Bush's orders to spy `probably constitutional'

[emad]

BY CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
[email protected]

2005 was already the year of the demagogue, having been dominated for months by the endlessly echoed falsehood that the president ''lied us into war.'' But the year ends with yet another round of demagoguery.
Administration critics, political and media, charge that by ordering surveillance on communications of suspected al Qaeda agents in the United States, the president had clearly violated the law. Some even suggest that Bush has thereby so trampled the Constitution that impeachment should now be considered. (Barbara Boxer, Jonathan Alter, John Dean and various luminaries of the left have already begun floating the idea.) The braying herds have already concluded, Tenet-like, that the president's actions were slam-dunk illegal. It takes a superior mix of partisanship, animus and ignorance to say that.

Does the president have the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches against suspected foreign agents in the United States? George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr (one critic calls him the man who ''literally wrote the book on government seizure of electronic evidence'') finds ''pretty decent arguments'' on both sides but his own conclusion is that Bush's actions were ``probably constitutional.''

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/13512987.htm


JUST how many Democrats was Dumbass spying on? Not to mention members of his own goddawful lot.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Krauthammer would say that.

But he's such a Bush-stooge that he'd probably claim it was legal, moral, and even a good idea for Bush to bugger a Cub Scout on the White House lawn on national television.

[wtmusic]

2. Krauthammer's grasping at straws

is becoming painful to read. The ship is sinking, Charles.

[long_green]

3. "I sort of promise to kind of protect, ostensibly support,

and maybe defend the Constitution of the United States."

Thank God Earl Warren wasn't looking for probable constitutionality.

[acmavm]

4. You know if old Charlie says it's 'probably Constitutional' then

it definitely isn't. You got two choices with Charlie. He's either the dumbest SOB on earth, or the biggest liar. Take your pick.

[ptolle]

12. both maybe?

I know that's the obvious conclusion, but it's just so inescapable.And he's not alone in this category.

[Fredda Weinberg]

5. Constitutional? Mebbe ... but definitely illegal

Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University, disagreed, saying that the program "is probably constitutional." He based his conclusion in part, he said, on a line of precedent that allows searches without a judge's permission at the nation's borders. Under that so-called border exception, the Supreme Court has, for instance, authorized the opening of international mail without a warrant.

But whatever may be said about the Fourth Amendment, Professor Kerr said, the security agency's program "probably violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act," or FISA, a 1978 law that sought to limit executive power in this area.

That is a proposition the administration does not, in a narrow sense, seem to dispute. "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed," Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said at a briefing on Monday, referring to the N.S.A. program for which no court orders were sought. But Mr. Gonzales added that the law was not violated because the program was "otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/politics/23legal.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1135958579-0kdQ3KSRtHgp6QIdpJ9qAQ

[global1]

6. Does That Mean It's Probably Unconstitutional As Well? n/t

[Fredda Weinberg]

7. Nope

Robbing a bank ain't unconstitutional - just illegal.

[Demeter]

10. Love It!

Although one could probably read it into a penumbra of one of the clauses that robbing a bank is unconstitutional--then we could impeach Neil Bush!

[GrantDem]

13. Good point n/t

[BOSSHOG]

8. "The endlessly echoed falsehood that he lied us into war."

Charles you make me chuckle. Your right wing hate machine is the only thing endlessly echoing in this country in an effort to ensure the insane bush base doesn't get a notion that your echos are lies told to protect the stooge in the white house.

[Demeter]

9. Guess Again, Krauthammer

Talk about blind loyalty. It's unconstitutional on its face, after studying the history, and after deeper reflection. It just doesn't get any more illegal than that!

[CatWoman]

11. Charles "Flattop" Krauthammer

fucking idiot.

[gizmo1979]

14. They'll say it's constitutional

but that doesn't make it right.Bush's abuse of power will haunt presidents for decades to come.There will be a backlash and they will better define what his powers are and even powers that the president's needed will be gone making government slower and less effective then it is now.They can read just about anything they want into the constitution with the makeup of the supreme court he has carte blanche.