(Front Page Miami) Congress may prevail on war power (impeachable offense)

[UpInArms]

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/front/13484000.htm

In defending a decision to let the National Security Agency eavesdrop inside America without a court warrant, the White House is invoking the same legal argument it uses to justify its policies at the prison for terror suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

President Bush says post-Sept. 11, 2001, war powers entitle him to circumvent civilian courts on a range of war-on-terror activities -- from keeping terror suspects captive in cages at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba to letting U.S. agents listen in on phone calls between people in the United States and foreigners, to gather intelligence on al Qaeda.

Yet now, it looks like Congress -- not the courts -- will examine the legality of the eavesdropping episode, which some are calling ``Spookgate.''

''The president has been ambitious in defending us, and now the Congress wants to know if he has been overly ambitious -- and if it has offended civil liberties,'' says Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmeic, a Reagan administration conservative. ``The real check and balance is this dynamic between Congress and the president.''

<snip>

''It is not debatable whether the president can order electronic eavesdropping once Congress has passed a law making it criminal to do so,'' asserts Ratner. ``It is impeachable. The fact that we are sitting in 21st century America debating the issue of presidential power is ridiculous to me.''

...more...

[hippiechick]

1. Oh yippee, Congress is going to investigate this ?

I feel so much better now. :eyes:

[Lochloosa]

2. LOL...me too.

:banghead:

[4dsc]

8. Right, republican investigating bush??

Don't hold your collective breath. I suspect republicans will put on a dog and pony show but will not "really" investigate the president to the point of impeachment..

[Pithy Cherub]

20. republicans are experienced at crushing worthwhile investigations:

Iran-Contra, 9/11, Pre-war intelligence, ethics complaints against republicans, Katrina, No-bid contracts for companies owned and mismanaged by republicans, election fraud, Abu Gharib et al, Spying on Americans... I have such hope that republicans will mend their wicked ways. :sarcasm:

The republican war on America and the Constitution is going well...:eyes:

[mzmolly]

22. Well Republicans don't want to go down with the Bush admin in the

public eye, thus we may be quite surprised. Especially if we can take back congress in 06.

[goforit]

31. These a**holes should have thought about this a long time ago.

Take back congress in 06.

Foolish dreaming with rigging all across America.

[mzmolly]

33. Wait and see.

It's going to happen. :hi: Thankfully, diebold is not in every state/district.

[undergroundpanther]

3. I hope

Congress has the courage and convictions to stand up for our Bill of Rights and Constitutional principles and gets bush for treason.
The penalty for treason in the constitution is hanging.I don't want the ANti DP people to clamor about saving *life he is dangerous his whole family wants to ne a dynasty..The founders required the DP for a for treason for a reason/ They knew treasonous thugs are like a mob cartel.Treasonous thugs are tyrants they are connected secretive and never stop seeking more power and wealth for themselves,They rob nations blind and bend the laws until they shatter than sweep in to usurp the peoples rights. I would love to see the day bush and all his neo CON men are convicted of high treason by congress and hung.That may make the bushes and the more brazen of aristocratic/corporatist,anti constitution anti bill of rights religious thugs,con men and rich greedy pigs and the insane neocons scuttle back to the powerless fringe where they need to be for the safety of our country.

[petgoat]

19. I hope

Well I hoped Congress would stand up for the concept of honest elections, and refuse to
accept the votes of the Ohio electors. 1/6/05 I found that not one single Republican was
principled enough to stand up for democracy, and damn few of the Democrats had the spine
to do so.

Msybe after 11/06 the landscape will change.


http://www.worldcantwait.org/

[Oleladylib]

4. This is so much bigger than Watergate and..

we need to hammer it home..The guy's gotta go..Get our reps on this..

[EFerrari]

5. Welcome to DU, Oleladylib.

:hi:

[robbedvoter]

6. Interesting history of presidential abuse at the end:

President Bush's authorization of domestic spying is the latest in a long history of White House efforts to expand presidential war powers. Some examples:

• The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: These laws, passed in response to war fever against France, gave President John Adams the power to imprison government critics and deport aliens.

• Suspending liberties during the Civil War: President Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of citizens to challenge their arrests in court and defied a court order challenging his decision.

• The Sedition Act of 1918: Gave President Woodrow Wilson broad authority to arrest critics. The law was repealed three years later.

