Impeachment will hang in the balance
Huge article on the front page of the WaPo on the whole panoply of questionably legal tactics the Bush administration has ordered from the CIA since 9-11. This article focuses solely on the actions taken by the CIA, so other programs like the NSA stuff are barely mentioned.
The "presidential powers during wartime" argument just got alot more significant, because if the Bush administration's argument does not meet legal muster, the president himself, according to actions outlined in this article, could be at the sharp end of hundreds, if not thousands, of criminal charges, although I doubt that it would ever reach that point.
But, this article states, fairly clearly from a knowledgeable and on record, named source, that Bush has been hip deep in all this, and seems to "relish... the dirty details." So, there is no plausible deniability.
Huge article. There's alot more here than I'm excerpting. Read it, read it, read it.
The "presidential powers during wartime" argument just got alot more significant, because if the Bush administration's argument does not meet legal muster, the president himself, according to actions outlined in this article, could be at the sharp end of hundreds, if not thousands, of criminal charges, although I doubt that it would ever reach that point.
But, this article states, fairly clearly from a knowledgeable and on record, named source, that Bush has been hip deep in all this, and seems to "relish... the dirty details." So, there is no plausible deniability.
Huge article. There's alot more here than I'm excerpting. Read it, read it, read it.
GST includes programs allowing the CIA to capture al Qaeda suspects with help from foreign intelligence services, to maintain secret prisons abroad, to use interrogation techniques that some lawyers say violate international treaties, and to maintain a fleet of aircraft to move detainees around the globe. Other compartments within GST give the CIA enhanced ability to mine international financial records and eavesdrop on suspects anywhere in the world.....
"In the past, presidents set up buffers to distance themselves from covert action," said A. John Radsan, assistant general counsel at the CIA from 2002 to 2004. "But this president, who is breaking down the boundaries between covert action and conventional war, seems to relish the secret findings and the dirty details of operations." .....
So, authorized by presidential signature, based on questionable internal legal opinions, and hidden from oversight. If he doesn't have the legal power that he claims,....
Another great article from Dana Priest(also the author of the secret prisons story.) Sorry I left her off my list of honest journalists earler.
5 Comments:
Mike, the whole illegal spying thing has opened a can of worms that will overwhelm the courts for years, both civilly and criminally. And you know it's going to end up in the Supreme Court. The decision on Bush's spying will be the hallmark of the Bush court, not Roe.
By greyhair, at 11:13 AM
It all comes back to the fact that we are letting Bush claim that we are at war indefinitely. We are not at war - now. Once we defeated Saddam and his army the war was over. Now it is just an occupation, training and rebuilding. The War on Terror is like the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty. So even if Bush had these powers he shouldn't be allowed to wield them indefinitely.
By left-over, at 11:23 AM
Greyhair,
I don't think a case of this nature could move quickly enough to be decided during Bush's remaining years. Though it may eventually go to the Supreme Court, Bush will be long gone from office.
Anyone know if there's a way to impeach someone who's already left office? Okay, maybe not.
Left-Over makes a good point too, one I hadn't thought of before - if Bush's authorization to use the extra-legal tactics expired, he shouldn't be allowed to use them anymore.
By Ryan, at 12:25 PM
I think that this may be the biggest historical issue to come out of the Bush admin. In a hundred years, the war on Al Qaeda may seem to be a blip, like the Spanish American War, but if this redefinition of powers sticks, this could be a historical shift in the nature of our republic.
And, I don't know if the Bush admin can run out the clock on the legal issues. Certainly they would try, but once this got to the Supreme Court, they would have significant latitude to set the timetables. They could refuse for instance to allow any elements of a case to go back down to lower courts and just keep all the proceedings at their level.
But the big issue at this point is that we don't yet have a legal case to work its way up to the supreme court. And, it may be quite difficult to establish a damaged party that could sue in relation to the NSA thing. Certainly someone at the wrong end of a detention and torture could sue, and that would put the issue to the court, but I'm not aware of any cases at this point, beyond Padilla, that are even close. And the Padilla case is not in a state where it would make a clean statement on the "extraordinary poweres" unless the Supreme Court decided to make it so.
I don't know at this point. I'm just beginning to get my head around the bigger issues in all this.
Good comments, you spurred a line of thought in me.
Mike
By mikevotes, at 12:33 PM
On the torture thing, there will ultimately be U.S. citizens involved who will bring civil charges.
On the NSA thing, defense attorneys are already licking their chops at getting clients off. Remember Gerry Spence? He's one of them, defending a U.S. citizens accused of some terrorist nonsense. WHEN they find that their client was tapped, they will call for evidence to be dropped as well as charges. And there will be judges who will agree. And it will be appealed.
And WHEN the names of some of the citizens who were tapped is leaked, ooo la la. Wouldn't you want a piece of that civil case?
Who's knows how many at this point? I wouldn't be surprised if it's in the hundreds if not thousands or even millions. It's reputed they tapped into communications "trunks" and "swept" data.
And at the end of the trail? Scalia/Scalio/Roberts et. al.
By greyhair, at 8:06 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home