Gonzales:Footnote Suggests Bush Doesn't Need Patriot Act or Congress

[kpete]

Gonzales: Footnote Suggests Bush Doesn't Really Need Patriot Act
The Boston Globe today reports on a footnote in Alberto Gonzales' speech:


A footnote in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's 42-page legal memo defending President Bush's domestic spying program appears to argue that the administration does not need Congress to extend the USA Patriot Act in order to keep using the law's investigative powers against terror suspects.

The memo states that Congress gave Bush the power to investigate terror suspects using whatever tactics he deemed necessary when it authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda. When Congress later passed the Patriot Act, Bush already had the power to use enhanced surveillance techniques against Al Qaeda, according to the footnote. Thus, legal specialists say, the administration is asserting that Bush would be able to keep using the powers outlined in the Patriot Act for Al Qaeda investigations, regardless of whether Congress reauthorizes the law.


If ever there was an Adminstration intent on seizing all the power unto itself, this is it. Here's more:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/25/ags_memo_raises_questions_on_patriot_act/
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013815.html

[ixion]

1. excuse du jour, just like the lead up to invading Iraq

do people really believe this BS? :crazy: :wtf:

[seafan]

2. Here seems to be the crux of the Gonzales footnote:

snip

But the footnote in the memo suggests the government does not need the Patriot Act to aggressively investigate Al Qaeda suspects, the scholars said. The footnote says Congress gave Bush the power to set his own rules for counterterrorism investigations when it authorized the president to use ''all necessary and appropriate force" against Al Qaeda a week after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Instead, the memo said, the Patriot Act simply gave the government new investigative powers to use against non-Al Qaeda terrorists and ''in contexts unrelated to terrorism."

''The USA Patriot Act amendments made important corrections in the general application of" existing laws governing searches and wiretaps, the footnote said, adding that the act was ''not intended to define the precise incidents of military force that would be available to the president in prosecuting the current armed conflict against Al Qaeda and its allies."

Hutchinson, the University of Chicago law professor, said that in trying to show that Congress gave Bush unlimited powers to investigate possible Al Qaeda plots, the administration has contradicted its arguments that it is necessary for Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act in order to protect the nation from terror threats.

''It muddies the waters," Hutchinson said.

snip

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/25/ags_memo_raises_questions_on_patriot_act/?page=full



What do we call an illegitimately installed pResident who circumvents the Constitution, the FISA Court, the UN Security Council, the Congress, the Courts, the Bill of Rights, the Voting Rights Act and any and all questions from The People?

A CRIMINAL.

[kpete]

4. thanks for including that

[sarcasmo]

3. Can you say Dictator.

[WePurrsevere]

5. I don't believe that the Constitution states anywhere in it that...

Congress or the President has the right to change or nullify explicitly stated civil rights and protections within the Constitution without either "WAR" being officially declared by Congress or going through the whole process of going before the whole country for approval. Even in the case of "war" (I can't remember the latin term for what's suspended) I think even then they're limited if I remember correctly.

The fact that these IDIOTS in Congress supposedly gave that lying, traitorous twit a blank check does not negate the Constitution and it's protections for American Citizens.... heck even some of members of Congress have come flat out and stated that they can't do that.