Read and discuss

[Hey Bubu]

http://www.slate.com/id/2134845?nav=wp

[PETA]

from the article

In fact, the Senate hearings on NSA domestic espionage set to begin next month will confront fundamental questions about the balance of power within our system

I think seperation of powers would be better said but the comment seems fairly on point. At issue isn't so much whether it can be done but who gets to authorize the taps.

Even if one assumes that every unknown instance of warrant-less spying by the NSA were justified on security grounds, the arguments issuing from the White House threaten the concept of checks and balances as it has been understood in America for the last 218 years. Simply put, Bush and his lawyers contend that the president's national security powers are unlimited. And since the war on terror is currently scheduled to run indefinitely, the executive supremacy they're asserting won't be a temporary condition.

I believe he has the authority directly from enumerated powers in Article II. Congress/SCOTUS has no autority to alter that authority - only an amendment can do so. However, it is a very fair and legit concern as to how we define war for purposes of permitting the Executive to exercise his powers as commander in chief. This is a tough call for me because it is a balancing question. I believe the executive needs enough leeway to be able to prevent attacks like 9/11 but I also believe the authority to snoop out threats has to have limits. Where they are and when they've been crossed and who decides are the hard questions.


the remainder of the article doesn't seem to bring up any other interesting questions or points.

It comes down to: what is war as it relates to the exercise of Executive power in preventing attacks from foreign agents, who decides what it is - when it starts and when it has ended, what are the limits of Executive power to prevent attack and who defines those limits?

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by xian

from the article



I think seperation of powers would be better said but the comment seems fairly on point. At issue isn't so much whether it can be done but who gets to authorize the taps.



I believe he has the authority directly from enumerated powers in Article II. Congress/SCOTUS has no autority to alter that authority - only an amendment can do so. However, it is a very fair and legit concern as to how we define war for purposes of permitting the Executive to exercise his powers as commander in chief. This is a tough call for me because it is a balancing question. I believe the executive needs enough leeway to be able to prevent attacks like 9/11 but I also believe the authority to snoop out threats has to have limits. Where they are and when they've been crossed and who decides are the hard questions.


the remainder of the article doesn't seem to bring up any other interesting questions or points.

It comes down to: what is war as it relates to the exercise of Executive power in preventing attacks from foreign agents, who decides what it is - when it starts and when it has ended, what are the limits of Executive power to prevent attack and who defines those limits?

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the "war" declared over when he gave his little "mission accomplished" speech.

This comes from a memory of an article regarding the fact that the troops benefits are affected by whether anything happens during a declared war or during non-wartime duty (ie death benefits, etc.) and that they are now falling under non-wartime benefit status....

and further correct me if I am wrong, but that would make his WAR powers inapplicable as outlined in the Constitution.... (which could be why they seem to be emphasising the AUMF....maybe?)

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the "war" declared over when he gave his little "mission accomplished" speech.

OK - You're wrong. As I recall the ship he was on had accomplished its mission and therefore it was declared, "Mission accomplished." That, however, does not eliminate the fact that it became a PR nightmare. Further - I don't think speeches on ships are useful delineations for when war begins and or ends. That would be far too subjective a standard don't you think?

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

This comes from a memory of an article regarding the fact that the troops benefits are affected by whether anything happens during a declared war or during non-wartime duty (ie death benefits, etc.) and that they are now falling under non-wartime benefit status....

I would imagine there are guidelines as to those issues but that hardly addresses the constitutional questions we're discussing Edwin.

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

and further correct me if I am wrong, but that would make his WAR powers inapplicable as outlined in the Constitution.... (which could be why they seem to be emphasising the AUMF....maybe?)

I always enjoy telling you that you're wrong but I didn't follow that last comment at all. And, what's AUMF?

