Politics > Politics-USA > Neo-fascistActivism: Did Bush lie about Congress supporting warrantless snooping?
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Black Elk" |
| Date: |
23 Dec 2005 07:18:43 PM |
| Object: |
Neo-fascistActivism: Did Bush lie about Congress supporting warrantless snooping? |
Power We Didn't Grant
By Tom Daschle
Friday, December 23, 2005
In the face of mounting questions about news stories saying that President
Bush approved a program to wiretap American citizens without getting
warrants, the White House argues that Congress granted it authority for such
surveillance in the 2001 legislation authorizing the use of force against al
Qaeda. On Tuesday, Vice President Cheney said the president "was granted
authority by the Congress to use all means necessary to take on the
terrorists, and that's what we've done."
As Senate majority leader at the time, I helped negotiate that law with the
White House counsel's office over two harried days. I can state
categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens
never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to
the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators
who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not
believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance.
On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress
authorize the use of military force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts
of terrorism or aggression against the United States." Believing the scope
of this language was too broad and ill defined, Congress chose instead, on
Sept. 14, to authorize "all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned,
authorized, committed or aided" the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language,
Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and
insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and
al Qaeda.
Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House
sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote,
the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after
"appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would
have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not
just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but
right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I
could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary
request for additional authority. I refused.
The shock and rage we all felt in the hours after the attack were still
fresh. America was reeling from the first attack on our soil since Pearl
Harbor. We suspected thousands had been killed, and many who worked in the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon were not yet accounted for. Even so, a
strong bipartisan majority could not agree to the administration's request
for an unprecedented grant of
authority.
The Bush administration now argues those powers were inherently contained in
the resolution adopted by Congress -- but at the time, the administration
clearly felt they weren't or it wouldn't have tried to insert the additional
language.
All Americans agree that keeping our nation safe from terrorists demands
aggressive and innovative tactics. This unity was reflected in the
near-unanimous support for the original resolution and the Patriot Act in
those harrowing days after Sept. 11. But there are right and wrong ways to
defeat terrorists, and that is a distinction this administration has never
seemed to accept. Instead of employing tactics that preserve Americans'
freedoms and inspire the faith and confidence of the American people, the
White House seems to have chosen methods that can only breed fear and
suspicion.
If the stories in the media over the past week are accurate, the president
has exercised authority that I do not believe is granted to him in the
Constitution, and that I know is not granted to him in the law that I helped
negotiate with his counsel and that Congress approved in the days after
Sept. 11. For that reason, the president should explain the specific legal
justification for his authorization of these actions, Congress should fully
investigate these actions and the president's justification for them, and
the administration should cooperate fully with that investigation.
In the meantime, if the president believes the current legal architecture of
our country is insufficient for the fight against terrorism, he should
propose changes to our laws in the light of day.
That is how a great democracy operates. And that is how this great democracy
will defeat
terrorism.
The writer, a former Democratic senator from South Dakota, was Senate
majority leader in 2001-02. He is now distinguished senior fellow at the
Center for American Progress.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201101_pf.html
--
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we, They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we."
George W. Bush
August 5, 2004
--
The fair use of a copyrighted work:
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Re: President George Bush Did Not Lie About Iraq's WMD.
WHY DID AMERICUNTS BOMB THE UN HQ?
The Good Things George Bush Did
Did Bush Desert Or Was He Absent Without Leave?
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
Re: Witnesses tell federal grand jury Bush knew of CIA agent outing and did nothing.
Bush administration examined itself and found it did nothing wrong?
Key Revisions Were Made to CIA Document. Who did it and why was it done?
| When did they stop sending Troops to Vietnam
Did you fly in June? Well, Bush's Gestapo is getting your file.
How many ears did Kerry actually see cut off? 8? 3? 1? None?
The Acts 20:7, did not tell us about we have to observe the worship day on Sunday, the verse just tell us about the Paul's final visit to Troas, and not about the worship day, but the devil, the Rome Catholic Church, The Protestant Church and the Con
Re: Nixon won a second term, too...but Kerry didn't. Nor did Gore.
'Mr. President Sir, you just answered the marijuana question' - 'I did? Doh!'
What Liberals did when Reagan Died
|
|
|
