What follows is an exchange I had with a coworker over a series of emails related to the President’s authorization for warrantless wiretaps of international calls involving persons with connections to terrorism. My coworker and I had had a heated discussion several days before in which he asserted that the President had violated the law. I told him that I was pretty sure his actions were legal (and politically popular to boot). He stormed off before I could explain why. I think he was mostly stung because he did not like someone threatening to puncture the bubble of hopefulness he was nurturing that the President would be impeached. I just had to hear the bubble pop. I think you can hear it towards the end of the email string. Also, note the startling ignorance revealed in his responses (this from a person with a subscription to the Economist and the New Yorker). Enjoy...
Me: Attached is a Justice Department brief to the highest ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees explaining the President’s authority to perform warrant-less wiretaps for National Security.
Also, here is a link to an analysis of the law in question by an attorney.
What is most remarkable about all of this is that of all of the cases out there on this subject, none (use of that word very rarely occurs in interpretation of the law) even come close to establishing that the President was acting unconstitutionally or illegally. More still, those that are most recent (including a very recent Federal Appellate Court case by the FISA court itself) clearly provide that the President has exactly the rights he said he did.
It is remarkable that there prominent attorneys publicly opining otherwise. It think a large part of the explanation of this is that very few people (and very few attorneys) have ever dealt with law involving national security and they instead analyze the law according to their understanding of domestic criminal law. I would agree with them wholeheartedly that if the President did what he did in order to investigate domestic criminal activity he would be in deep trouble. That is not what this is all about, though.
The President has (at least) two hats he wears: the Chief Executive hat, and the Commander-in-Chief hat. When he is wearing his Chief Executive hat he shares many of his powers with Congress (and is often subservient to that branch of government). He has to execute and follow the laws that they pass. However, when he is wearing the Commander-in-Chief hat he is not subservient. Indeed, as his actions come closer and closer to how to prosecute a war he has superior powers to the Congress. In that context, they cannot pass laws that dictate his actions.
Congress cannot dictate how the President obtains intelligence on the enemy’s plans in a war. And if you doubt that there is a war – look no further than Congresses act authorizing the President to use “all available means” to combat AQ and its terrorist affiliates. Intelligence gathering is more central to this war than any other war in our history.
As an interesting side note – some claim that his actions violate the fourth amendment (the JD argument and the linked argument destroy that position). Even if that was the case (which it is not), the futility of the argument is made clear by the remedy. The only remedy for a violation of a person’s fourth amendment rights is that the information obtained cannot be used in to prosecute that person. It is extremely doubtful that the government would ever use the information that is being obtained in these wiretaps in Court – so the remedy is meaningless anyway.
One reason some of the high profile attorneys feel more comfortable claiming the President is acting illegally or unconstitutionally is that the Supreme Court has never addressed this issue head on. I think that those attorneys are expressing how they think (or hope) the Supreme Court would rule. The problem with that position is that the Supreme Court tends to follow the lower courts when there is not a dispute between the lower courts (one of the ways they do this is by refusing to take the case) and they tend to be deferential to past practice. There is not a dispute here between lower court opinions. Past practice also supports the legality and constitutionality of the President’s actions (Carter, Reagan, Clinton - all authorized warrant-less searches for National security purposes).
Him: So are they arguing that this is a war? Was that made official?
Me: Congress passed a law after 9/11 authorizing the President to wage war on A-Q and its affiliates. Yes, we are at war.
Him: I thought they only approved all necessary means. That a declaration of war was never made. I must be mistaken.
Me: Here is the authorization
The authorization
President signs the authorization
Me: An authorization for use of Force has the same effect as declaration of war – the Congress is telling him to put on his Commander-in-Chief hat.
For whatever reason – since World War II Congress has issued “Authorizations to use Force” rather than “Declarations of War”. I think they think it sounds less scary. Also, since WWII is has not been PC to declare war because it implies you are going after a country - rather than just a government – which is what were usually after in a war.
Him: So he can do as he pleases so long as this pseudo war is open ended? Come on….
Me: No.
First, it is not a Pseudo-war, unless you are repudiating all of the votes of all of the members of the Congress (including the overwhelming numbers of Democrats who voted for it).
Second, Congress can remove funding for the agency performing the eavesdropping.
They could revoke their authorization (although the President has inherent national defense powers even without the authorization - remember Clinton, Carter and Reagan’s authorizations for wiretaps were not shut down even though there was no war on – so he could still probably do it). The authorization just makes all that much more likely that the courts will not second guess his actions.
Congress can impeach the President in the event he does go too far
Finally, you can elect someone else into the government when the President’s term ends.
You should really be more concerned in this case that a number of Congressmen have so little regard for and knowledge about the separation of powers – the idea that no branch of government can usurp the powers of another (in this case Congress [attempting to] usurp Presidential powers).
Him: I’m more concerned with abuses. The funding argument is bunk. Nobody would defund the NSA (too many cool movies predicated on their power). It’s all about controls. There’s a means by which the wire taps can be had and they’re bypassing that. Why?
