Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Oh…Here We Go!

A couple bright lights contributing to the NYT this morning explain it all to you. David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey published an op/ed piece telling why George W. Bush’s illegal wiretaps are legal: “Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks,” they said, “President Bush ordered surveillance of international telephone communications by suspected members of Al Qaeda overseas, even if such calls also involved individuals within the United States…The program's existence has now become public, and howls of outrage have ensued. But in fact, the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself.” Add to the list of outrage caused by Bush acting like a two-bit dictator, articles such as this one. Messrs. Rivkin and Casey claim that Bush had the authority to order the wiretaps because Congress had okayed the US attack on Iraq. Sorry…it doesn’t scan. The sentence the boys claim gave the Prez the power to order the National Security Agency to wiretap American citizens is that the President was authorized "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks "in order to prevent any future attacks of international terrorism against the United States." The Congressional authorization spoke only about “force”. Wiretapping was never mentioned and did not come into the equation. And…the Supreme Court struck down a similar end run by President Truman during World War II. Salon.com’s David Cole explained that, in spades, in his “Bush’s Illegal Spying” article on December 20, 2005. The Courts have NOT authorized a President to act secretly and unilaterally to get around the Constitution…war or no war. It’s illegal. Oh I forgot. Republican tinhat warmongers and their goose-stepping apologists don’t understand the concept that certain acts are illegal. Perhaps Nixon’s Counsel, John Dean, can explain it to them.

No comments: