Impeachment is mandatory

[solarbird]

Impeach

President

Bush

Unclaimed Territory should be read here, particularly with regards to commentary in The Federalist nr. 47. Specifically:

By proclaiming the power to ignore Congressional law and to do whatever it wants in the area of national security, it is seizing the powers of the legislative branch. But by blocking courts from ruling on the multiple claims of illegality which have been made against it, the administration is essentially seizing the judicial power as well. It becomes the creator, the executor, and the interpreter of the law. And with that, the powers of all three branches become consolidated in The President, the single greatest nightmare of the founders.

Comments

[banner.livejournal.com]

You know the law has changed since 72, right?

http://www.nysun.com/article/32651 has the details.

And that case applied to survellience of 'domestic groups' not foreign ones.

I'll admit that I'm not crazy about what's going on, however it is within the scope and letter of the law, and we are still at war, even if some people don't wish to recognize it because they wish to turn a blind eye to Islamic Terrorism. When it all ends (and it will, I just hope we win it) then we need to be sure to then be vigilant to make sure the government goes back into its box. It has everytime in the past because there is usually a backlash against the behaviors that had to take place during the war.

[avram]

What part of that editorial do you think refutes anything I’ve said? It says:

The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."

But the FISA law already establishes legal means other than a court order for intercepting or tapping communications. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether the Bush administration used those legal means. And you haven’t been arguing that the Bush administration kept within the bounds established by FISA, you’ve been arguing that they have the right to break FISA.

Also, the author of the editorial was being a bit dishonest. The section of CALEA he was quoting (Section 103(a)) is addressing the capabilities that communications providers have to make sure that their systems can provide, not the legal conditions under which they can be used. CALEA in general just requires that communications providers make sure that they have equipment and procedures in place to comply with the requests when they are made; it doesn’t establish any new conditions under which any formerly-illegal requests become legal.

And, again, the editorial addresses program #2, while I was talking about program #1.