Dare to comment? Observe the rules!
I think Matt Yglesias lays out a pretty good case that Bush's answer actually meant that his power was largely unchecked, that is, that the so-called checks he mentioned do not really restrict him that much.
here is the check of people being sworn to uphold the law, for starters.
How does this provide a check on Presidential power? Any president who would feel bound by an oath wouldn't need to take one because he would uphold the law anyway.
I'm telling you, we have briefed the United States Congress on this program a dozen times.
Before or after the fact, and what could Congress have done to stop Bush's activities had they chosen to do so? Unless they could stop what Bush was doing, briefing them does not provide a meaningful check on Presidential power.
Ahem, even Clinton had this power.
It appears that United States Code Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, Sections 1801-1811 is more appropriate to the matter of intelligence agency surveillance than is Executive Order 12333. Read the key definitions of the words such as "foreign power" or "minimization procedures"(§ 1801 - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscod...01----000-
.html ) before reading "Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General..." (§ 1802 - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscod...02----000-
.html ):
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
Here's § 1808 ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscod...08----000-
.html ), "Report of Attorney General to Congressional committees; ...":
(1) On a semiannual basis the Attorney General shall fully inform the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concerning all electronic surveillance under this subchapter. Nothing in this subchapter shall be deemed to limit the authority and responsibility of the appropriate committees of each House of Congress to obtain such information as they may need to carry out their respective functions and duties.
(2) Each report under the first sentence of paragraph (1) sha
2) Each report under the first sentence of paragraph (1) shall include a description of—
(A) each criminal case in which information acquired under this chapter has been passed for law enforcement purposes during the period covered by such report; and
(B) each criminal case in which information acquired under this chapter has been authorized for use at trial during such reporting period.
The last release date of this subchapter of this law was March 17, 2005.
So, if this particular NSA surveillance activity is so illegal, bad and so detrimental to civil liberties, why didn't these legislators do something about it sooner?
Seems like partisan politics going on here capitalizing on the public's cluelessness of how "checked power" actually works, rather than "unchecked power."
Ahem, even Clinton had this power.
So? I hated Clinton, and thought that he abused his power as well.
I didn't say he abused his powers. And yet, the definition of "abused" need to be clarified here.
mcconnell -
if you read your own post again, you'll see clinton specified foreign powers. since when is PETA foreign?
No. I never mentioned Clinton in my blog post and never talked about whether Clinton abused his power in this matter we're on. I did, however, pointed out that Bush had the same power as Clinton did. Now, if we want to talk about whether Clinton abused his powers, then that's an altogether a different topic under the same subject on presidential authority.
Commenting by HaloScan
