Bush can now get away with anything?

Question

A federal court case involving Internet wiretapping has revealed the Bush administration at its worst.

I don't say this lightly. Senior attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice showed up before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last week and argued that the president should be able to violate federal law--and that judges can't do anything about it.


Excerpt from a Justice Department 'state secrets' brief
Their argument rests on something called the "state secret" privilege, which traditionally has been used to pull the plug on lawsuits that could, for instance, disclose national-security secrets such as a crashed military plane's true mission.

But now President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have expanded it to throw out a lawsuit (PDF) saying that AT&T illegally opened its network to the National Security Agency. Their arguments rest on the principle that even if the president is breaking the law, he can get away with it as long as he invokes national security. Courts would be demoted to a clerical role of noting that the "state secrets" privilege has been invoked and dismissing the case post-haste.

This would, if taken to its logical conclusion, allow the president to get away with murder.

Here, of course, we're talking about the Bush administration trying to derail a civil lawsuit against AT&T filed to right a wrong--there's no criminal prosecution--but the principle is the same. (Note that 50 USC 1809 makes it a federal felony to engage "in electronic surveillance under color of law, except as authorized by statute.")

No wonder the judges were skeptical. "The bottom line here is that once the executive declares that certain activity is a state secret, that's the end of it?" Judge Harry Pregerson asked. "No cases, no litigation, absolute immunity? The king can do no wrong?"

These are the kind of questions that journalists should be asking as well, and that's what I'm planning to do through this new blog here on CNET News.com. It's an independent, nonpartisan effort to report on the intersection of technology, law and policy in the areas that affect our lives and liberty.

And because I said it would be nonpartisan, I should acknowledge that the Department of Justice during the Clinton and Carter presidencies invoked the state secret privilege as well. And it's true that perhaps a Gore or Kerry presidency would have veered in the same expansive direction as Bush has. But that lies in the realm of speculation; the reality today is that we have the worrying prospect of a president who would place himself above the law.

http://news.com.com/8301-13578_3-9763099-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

the critical thinkers tried to tell yall that he was setting up his own dictatorship but noooooo...yall wouldnt listen..

Answer 1

I didn't vote for him. Blame all the red states 'intellectuals' who did. This mess he has created in every department of the government is going to take YEARS to clean up.
And, from the increased feebleness of his latest speeches, he is probably drinking again, which is why all of his advisors are leaving the sinking ship like rats.

Answer 2

It has not been established that claiming executive privilege for everything is going to prevent Bush's activities from receiving checks and balances or some other form of oversight. Remember, for the longest time Bush was doing the same thing with trying 'terrorists' at Guantanamo, the Supreme Court overruled his actions (ironic, because the SC had no jurisdiction to make a ruling to begin with!). Given the number of things that they've been hiding recently, I imagine that some deeper investigations will be conducted, and if congress and the court turn against the executive, he will have no choice but to comply.

You also have to realize that given the sensitive nature of the information sought, it very well could be hidden all on account of national security; that their might not be anything wrong with it. I know that's hard for a lot to believe but the possibility does exist.

"This would, if taken to its logical conclusion, allow the president to get away with murder. "

Doubtful. Like I said, the possibility that this all really is national security exists. I'd like to see Bush explain how him murdering someone comprised national security. Their exists a limit to how far someone could take these powers, and with so much of the country not approving Bush's actions there's NO WAY they would tolerate clear cut abuses of government from him.

Thanks for being non-partisan about it!

Answer 3

If the president has the constitutional authority to do something, then Congress can't limit that authority.

If FISA curtails power granted to the president under the Constitution, then the law itself is invalid.

Look up Andrew Johnson's impeachment - he was impeached (but not convicted) for violating the Tenure of Office Act. He most assuredly violated that law, but the law itself was later declared unconstitutional.

That's one of the arguments being made. The privilege claim will stand or fall - let's see what happens.

It really is a shame that so many people are ignorant of the workings of their own government. It seems like the Democrats seek to foster and exploit this ignorance, and fan the flames of anti-Bush hatred.

