SCOTUS Decision UNDERMINES Bush Case For Warrantless Wiretapping!

[kpete]

Supreme Court Decision on Gitmo Undermines Bush’s Legal Case For Warrantless Wiretapping

The impact of today’s Supreme Court decision on military commissions goes well beyond Guantanamo. The Supreme Court has ruled that the scope of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force – issued by Congress in the days after 9/11 – is not a blank check for the administration. From the opinion:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

Neither the AUMF nor the DTA can be read to provide specific, overriding authorization for the commission convened to try Hamdan. Assuming the AUMF activated the President’s war powers, see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, and that those powers include authority to convene military commissions in appropriate circumstances, see, e.g., id., at 518, there is nothing in the AUMF’s text or legislative history even hinting that Congress intended to expand or alter the authorization set forth in UCMJ Art. 21.

The point here is that the AUMF does not authorize activity that was not specifically contemplated in the text or legislative history. This is incredibly significant. The administration is relying on the AUMF to justify its warrantless wiretapping program. Here’s Alberto Gonzales on 12/19/05:

Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.Text

The Bush administration doesn’t argue that warrantless wiretapping was something specifically contemplated in the text or by Congress. Rather, the administration argues that it is implied as part of an broad authorization to “use all necessary and appropriate force.”

The Supreme Court has rejected that expansive interpretation. It’s a huge blow to the administration’s legal rationale for warrantless wiretapping.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/29/gitmo-wiretapping/

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Good thought! Hope it will pan out in a couple of impeachments!

[kpete]

2. NO BLANK CHECK - None, Nada, Zilch

The Supreme Court has ruled that the scope of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force – issued by Congress in the days after 9/11 – is not a blank check for the administration.

[myrna minx]

3. There is hope for the USA after all.

:kick:

[WyLoochka]

4. That was obvious all along

I hate the media. All they had to do was read the frigging Constitution and they would have known as well as we did that these claims were bull.

The tide might have turned on Bushco in 2002 instead of 2005 had they done their job. And their job IS to call bull shit. It isn't to let bull shit and lies ride on the airwaves. But no, they had to let Bush have more time by giving this obvious bull false plausibility to keep the morans in line.

[tbyg52]

17. Media's job

Huh???? It's not to write down what one side tells them, verbatim, and sometimes what the other side tells them? ;)

[Jack Rabbit]

5. I agree

A court decision must be read narrowly, so specific cases will need to be brought.

However, the Court did say today that Bush can't make up the rules as he goes along. The Nixonian unitary executive theory was repudiated in 1974 and remains repudiated.

[stop the bleeding]

6. Now please let this be true and actually hold water

Does this make sense to legak eagles and will it hold water?

[Kurovski]

7. K&R.

Well, at least the Supreme Court has not as yet lost all of their marbles.

[Oreo]

8. Does this go as far as saying we're not officially at war?

Which would also shoot down his "we're at war and we need to destroy the constitution to keep you safe" BS.

Congress never declared war but does this ruling in effect say that the Bush regime can't act like there is an official war going on and therefor stripping all of the illegalities they've commited in the name of war?

[Gregorian]

9. You can only misinterpret The Constitution so far.

And then the selfevident truth becomes too obvious.

[tblue37]

10. How did the ruling go? 5-4??

Who voted for it and who dissented? Can I assume that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts sided with Bush, based on their belief in the unitary executive?

[librechik]

12. 5-3--Roberts had to recuse because he earlier ruled for the govmt

in the same case at the appeals level

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[Dudley_DUright]

11. Glenn Greewald agrees

This is a clearly fatal blow to one of the two primary arguments invoked by the administration to justify its violations of FISA. The administration has argued that this same AUMF "implicitly" authorized it to eavesdrop in violation of the mandates of FISA, even though the AUMF said absolutely nothing about FISA or eavesdropping. If -- as the Supreme Court today held -- the AUMF cannot be construed to have provided implicit authorization for the administration to create military commissions in violation of the UCMJ, then it is necessarily the case that it cannot be read to have provided implicit authorization for the administration to eavesdrop in violation of FISA.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/06/significance-of-hamdan-v-rumsfeld.html

[me b zola]

13. Good news

:kick:





recomended

[Hugin]

14. "The Constitution only addresses 'treaties' not 'conventions'"...

a matching meme to yesterday's ruling meme from the RWers...
"The Constitution doesn't say when or how many times a State can redistrict".

You just watch.

[happydreams]

15. K&R. Nice work kpete

[enough]

16. k&r