Wednesday, December 21, 2005
How the Congress Endowed the President with the Authority for Warrantless Surveillance
The left in America, along with their willing imbeciles in the mainstream media, continue to think along two lines: that the NSA surveillance without court warrants was "against American citizens" (which it was not), or that "it is unprecedented" or "has no foundation in law."
Despite the fact that these morons have this entire story wrong, we here at Joobo need to set out why. And while it is not easy, we have the facts on our side, and as usual the left does not.
The Supreme Court has already held that in authorizing the war against al Qaeda, in what was called the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the Congress gave the president the powers to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against "nations, organizations, or persons" that he determines "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" in the attacks on 9/11. This case, Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al., did not specifically deal with the issue of warrantless wiretaps or surveillance, but with the President's powers to hold persons he suspected of being enemy combatants. Nonetheless, the court showed that the AUMF granted the President extraordinary powers.
But, wait - says the liberal argument. Since the Supreme Court did not specifically okay such surveillance, Bush committed an illegal act, right?
Wrong, as usual.
Because the same law they cite, the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), specifically allows such searches or surveillance without a warrant:
Section 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
And, as President Bush has so stated, Attorney General Gonzales has said that the surveillance was okayed by his office.
End of argument, right?
Not for liberals, of course. Because they find it easier to defend a President who lies under oath to a federal judge or commits obstruction of justice than allow another President who they hate to do what he needs to do to defend this country from terrorists who want to murder us.
The left in America, along with their willing imbeciles in the mainstream media, continue to think along two lines: that the NSA surveillance without court warrants was "against American citizens" (which it was not), or that "it is unprecedented" or "has no foundation in law."
Despite the fact that these morons have this entire story wrong, we here at Joobo need to set out why. And while it is not easy, we have the facts on our side, and as usual the left does not.
The Supreme Court has already held that in authorizing the war against al Qaeda, in what was called the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the Congress gave the president the powers to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against "nations, organizations, or persons" that he determines "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" in the attacks on 9/11. This case, Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al., did not specifically deal with the issue of warrantless wiretaps or surveillance, but with the President's powers to hold persons he suspected of being enemy combatants. Nonetheless, the court showed that the AUMF granted the President extraordinary powers.
But, wait - says the liberal argument. Since the Supreme Court did not specifically okay such surveillance, Bush committed an illegal act, right?
Wrong, as usual.
Because the same law they cite, the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), specifically allows such searches or surveillance without a warrant:
Section 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
(a)(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;
And, as President Bush has so stated, Attorney General Gonzales has said that the surveillance was okayed by his office.
End of argument, right?
Not for liberals, of course. Because they find it easier to defend a President who lies under oath to a federal judge or commits obstruction of justice than allow another President who they hate to do what he needs to do to defend this country from terrorists who want to murder us.
