I get it now. Gonzo's defense is basically this:

[tgnyc]

FISA says we can do this IF some other law comes along to allow it. The 2001 Use of Force resolution is that law. You may not agree, but the Supreme Court does, since they ruled in Hamdi (2004) that the Use of Force resolution allows for activities that it does not explicitly enumerate, even otherwise unconstitutional ones, such as electronic surveillance of "the enemy." We knew all along that we were right, but it was nice for the Court to say so in Hamdi.


By definition, this defense must be tested in the Supreme Court, like Hamdi, or for that matter, like abortion was. Whenever you have a government entity claiming a law grants authority that it does not specify, only the courts can settle the discussion.

I don't think the Use of Force res. is the law Gonzo says it is, but this debate will just go back and forth around this point until a court makes the final call.

[Charlie Brown]

1. There is NO WAY you can tell me that Congress authorized spying on citizen

when they voted to let the prez use force in 2001.

Republicans are stretching beyond any plausible justification on that one.

Why any "conservative" would support giving the Prz police powers not explicitly authorized by Congress is beyond me.

[BR_Parkway]

2. Hence the priority to get Roberts/Alito confirmed before these

hearings.

[BlueEyedSon]

3. "It is our OPINION, that we are not breaking the law."

"And our OPINION is all that matters."

[LSparkle]

4. Oh please don't call him Gonzo

Dr. Hunter S. must be rolling ... WHEREVER he is....

[EFerrari]

8. I like Torgemada. Mendigo also works for me. As does

the President's Idiota. :)

[EFerrari]

5. Except he also has to wrench Hamdi to use it.

Durbin read limiting language that Torquemada conveniently ignores.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. In the same breath, he says that UAMF does not modify or amend FISA

It is a completely laughable argument. FISA remains unamended by the UAMF, but the UAMF allows the administration to ignore FISA! Well, unamended to be sure, then: utterly voided.

Their argument is that FISA contains a provision that allows the executive to ignore FISA if another law comes along, but that law need not amend or overturn FISA. The depths of depravity and cynicism of such an argument should be clear for all to see, but they are apparently not.

How can you have a law that allows another law to void it, despite the fact that the new law makes no mention of voiding it, and the original law remains intact!??!!?? That is the Bush Administration's argument! It is completely unbelievable, illogical, counter-intuitive, craven, arbitrary, and monarchical. It bears resemblnce to nothing other than the bizarre and tortuos codes of France pre-revolution, where nobody is exactly sure of the status of any law, because they are intact or not depending on the fickle will of the monarch. Laws continue to remain in force, but have no force, subsequent laws void previous laws without explicitly voiding them, laws retain force sometimes but not others, and the whole structure of law is as stable as the weather. It is a chaos of sometimes-rules, the equivalent of playing football with holding sometimes relevant and sometimes not, but you never know which: arbitrary rule by its very definition - the UAMF superceded FISA without telling anyone that it did so, but FISA remains operable and in force! A laughable argument unworthy of this great Republic.

[Village Idiot]

7. Why doesn't anyone mention that this was going on BEFORE 2001?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml

The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document.

The NSA's vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups.

In its "Transition 2001" report, the NSA said that the ever-changing world of global communication means that "American communication and targeted adversary communication will coexist."

"Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the Fourth Amendment and all applicable laws," the document says.

However, it adds that "senior leadership must understand that the NSA's mission will demand a 'powerful, permanent presence' on global telecommunications networks that host both 'protected' communications of Americans and the communications of adversaries the agency wants to target."

[Marie26]

9. Pretty much

Gonzales is using the "Use of Force" Resolution to justify everything & anything. Like, didn't you know, the Resolution allows us to waive the Constitution! And Gonzales does have one small point. When he was defending the NSA spying, he said that the SC had read the Resolution as allowing the detainment of "enemy combatants", and that was much more serious than some NSA eavesdropping. And he's right about that. That's what the "slippery slope" is - once the SC allowed the Bush Ad. to detain a citizen w/o trial, there's nothing they can't do.