As for the Executive and his powers as Commander in Chief my point was simply that they aren't necessarily well defined and certainly there is very little in the 218 year history of the US which gives guidance on recently developed forms aof communication and threats of attacks like those of 9/11. I'm saying there are certainly great risks of ceding to much authority to the Executive but preventing another 9/11 can hardly be argued as providing a little temporary security.

nice tio see you rear your grumpy head Edwin

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by xian

OK - You're wrong. As I recall the ship he was on had accomplished its mission and therefore it was declared, "Mission accomplished." That, however, does not eliminate the fact that it became a PR nightmare. Further - I don't think speeches on ships are useful delineations for when war begins and or ends. That would be far too subjective a standard don't you think?



I would imagine there are guidelines as to those issues but that hardly addresses the constitutional questions we're discussing Edwin.




I always enjoy telling you that you're wrong but I didn't follow that last comment at all. And, what's AUMF?

As for the Executive and his powers as Commander in Chief my point was simply that they aren't necessarily well defined and certainly there is very little in the 218 year history of the US which gives guidance on recently developed forms aof communication and threats of attacks like those of 9/11. I'm saying there are certainly great risks of ceding to much authority to the Executive but preventing another 9/11 can hardly be argued as providing a little temporary security.

nice tio see you rear your grumpy head Edwin

yeah, super hectic a work recently. lots of stuff happening and not sure if it is good yet. we shall see.....


anyway, the status of the troops would apply in that if they are getting non-wartime benefits, as opposed to wartime benefits, that would mean that most likely we are not currently engaged in a "declared war," right? And a "Declared War" is the area from which the Executive would derive the sorts of powers they are claiming to have per article II.... right?


(oh, and the AUMF is Authorization for Use of Military Force.... an acronym expressly explained by the article you supposedly read and are making comments on.... )

[Hey Bubu]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

(oh, and the AUMF is Authorization for Use of Military Force.... an acronym expressly explained by the article you supposedly read and are making comments on.... )

ASS!!! HAHAH

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

yeah, super hectic a work recently. lots of stuff happening and not sure if it is good yet. we shall see.....

hope all works out well

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

anyway, the status of the troops would apply in that if they are getting non-wartime benefits, as opposed to wartime benefits, that would mean that most likely we are not currently engaged in a "declared war," right? And a "Declared War" is the area from which the Executive would derive the sorts of powers they are claiming to have per article II.... right?

LOL - you've got the cart before the horse though Edwin. We don't use the benefits determination of status to determine whether we are at war. Amusing argument of course but it avoids the real discussion.... mang.

As for "declared war." I believe the answer is "no." The power derives from his authority as Commander in Chief not from "War" powers. EG - Viet Nam was never a declared war et al. I used the term "war" loosely (the article suggests war is a necessary element - I accepted that but they used the term more concretely that I did and I think they used it too narrowly) and noted it needed clearing up - largely because of ovbvious arguments and real concerns like yours. Ignoring my constitutional interpretation and just discussing policy and what I think "should be": I was suggesting that the Executive needs the power to prevent another 9/11. I think the wire taps authorized are fine. However, as I noted this is not something we want getting out of hand and we need clearer guidance on the scope of authority. Its a new world with new enemies and new methods of attack and communication etc...

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

(oh, and the AUMF is Authorization for Use of Military Force.... an acronym expressly explained by the article you supposedly read and are making comments on.... )

lol - I conceded where I quit reading.... and I'm familiar with the constitution and arguments against GW's wire taps so there.... I quit about of a quarter into it - scanned the rest - saw nothing new or interesting - but still - touche mutherfucker

[PETA]

As to the article - I think the author goes off the rails and argues what he would like to see as restrictions on Executive Power and keeps arguing in essence that it flows from a grant of Congress - which is schtoopid

[Hey Bubu]

What sort of limitations should there be then?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by TypeH

What sort of limitations should there be then?

Hey - I point out the questions - I don't have the answers


I think Congress and the Executive can come to an agreement as to how/what/when with the guidance of experts on surveillence etc that would maximize information gathering while minimizing the intrusions on privacy. The answer would require an expertise that I have zero of.

[Hey Bubu]

lol, fair enough. But if you ruled the worl...erm the US what would you do?

hey WWXD?

