decides which tactics -- e.g., domestic surveillance -- should be considered part of taking ``military actions''?"

Right, therein lies the rub and therein lies why this information was leaked. George Will has missed this point. The President could easily defend his actions here if he were simply to declassify information. Ahh, but therein lies the rub. To do so means compromising perfectly LEGAL intelligence gathering operations and dealing a serious setback to the prosecution of the War on Terror. Quite a pickle for the President. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Too bad it endangers the citizens of this country. But, as I have said before, what do the dems care, the dead only vote for them anyway.

[Redbob]

YEah, maybe the President thought that Jimmuh Cartuh's Executive Order allowing domestic surveillance was still in effect...

[911angelady]

I suppose you could do a much better job as Commander in Chief,... you should know more about politics and the "games" that are played,you sound like such a "know-it-all".I bet you couldn't find your way out of a wet paper bag, let alone handle any political position of any significance,I'm very thankful for George W.,unlike you. Thank you President Bush for protecting my loved ones and my country.