Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Botnst
...If I understand it correctly, Gonzales claims three arguments in support of administration policy.
The first is the FISA is subject to reinterpretation as specified within the FISA law if subsequent action by Congress takes precedent. They assert that the resolution for military action against terrorists provided an expansion, since in order to attack terrorists you have to have intelligence on them...
|
The problem with his theory is that the specific prohibitions in FISA overide the general authority granted in the AUMF. That's straight from Statutory Construction 101.
Quote:
|
Second, FISA applies to domestic surveillance, not international. Since this narrowly framed program is designed specifically for that particular combination, it does not violate FISA.
|
I don't believe for a minute that their program is narrowly tailored. That's not how these people operate. More to the point, though, FISA specifically prohibits warrantless wiretaps of conversations unless neither side of the conversation involves a "United States person." That prohibition applies even if one end of the conversation is overseas and even if the conversation involves foreign policy/national security. That language is in Section 102(a)(1) of FISA. Similar language appears in other parts of FISA. So, that's strike two on Alberto, IMHO.
Quote:
|
And finally, even if 1 and 2 fail, as CinC he has been empowered by act of Congress to conduct military ops against any entity involved with 9/11.
|
With that one, he might have fouled one off to stay alive at the plate, but in the end, this looks like it's going to be strike 3. This argument says the President can wiretap anyone, anytime, with no accountability to anybody. He can't even be questioned about it. I'm no Constitutional expert, but that result sounds too crazy to be legit.