It's about the important things people...you know like
how Benghazi relates to this?
The Justice Department released two decade-old memos Friday night,
offering the fullest public airing to date of the Bush administration’s
legal justification for the warrantless wiretapping of Americans’ phone
calls and e-mails — a program that began in secret after the 2001
terrorist attacks.
The broad outlines of the argument — that the
president has inherent constitutional power to monitor Americans’
communications without a warrant in a time of war — were known, but the
sweep of the reasoning becomes even clearer in the memos written by
then-Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith, who was head of
President George W. Bush’s Office of Legal Counsel.
“We conclude
only that when the nation has been thrust into an armed conflict by a
foreign attack on the United States and the president determines in his
role as commander in chief . . . that it is essential for defense
against a further foreign attack to use the [wiretapping] capabilities
of the [National Security Agency] within the United States, he has
inherent constitutional authority” to order warrantless wiretapping —
“an authority that Congress cannot curtail,” Goldsmith wrote in a
redacted 108-page memo dated May 6, 2004.
Rising Hegemon
4 comments:
georgee opened pandora's box + it was full of shit.
The University of Chicago does it again. Funny thing is, the Bush Syndicate let this POS go because they considered him to be too liberal on civil liberties and constitutional protections of privacy.
He currently teaches "law" at Harvard. I guess this constitutes "law" at Harvard, too.
operation stellar wind, turd blossom must have come up w/that.
Interesting, innit? If the president has "inherent authority" to do whatever the hell he wants to do under the Constitution, what does he need to go to Congress for? As long as a president is willing to intone the magic words "national security," then it's full speed ahead.
Congress, under this legal "analysis," has no authority to stop him. I wonder if the courts could stop the president? Who would have standing to sue? Mind-boggling.
Post a Comment