• Interning Japanese Americans: During World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt ordered the internment of more than 100,000. The government later apologized.

• Nationalizing the steel industry: President Harry S. Truman tried to assert federal control of the steel industry to avoid a strike that could have disrupted Korean War supplies. The Supreme Court blocked him.

• Domestic spying: President Richard Nixon authorized electronic surveillance without court approval against Americans suspected of subversion. The Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that he had exceeded his authority.

• The Iran-Contra affair: Frustrated by a congressional ban on aid to Nicaraguan Contra rebels, President Ronald Reagan authorized a secret plan to send them proceeds from the sale of weapons to Iran. He dismantled the program after it became public.

• Enemy combatants: The Supreme Court ruled last year that President Bush had the authority to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants in the war on terrorism but they could appeal their captivity to the courts.

[PATRICK]

10. The missing link

and I don't mean the Chimperor. Look at the examples. Almost each time there was a credible internal threat by a large group within the country. Muslims in our nation do NOT match up to any of the above, not the Tories and crown sympathizers left over from the fledgling revolution, not the Southern sympathizers and divided nation of the Civil War, not the German or Japanese populations courted by their homelands before the world wars, not the mega corporations that have threatened democracy and rights with tangible monopolies of abusive power.

I said ALMOST each time whether the response was justifiable in any way or not. In any event there was some accountability, drawing back or price paid. But with Nixon and Iran Contra our present day spookies were blooded in the war against civil rights and sanity. It is the same crowd that make shibboleths to justify a confusing complex of one crime washing or covering the stain of a greater one, wheels hiding in wheels- and NO really credible focus to justify even as a pretext for the ever enlarging circle of abuse.

Now the second difference so far. Both Nixon and Reagan were called to task for these specific abuses that Bush dares bluff out. The criminality is not in doubt. The justification is beyond the pale. What IS
in question, in its silent shame and complicity is the duty of Congress to be Congress and uphold the law. The media can in its perpetual ignorance and slovenly cowering before raw power treat the law as some insignificant game but the elected officials make themselves complicit in the crime they will choose to ignore.

Then in the abdication of law and government will the people even realize it is THEIR duty to remove all the offenders from the massively dysfunctional government? Or will the democratic sense of the nation be brutalized into the topdown chaos of corruption and willful disregard of the law and its own rights and protection?

Like any would be planned dictator, Bush has comically been sitting there waiting for more pretexts of terrorism(that never internally happened despite willful incompetence and antagonization) and wars that are unraveling daily. And on a grander comic scale he has been taking and getting all the de facto dictatorial regal powers anyway, with impunity, with no real threat of basic checks and balances, with a stifled national forum intent on entertainment more than income or security. More dumbified and sheepified without much planning or effort in fact than the Roman citizens at the worst periods of a decadent Empire ruled by real fear and the sword.

[robbedvoter]

12. Brilliant analysis!

It's probably also the first time that the GOP controls all branches of government (Dems did so, but never overreached for power like this). Should we emerge out of this eventually, it's a lesson that I hope will be remembered.

[PATRICK]

14. Everyone always mentions the GOP control

and the Dem control back in the "courageous" days. But that lets the Congress as Congress off the hook waaay too much. If any member of any party was a sex pervert thit would cut no ice, but not upholding national law at its highest level is OK as part of the political game? Cuts no slack with me.

When the argument descends right away to cynical rationalization the law is lost as well as broken.

[AndyTiedye]

26. We Had an All-Republican Government Before

Does the name Joseph McCarthy ring a bell?

[SushiFan]

7. The prix entire time in office is IMPEACHABLE, really!! nt

[Straight Shooter]

9. Is Congress interested in their political future?

Or are they interested in the future of America as a country which still respects the rule of law and loves its Constitution?

The world will be watching. Iraq, most certainly.

[kaygore]

11. Political futures

[Straight Shooter]

23. OMG. I've been smacked by the DU grammar police.

Imagine that, I had been barely awake for 10 minutes when I made my post and I committed the egregious offense of failing to apply proper grammatical rules.

Jeez. :eyes:

[kaygore]

27. No, I didn't notice the misspelling. I was agreeing with you.

I am the worse speller in the world. Without the spell checker I have no idea what is spelled correctly and what is spelled incorrectly.

