Decision on Gitmo Undermines Bush’s Case For Warrantless wiretaps

[BR_Parkway]

Supreme Court Decision on Gitmo Undermines Bush’s Legal Case For Warrantless Wiretapping

The impact of today’s Supreme Court decision on military commissions goes well beyond Guantanamo. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force – issued by Congress in the days after 9/11 – is not a blank check for the administration. From the opinion:

Neither the AUMF nor the DTA can be read to provide specific, overriding authorization for the commission convened to try Hamdan. Assuming the AUMF activated the President’s war powers, see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, and that those powers include authority to convene military commissions in appropriate circumstances, see, e.g., id., at 518, there is nothing in the AUMF’s text or legislative history even hinting that Congress intended to expand or alter the authorization set forth in UCMJ Art. 21.

The point here is that the AUMF does not authorize activity that was not specifically contemplated in the text or legislative history. This is incredibly significant. The administration is relying on the AUMF to justify its warrantless wiretapping program. Here’s Alberto Gonzales on 12/19/05:

Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.

The Bush administration doesn’t argue that warrantless wiretapping was something specifically contemplated in the text or by Congress. Rather, the administration argues that it is implied as part of a broad authorization to “use all necessary and appropriate force.”

The Supreme Court has rejected that expansive interpretation. It’s a huge blow to the administration’s legal rationale for warrantless wiretapping.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/29/gitmo-wiretapping/

[RufusEarl]

1. Then this would suggest that anyone wanting to sue the admin,

over warrantless wiretaps would have the support of the supreme court? This should also put to rest SoS Condi Rice's contention that Bu$h does not need the approval of congress to instigate a war with Iran.

[stop the bleeding]

2. THIS IS HUGH!!!111 people - today the * WH has been dealt

an uppercut followed by a haymaker :)


Kick and related threads here with more links:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1532258&mesg_id=1532717

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1532722

[BR_Parkway]

5. Series!!!

[H2O Man]

3. The case appears to have

huge implications for the administration's entire "war on terrorism." The OP is correct that it can impact the Bush domestic spying, as well as the international activities.

It creates an opportunity for democrats & progressives to highlight the related issues in the congressional elections.

[MissWaverly]

12. question H20 man

@hat impact is this going to have on countries that are allowing us to maintain secret prisons
on their soil like Hungary. Won't they feel like the legal rationalization for this has been ripped away?

[H2O Man]

14. Good question.

It would seem the more democratic countries would recognize the secret prisons are in violation of international law.

[BOSSHOG]

4. As rush would say, lets keep this thing up

[NanceGreggs]

6. This is both HUGH11 & SERIES!!!

Let's keep it kicked, people!

:kick:

[annabanana]

7. k&r. . . . . n/t

[Clark2008]

8. But will it stop them?

This administration has fingered it's chin - like Scalia - at all of our established laws while rolling out the public relations terror boon.

Just because these - ahem - "activist judges" think that Bush can't do this has never seemed to stop him.

What can we do until we take back Congress?

[ms liberty]

9. Get thee to the Greatest Page! n/t

[ms liberty]

10. oops, dupe - twitchy fingers! n/t

[caligirl]

11. kick, this can't slip away to easily.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. KickityKick and R-ittyR

People, people ... can anyone say 'impeachment'?

I could happen.