Duke law professor rebuts Bush claims

[FreedomAngel82]

About wiretapping. He says what Bush did was illegal.

Link: http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-698574.html

Snip: < By Jeffery K. Ritter : Herald-Sun Washington bureau
WASHINGTON
Feb 6, 2006 : 11:46 pm ET

DURHAM -- The administration's wiretapping operations are "essentially eliminating" the federal checks and balances system and may be unconstitutional, a Duke law professor said Monday.

Curtis Bradley, an expert on foreign relations and constitutional law who served as an administration legal adviser in 2004, said the president's post-9/11 wiretapping practices may be unlawful.

"It poses concerns," Bradley said in an interview. "If they decide a law is no longer adequate and go underground to change it, that is essentially eliminating the checks and balances system."

The Justice Department recently sent Congress a 42-page justification of the president's wiretapping, which included an article co-authored by Bradley. He said in an interview Monday with National Public Radio that the Justice Department misinterpreted the article. >

More at the link....

[Maven]

1. There's that word again: "concern"

"It poses concerns."

This isn't a "concern." It's a fucking outrage.

Rhetoric is the last weapon reasonable people have in this country, and we're shooting blanks.

[Pacifist Patriot]

4. Absolutely!

An inconclusive biopsy poses concerns. The president of the U.S. functioning as a fascist dictator is unconscionable.

[kenny blankenship]

5. I'm sure he understands, but look who he's talking to:

a provincial newspaper in a very conservative area (Durham is not Chapel Hill, and even in Chapel Hill he might wish to hedge himself). Just in order to be heard at all by the readership of this area he needs to couch his opinion in non-judgmental language: eg. Bush's action "poses concerns" instead of saying it's a prima facie case of Constitutional abuses by an out of control Executive. If he said the latter, a large percentage of the Herald-Sun readers would put the article down right there, not proceed, and force themselves to forget they ever read it.

[Maven]

6. Point taken, however

...there's no need to "hedge." If you're supposed to be a critic, and you come across as equivocal, then you shouldn't even bother. No one's going to pay attention to that either.

He could have used other words like "unprecedented," "unconstitutional," or even (gasp) "illegal" without offending the precious sensibilities of most readers.

And judging from a recent lecture at my law school on the subject, none of the constitutional law professors on the faculty seem to have any doubt that what Bush is doing is unprecedented, unconstitutional, and illegal.

[yardwork]

8. Durham is more liberal than Chapel Hill!

You're obviously not from around here. Yes, the Herald-Stun is a provincial paper (recently taken over by another outfit of clowns) but the Durham community itself is very progressive. Check out the figures. It votes deep blue, has a thriving and open gay community, and is majority non-Anglo.

Duke Law is and always has been a conservative school, but it doesn't reflect the interesting, diverse, and often contentious local politics. UNC is a fairly liberal state university, but the town of Chapel Hill is extremely expensive and is being taken over by retirees. Durham is where the progressive action takes place, along with Carrboro.

Come on over and take a look around. You might like it!

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. It's nice to see professionals stepping up to the plate, but...

while I've sometimes gotten lost in the details of other "scandals," this issue is so simple this housewife/minister from Florida with no legal background whatsoever can read the statutes and grasp that the president used the Constitution as toilet paper.

So we've got umpteen legal eagles and politicians saying this is a huge no-no. When the fuck is our government going to do something about it?

Pardon the language, I get like that when I'm writing a sermon and have had too much coffee to keep me going. ;)

[FreedomAngel82]

3. I know how you feel

It's so frustrating isn't it? But I do agree at least someone with a degree etc. is calling him on it. Remember Jonathan Turley from Conyers hearing? He said it too (it was illegal). Only thing is Bush was spying BEFORE 9/11. So the 9/11 excuse is nonsense.

[underpants]

7. Sounds like World NetDaily or NewsMax "wrote" the DoJ's letter

They spun his opinion on this?

[FreedomAngel82]

9. I don't know