[Straight Shooter]

28. My apologies, then.

Hard to tell without an explanation, because I see so many posts where one person corrects another.

:hi:

[kaygore]

34. Thank you

I would never do that. I was answering what I thought was a rhetorical question and trying to be humorous (which no should attempt before that first cup of coffee).

[Peace Patriot]

13. The OP "snip" omits who Ratner is. That section is worth a longer...

...quotation:

-------

"'The president thinks the war on terror gives him carte blanche to go outside of the law,'' says attorney Michael Ratner of New York's Center for Constitutional Rights, an early critic of the administration's expansive use of power.

"He calls revelations of warrantless wiretapping ''all of one piece, another power grab by the president'' that skirted not only Washington's secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court but symbolizes the overarching issue of presidential powers.

'''It is not debatable whether the president can order electronic eavesdropping once Congress has passed a law making it criminal to do so,'' asserts Ratner. 'It is impeachable. The fact that we are sitting in 21st century America debating the issue of presidential power is ridiculous to me.'

"Enter Congress. Four years ago after it authorized the use of military force against al Qaeda, on Sept. 18, 2001, says Kmeic, the war on terror seems to most Americans less like World War II -- and 'more like Vietnam.'

"So now, Kmeic says, lawmakers have begun to debate the meaning of that military force authorization:

"• 'Is it strong enough to allow the president to unilaterally determine enemy combatants?

"• 'Is it strong enough to say that those in Guantánamo have no access to federal courts?

"• 'Is it a strong enough hand for him to authorize spying on American citizens, seemingly contrary to the statutes that have been passed for other purposes?'


"FIRESTORM REACTION

"Civil libertarian protests have been on a slow burn for some time -- first over plans to summarily deport illegal immigrants, later on the question of whether a White House legal argument became a cover for interrogation using torture.

"Now, the disclosure that President Bush authorized domestic wiretapping more than 30 times, every 45 days, has ignited a firestorm.

"Amid last week's Christmas sales, the American Civil Liberties Union bought a full-page ad in The New York Times that showed Richard Nixon and the headline, 'This Man Wasn't Above the Law' -- then President Bush under the heading, 'Neither Is This One.'"

-------
-------

The Democrats should never have let Reagan off the hook on Iran-Contra. He should have been impeached. But they decided not to do the right thing, and let him get away with treating the matter as if it had been a "rogue operation." The difference between that situation and this one is that there is no case for this illegal spying on Americans as the work of a "rogue' element. Bush has admitted committing crimes, repeatedly. He seems proud of it. He and Cheney are defending it, not stopping it. The brass of it is amazing. If the Democrats had made Reagan bear responsibility for Iran-Contra, and had punished him accordingly--with impeachment and removal from office, or at least censure--(and if elections in this country weren't thoroughly rigged, now, with Bushite corporations tabulating all our votes with "'TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code, and virtually no audit/recount controls), Bush and Cheney would not be so bold in claiming power to violate the law. I think our party went bad then, with Reagan. I think they liked Reagan's tax code rewrite. It made them all millionaires. And most of the Dems support big military budgets, and realize that we have to have wars in order to keep the war profiteers in cash. Our war economy (unchanged since WW II) really can't function on its own. It is not capitalistic, in its essence. It is a "corporate welfare" economy--with the corporate military the biggest of the pigs at the trough. And Democrats who keep voting billions for war, with no accountability on Bush's actions or his spending, are as guilty of Bush's war crimes as Bush is.

This Constitutional crisis did not start with Bush's pervasive spying on Americans, just revealed. It started right after 9/11, with Bush/Cheney immediately grabbing as much dictatorial power as they could, and continued through 2002 and the Iraq war resolution, by which our Senators and Congress people GAVE AWAY their power to declare war to George Bush--in violation of the Constitution and their oaths of office. (133 voted against--the heroes of our Republic!). IF Congress had NOT unconstitutionally given away its war powers, then the debate over Iraq WMDs would have been decided by Congress, not by Bush. Congress would likely have held off invading Iraq at least until the UN inspectors had finished their job, and THEN it would have been obvious that no invasion was needed, and massive loss of life--and the utter chaos of Iraq today--could have been avoided.