Bottom line, I don’t care if it’s Carter’s grandmother trying to do good, it’s abuse, in my mind. Where does it end? Torture? Rape? Murder? You need controls, especially when you’re living in a flat world and trying to win over the minds of young, potentially radical Islamic boys and girls. After the prison fiascos, we need to be more transparent, or, at the very least, presenting a the appearance of a government run with the necessary checks and balances to prevent abuse.
I’m a realist. I know shit will happen and in many cases needs to. They can always petition the special court up to 3 days after it happens. That ain’t going to be denied unless it was a bogus tap.
Have a lovely and safe Christmas.
Me: Have a lovely and safe Christmas as well.
Thanks to the President it is more likely to be lovely and safe (Sorry, I couldn’t help it).
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Warrantless Wiretaps
There are a lot of people analyzing the legality of the President's actions in authorizing eavesdropping without a search warrant on international calls (calls between the U.S. and other countries) where a party to the conversation has some connection to terrorism. One analysis was linked to at several popular sites: Jonathan Adler in the Corner, Belmont Club and Powerline Blog. The conclusion of the analysis is that the President's actions were constitutional but illegal.
The point (I think) was that the President acted within his constitutional power as the Commander-in-Chief but likely violated one or more laws passed by Congress that would appear to require a search warrant. I agree with the conclusion that the President's actions were constitutional. I disagree with the conclusion that his actions were illegal for the very reason that they were constitutional.
Essentially, I think the analysis linked to is much more complex than it needs to be. The basic flaw is that the analysis appears to assume that Congress, by enacting a law, could extinguish some of the powers of the President as Commander in Chief. It cannot, and any law that would purport to is unconstitutional to that extent.
Therefore, once it is determined that the President is acting within his constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief, there is no need to analyze any further. No law passed by Congress can impede him in that capacity. To find otherwise would allow congress to take away the President's constitutional powers and duties, a clear threat to the separation of powers.
In other words, in this case, if his actions were constitutional they were also legal.
On the constitutionality issue
In the end, it is up to the Supreme Court whether the President’s actions were constitutional (although the President is also vested with power to interpret the Constitution). However, Congress has passed a law essentially authorizing the President to wage war on Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups. As the Commander-in-Chief, the President has broad power to prosecute the war. The Fourth Amendment (no unreasonable searches and seizures and requirement for warrant) still binds the President acting as Commander-in-Chief. However the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The President has the power to do what is necessary to defend it and the courts are deferential to his judgment about what is necessary. So, in the end, the scope of what is considered a reasonable search and seizure is broadened in the national security context and the requirement for a warrant seems not to exist. Examples of the deference the courts have given a President in a time of war include: (1) Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus for citizens (the right to be brought before a court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody) during the civil war; and (2) the detention of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. I do not see how the U.S. Supreme Court could go from allowing those activities to denying the current President the very limited power to intercept conversations to and from telephone numbers that are found in laptop computers of captured suspects of an organization that has expressly vowed to kill as many Americans as it can.
I think that once again we are seeing the Democrats (and weak-kneed Republicans) attempt to frame the issue in terms of law enforcement. There is a good reason (from their perspective) to do this. It appears to give them control over his actions. In the law enforcement context, the President is simply acting as the chief executive where he is more subservient to the Congress. They enact the laws and he must execute them. Generally, he can only do what their laws allow him to do - which is exactly what the Democrats want. On the other hand, when he is acting as Commander-in-Chief and we are at war he is not subservient to Congress.
The tactic of treating this like a criminal search matter is compelling to the Public. The public is used to the President acting in his more subservient role as chief executive. They are also familiar with television and movies which show the police obtaining warrants before they conduct a criminal search. They think that they are always required. It will be somewhat difficult to explain to the public that a warrant may not be required to conduct a search in the national security context. The Democrats are counting on the public having a hard time adjusting.
The point (I think) was that the President acted within his constitutional power as the Commander-in-Chief but likely violated one or more laws passed by Congress that would appear to require a search warrant. I agree with the conclusion that the President's actions were constitutional. I disagree with the conclusion that his actions were illegal for the very reason that they were constitutional.
Essentially, I think the analysis linked to is much more complex than it needs to be. The basic flaw is that the analysis appears to assume that Congress, by enacting a law, could extinguish some of the powers of the President as Commander in Chief. It cannot, and any law that would purport to is unconstitutional to that extent.
Therefore, once it is determined that the President is acting within his constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief, there is no need to analyze any further. No law passed by Congress can impede him in that capacity. To find otherwise would allow congress to take away the President's constitutional powers and duties, a clear threat to the separation of powers.
In other words, in this case, if his actions were constitutional they were also legal.