Answer 4

Unfortunately yall seem to have missed the point entirely.and the point is that there is no law with regard to the Bush administration. The way theyve set things up means they can do what ever the hell they want and cover their asses by citing 'state security' .

A senior Bush Administration official unveiled a new strategy in Friday's Washington Post -- anonymously -- to combat Democrats in Congress who are clamoring to file contempt charges against officials who refuse to talk about the firings of nine US prosecutors.

In sum, this strategy amounts to, "once we say no, we can't be charged."

Ironically, President Bush's new legal argument hinges on whether one of his own US prosecutors can file charges against his staff.

According to the Post, "Administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts."

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," a senior official told the Post, which granted the official anonymity because 'he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly.' "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

Under law, a contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to Washington, D.C. US attorney, who then brings the charge to a grand jury.

"It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys," the anonymous Bush official added.

George Mason University professor of public policy Mark J. Rozell called the administration's stance "astonishing" in the article.

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell told the reporter. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

The White House did not inform Democrats of the plan, which the Post called a "bold new assertion of executive authority."

Reached for comment, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told the paper it was "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."

20 Jul 2007 9:51 p.m. Subject: Bush to Congress: We can't be charged - Me to Bush: Bullshit Body: For the President to argue that the US Government cannot bring legal actions against his office is tantamount to claiming absolute arbitrary authority. If the US Government lacks authority to bring charges against any of the citizens of the US, any one, then the US Government is incompetent to do the job for which Americans sacrifice their absolute liberty to conjoin in exercising.

If the government is incompetent to perform the duties for which the American people constituted it, then the American people themselve retain the authority which the President claims the government lacks.

There is no loophole, or legal technicality that dims our powers, nor blunts our sovereign authority. The President has no immunity to the will of the American people, whose authority he is to execute. If he has so executed our authority in a manner which is contrary to the laws the American people have established and ordained through the Congress, the President is damn well liable to even criminal justice, at the will of the people, and no law or agency has any authority to stand in the way.

Let Congress know, that the American people have no lack of sovereign authority to charge the President, or any other citizen of this country, with any lawful order or judgement, and that the Congress has the authority of the people in the matter, and can enforce the laws we have established to prevent crimes and treachery that disaffect and harm our people, and our nation.

No man is above the law, and the people have the authority they have delegated to government. If the government is claimed to be inadequate, then the people themselves are not, nor their representatives, the Congress, to enforce just laws of this nation.

The President, and his officers, can be charged, and are subject to the authority of the legislature, and the orders of US courts, and to the officers of the executive brance of government, just as is every equal and free citizen subject to the Constitution.

Answer 5

You are so partisan you cannot see the light, do you really think Bush is the only president to do wire tapping and invasion of privacy? And Remember the key word here that everyone seem to forget is OVERSEAS wire tapping not DOMESTIC Spying.
Of course Bill Clinton never did such horrible deeds or Carter or Kennedy.

Answer 6

I really doubt Bush is physically "wiretapping" your internet connection. Do you have a problem with National Security? Don't worry, you can still download music illegally, Bush doesn't care. Where is the outrage form citizens when a tennager is caught by record companies for downloading music? How do you think they did that? It wasn't Bush, I can tell you that.

Answer 7

You should know this it will ease of f your mind.

They can only look for terrorist and people that want to attack the US. This is the law. So when your calling to buy more pot they can not use that info in any way even if you ask him to kill your wife.

To make this point no one has come forward to say they have been trapped by what Bush has done.

So clam down the DEA is not coming for you.

Answer 8

Bush and Cheney have not got the political capital to attend to Iran precise not . . . my intestine tells me that any statements or movements would be coming from Rice . . . we will see if she's a puppet to boot . . .

Answer 9

DUH* we have better things to do than listen...we have no choice or say on anything anymore we could have opposed agianst it...Bush still would've done it he doesnt care about his people he only cares about himself and if i ever see him imma give him a peice of my mind president or not hes like the biggest ***** ever and should've never been president whoever voted for him is KRAZII...insane..They should be in a mental institute!!!

I dont listen because i have no say!!
And really dont care anymore!!
All i know is i want Mrs.Clinton to take the stand next year and make everything right!!!