Stopping Bush NOW, at burning the Constitution with illegal spying, is certainly to be desired--spying that doesn't even have a FISA warrant (which means that it is HIGHLY subject to abuse--to political, economic, and personal spying, and potential blackmail, ruination of peoples' careers, illegal arrests and imprisonment, and worse). But Congress should have stopped Bush LONG AGO, on any number of unconstitutional usurpations of power, secrecy, lack of accountability, torture, making up its own laws, lying to Congress, engaging in a war of choice, and war crimes.

All of these TERRIBLE precedents do not bode well for Congress requiring any accountability now--let alone adequate punishment. The Democrats caved to the fascists way back in the '80s. And the Republicans are just Bush "pod people." Also, neither of them is really beholden to the voters any more--not with the new electronic voting systems, controlled by Bushite corporations, with 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code and virtually no audit/recount controls. They may feel some vague, "quaint" tug of the old democracy, when public opinion counted. And public opinion is not yet totally without value as political coin. But, will they act in the public interest? Will they respond to the will of the people? They have only recently begun to do anything even remotely resembling representing the true majority--because things are so bad. Treason, perjury and obstruction of justice, unjust war, pervasive lying, bankrupting the federal government, murderous neglect in New Orleans, and massive, unaccountable theft! What does it take? Bush and Cheney are just men; they are not monarchs. They should have been impeached and put in jail right after 9/11, for failing to defend our nation's capitol (with nearly an hour's notice).

So we'll see what they do now. Meanwhile, we had better see to our election system, if it's democracy that we want. If not, well, then we have an election system in place that guarantees fascist rule.

[bvar22]

16. It started BEFORE 9-11.

It started with the open theft of the election in 2000, and the public complicity of the Republican judges on the Supreme Court.

[ninkasi]

17. Excellent analysis

I agree, Congress should have stopped Bush/Cheney from their power grab right after 9-11. The fact that they have given in at every turn to Bush's ever increasing thirst for more and more power does not give me a great deal of hope. Perhaps public reaction will cause some politicians to do their jobs, especially the ones up for reelection in 2006.

[UpInArms]

18. I only "snipped" for copyright issues

thanks for putting it back in

:hi:

(edited for clarity)

[enough]

15. kick

[BenDavid]

21. The only way this is going

to look legit is for the Democrats on whatever committee(s) look into this matter and call for bush and cheney to appear and PLACE THEM UNDER OATH...the problem I see thus far is the pink tutu democrats for some reason unknown to a lot of us have not made a stink about the bush being placed under oath...remember the 9 11 investigation. Damn. all bush said was he would talk to them. No one forced the issue about placing him and cheney under OATH....

[Triana]

25. Absolutely. They ALL need to get behind this and demand

...that the little dictator himself be placed under oath and made to answer for his crimes. If they'd get ON that task and NEVER get off of it (talk about it 24x7x365 for the next year) they'd get someplace.

But they don't have the spine, the inclination, or the coordination to do it. Their little fiefdoms / districts and their little political careers are more important to them than SAVING THIS COUNTRY.

Useless.

_ _ _ _ _

Helloooooooo NSA:

GEORGE BUSH SUCKS! He's a despot and a terrorist himself, not to mention a power-hungry, fear-mongering dictator. Just like...well, Saddaam Hussein or, Osama binLaden. He has YELLOW CAKE for brains. Got it?

[stepnw1f]

24. "Ambitious"? Give Me a Break!!

Hubris.... not ambition. And he's not doing it to protect the people. He doesn't care about the people. Just look at what he did during 9-11. And looked at how he did nothing for New Orleans!!!

Protect us my ass. He is destroying us and trying to use authority he doesn't have to take more of our civil liberties away from us. This is the right wing wet dream. He is a sicko totalitarian rich elite pig, that wants to rule over people, not represent them. He hates Democracy.

[Barkley]

32. BINGO! The WH outed a CIA agent that's a felony not "ambitious"

How can one construe that as being "ambitious" protection.

The media (others) are using this terminology since they endorsed Bush's earlier actions but have not or do not want to come to grips with illegality of these previous actions.

[whathappened]

29. dc is a wash

if only we had a voting count that was right , we need to wash and hang them out to dry on k street , new gov. for the people and one run by the people is the way to go for me

[kliljedahl]

30. Another whitewash in the works

Keith’s Barbeque Central