Look at Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that goes into discussion on the powers of the particular section you cited. If O'Connor's opinion that "indefinite detention for the purposes of interrogation" is not authorized by the act, then how is indefinite wiretapping for the purposes of intelligence authorized under the same statute?
I've reviewed Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. I don't think anything about O'Connor's decision says that surveillence of known terrorists isn't coverd by the Authorization For Use Of United States Armed Forces.
You call the NSA actions "indefinite wiretapping", perhaps to make them sound more similar to the "indefinite detention" than they really are. But this superficial similarity is all the two share. This surveilence is hardly indefinite, and surveillence in general bears little resemblence to detention and interrogation. O'Connor's remarks on detention don't say one way or the other on this issue.
Once more for those who missed the first six or seven times this was mentioned - the United States is already allowed to gather this information. This is not a "throw the shallow protections you have from government surveillance into the fire now or let the terrorists run rampant" choice. This is a fallacious argument. There are procedures that allow this kind of monitoring immediately and without the delay. Those procedures were ignored.
Bush DID follow procedures for using the NSA to intercept communications involving Americans. As I underatand it, FISA laws say that the NSA can perform such interceptions, provided the attorney general gives written authorization. Bush is taking heat right now precisely because he (through his AG) followed the proper procedure and made the authorizations.
It may well be that the laws are so contorted and contradictory that an action specifically authorized by one statute is specifically prohibited by another. I might be willing to agree that such is the case here, and conclude that Bush should have spent more time untangling the legal mess before he acted. But I don't think that is what you mean. And I DO believe that Bush was specifically authorized to make these interceptions, by at least two seperate laws.
Do you really want to suggest that the President can do any damn thing he wants under that statute? What if President Clinton II decides your guns are aiding terrorists? Are you going to be singing the same tune then?
No, the president cannot do any "damn" thing he wants to under that authorization. But he CAN do just what the authorization authorizes. Namely, he can use all
necessary and appropriate force
against terrorists invlolved in 9-11 or plotting similar attacks. That authorization gave the president authority to go to war against them, and to do all that war entails. Surveillence of the enemy is a prefectly legitimate aspect of war.
Your hypothetical situation involving Clinton II rings hollow. The authorization is not the blank check you would have us all believe that it is. The authorization limits the president to "necessary and appropriate" actions precisely to prevent the kinds of off-the-wall situation you proposed. It also spells out who may be targetted, for the same reasons. The "Clinton II" scenario you describe is a perfect example of what would be an
illegal use of that authorization. Note the differences between reality and the hypthetical you described.
That really isn't your decision to make anymore than it is mine. What bothers me about this most is that it wouldn't have been anybody's decision to make if someone had not leaked - including the people who are charged in the Constitution with balancing the power of the executive.
According to Bush's recent remarks, congress was briefed on these wire taps numerous times. It seems he gave them every oportunity to object. But yet again, the congress (especially the Democrats) present one face to the cameras, then vote/act differently. If these wire taps were as bad as Harry Reed and Nancy Pelosi presently make them out to be, then perhaps they should have stopped them 4 years ago when the operations first began.
No, the question of the legality isn't my decision to make. Neither is it yours. But we each have the burden of weighing the evidence for ourselves, in our own minds. We each need to form our own conclusions. I've made mine. For the reasons I've cited, and for may others that I won't waste my time typing out, I feel that Bush acted reasonably.
Ultimately, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Bush is working right up against the edge of what is legal and proper. To do anything less would be a dereliction of his duties as President of the United States and as Commander in Chief during wartime. For better or worse, the American people would never forgive him for such a failure...