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by xian

hope all works out well

thanks

LOL - you've got the cart before the horse though Edwin. We don't use the benefits determination of status to determine whether we are at war.

if troops are in a non-war status, that would indicate to me that we are not officially in a declared war any longer.... i was asking for comfirmation of that thought and provided my reason for believing that it is so, not your evaluation of where my memory came from.

are we currently "AT WAR" in a literal Congressionally declared sense?

As for "declared war." I believe the answer is "no." The power derives from his authority as Commander in Chief not from "War" powers. EG - Viet Nam was never a declared war et al. I used the term "war" loosely (the article suggests war is a necessary element - I accepted that but they used the term more concretely that I did and I think they used it too narrowly) and noted it needed clearing up - largely because of ovbvious arguments and real concerns like yours.

sure, ok, you are right that the consititutional powers are not dependent on being in a state of war.

but confusion sets in when they start talking about his authority to wiretap deriving from his mandate in Article II.... please tell me where this is in here.... (I know you took a Con Law class X!) http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2

Ignoring my constitutional interpretation and just discussing policy and what I think "should be": I was suggesting that the Executive needs the power to prevent another 9/11. I think the wire taps authorized are fine. However, as I noted this is not something we want getting out of hand and we need clearer guidance on the scope of authority. Its a new world with new enemies and new methods of attack and communication etc...

I believe that the guidelines were set and made abundantly clear with the decision to set up FISA....

As far as I can tell, the justifications that the White House are using are strange and stretching it at best.

lol - I conceded where I quit reading.... and I'm familiar with the constitution and arguments against GW's wire taps so there.... I quit about of a quarter into it - scanned the rest - saw nothing new or interesting - but still - touche mutherfucker

[PETA]

Originally Posted by TypeH

lol, fair enough. But if you ruled the worl...erm the US what would you do?

hey WWXD?

I'd crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and to hear the lamentation of their women!

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

if troops are in a non-war status, that would indicate to me that we are not officially in a declared war any longer.... i was asking for comfirmation of that thought and provided my reason for believing that it is so, not your evaluation of where my memory came from.

lol - I wasn't evaluating where your memory came from - I was dismissing the question as unimportant - so there

I am not so certain "declared war" is a necessary condition for the Executive to exercise his authority as commander in chief to protect the US from foreign attack... I'm fairly certain its not required. Which renders your question moot.

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

are we currently "AT WAR" in a literal Congressionally declared sense?

I don't believe we are. Though Congress authorized the Executive to act I can't speak to the scope of that authority.... I'm sure it could be determined though

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

sure, ok, you are right that the consititutional powers are not dependent on being in a state of war.

but confusion sets in when they start talking about his authority to wiretap deriving from his mandate in Article II.... please tell me where this is in here.... (I know you took a Con Law class X!) http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2

Near as I can tell wiretaps aren't mentioned in the constitution. But if you're ok with courts authorizing them for use against dope peddlers I think you'll be in a tenuous position to claim that if the constitution doesn't explicitly grant the Executive authority to wiretap he is precluded from doing so. But you get at the heart of the point I've been trying to make... how do we define the scope of Presidential authority to act under the circumstances with which we are currently confronted? I suggested a method of making that determination to TypeH but I can't speak to how it would look specifically. I can say, and have, that the wiretaps do not concern me and the notice to Congress should allay your fears as well. Think those cats aren't political creatures willing to pounce on POTUS if they can earn some points?

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

I believe that the guidelines were set and made abundantly clear with the decision to set up FISA....

And I disagree and so did the Keith court (I think it was Keith)

To hold your position one would have to accept the Executive authority is a grant of Congress only after FISA approval... and that's not the case.

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

As far as I can tell, the justifications that the White House are using are strange and stretching it at best.

Yeah, I know you think that and you know I disagree you pinko.

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by xian

And I disagree and so did the Keith court (I think it was Keith)

could you please direct me to this case so i can read it?

To hold your position one would have to accept the Executive authority is a grant of Congress only after FISA approval... and that's not the case.

that is only if you buy that the executive has the power it claims to. I dispute that, so....

Yeah, I know you think that and you know I disagree you pinko.

not a pinko in the least actually, though I know you say this in jest....