On the constitutionality issue
In the end, it is up to the Supreme Court whether the President’s actions were constitutional (although the President is also vested with power to interpret the Constitution). However, Congress has passed a law essentially authorizing the President to wage war on Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups. As the Commander-in-Chief, the President has broad power to prosecute the war. The Fourth Amendment (no unreasonable searches and seizures and requirement for warrant) still binds the President acting as Commander-in-Chief. However the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The President has the power to do what is necessary to defend it and the courts are deferential to his judgment about what is necessary. So, in the end, the scope of what is considered a reasonable search and seizure is broadened in the national security context and the requirement for a warrant seems not to exist. Examples of the deference the courts have given a President in a time of war include: (1) Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus for citizens (the right to be brought before a court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody) during the civil war; and (2) the detention of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. I do not see how the U.S. Supreme Court could go from allowing those activities to denying the current President the very limited power to intercept conversations to and from telephone numbers that are found in laptop computers of captured suspects of an organization that has expressly vowed to kill as many Americans as it can.
I think that once again we are seeing the Democrats (and weak-kneed Republicans) attempt to frame the issue in terms of law enforcement. There is a good reason (from their perspective) to do this. It appears to give them control over his actions. In the law enforcement context, the President is simply acting as the chief executive where he is more subservient to the Congress. They enact the laws and he must execute them. Generally, he can only do what their laws allow him to do - which is exactly what the Democrats want. On the other hand, when he is acting as Commander-in-Chief and we are at war he is not subservient to Congress.
The tactic of treating this like a criminal search matter is compelling to the Public. The public is used to the President acting in his more subservient role as chief executive. They are also familiar with television and movies which show the police obtaining warrants before they conduct a criminal search. They think that they are always required. It will be somewhat difficult to explain to the public that a warrant may not be required to conduct a search in the national security context. The Democrats are counting on the public having a hard time adjusting.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Tom Fox
I met one of the latest Iraq hostages, Tom Fox, on a plane flight from Dulles to O'Hare on about January 20, 2005. He was very reserved. It was very unlike me, but I initiated a conversation with him because he was looking at a publication that had pictures of Iraq. He had a buzz cut and a bearing that was slightly military. So, I asked him if he had been to Iraq. He said "yes" and he said he had recently been there with a Christian organization doing charitable work.
We talked for a long time. He told me that he had been a professional musician. He had only recently begun working for the charity. He said his children probably thought he was nuts for doing the work that he was doing. He knew it was dangerous. We talked about Margaret Hassan and he explained that most of the kidnappings were about money and that the vast majority of those kidnapped were Iraqis. He was guarded about his political views (perhaps because he was against the American intervention and he could sense that I supported it). He was not preachy. He appeared somewhat pessimistic about how things were going in Iraq - but, I could also sense that he thought we might succeed. He had that assured calm that comes only from deep religious faith or from contentment with a life well-lived, or both.
I pray for Tom Fox's safe return and for his family. However, having met him I think there are very few who could face his predicament better than he could.
Update: The more I read about Tom Fox's "charity", CPT, the less sympathetic I am about his plight. The organization appears to have gone to Iraq only to criticize U.S. actions. One of their goals was to push for the release of any prisoners in U.S. custody. Ironically (or coincidentally?) their kidnappers are threatening to behead them if all of the prisoners held by the U.S. and Iraq are not released. That will not happen. Accordingly, it may turn out that Tom Fox is beheaded by people who share his goals. Such a result would be yet another example of the remarkable naiveté of the Left regarding the nature of our enemies. They will slaughter any infidel that they can get their hands on, even the useful idiots of the Left. Unfortunately, the Left will learn nothing just as they learned nothing from Margaret Hassan's death.
If he and the other members are released unharmed, I will have to believe that some ransom was paid or that this was all a stunt designed to garner attention for CPT and their perverted motives.
We talked for a long time. He told me that he had been a professional musician. He had only recently begun working for the charity. He said his children probably thought he was nuts for doing the work that he was doing. He knew it was dangerous. We talked about Margaret Hassan and he explained that most of the kidnappings were about money and that the vast majority of those kidnapped were Iraqis. He was guarded about his political views (perhaps because he was against the American intervention and he could sense that I supported it). He was not preachy. He appeared somewhat pessimistic about how things were going in Iraq - but, I could also sense that he thought we might succeed. He had that assured calm that comes only from deep religious faith or from contentment with a life well-lived, or both.
I pray for Tom Fox's safe return and for his family. However, having met him I think there are very few who could face his predicament better than he could.
Update: The more I read about Tom Fox's "charity", CPT, the less sympathetic I am about his plight. The organization appears to have gone to Iraq only to criticize U.S. actions. One of their goals was to push for the release of any prisoners in U.S. custody. Ironically (or coincidentally?) their kidnappers are threatening to behead them if all of the prisoners held by the U.S. and Iraq are not released. That will not happen. Accordingly, it may turn out that Tom Fox is beheaded by people who share his goals. Such a result would be yet another example of the remarkable naiveté of the Left regarding the nature of our enemies. They will slaughter any infidel that they can get their hands on, even the useful idiots of the Left. Unfortunately, the Left will learn nothing just as they learned nothing from Margaret Hassan's death.
If he and the other members are released unharmed, I will have to believe that some ransom was paid or that this was all a stunt designed to garner attention for CPT and their perverted motives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)