Comments on: Bush’s Lawyers Try To Justify Wiretapping http://donklephant.com/2006/01/20/bushs-lawyers-try-to-justify-wiretapping/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:03:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Justin Gardner http://donklephant.com/2006/01/20/bushs-lawyers-try-to-justify-wiretapping/comment-page-1/#comment-5859 Justin Gardner Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:34:35 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1718#comment-5859 debsay, they're monitoring communications in THIS country between non-terrorist elements, and that's been demonstrated. debsay, they’re monitoring communications in THIS country between non-terrorist elements, and that’s been demonstrated.

]]> By: debsay http://donklephant.com/2006/01/20/bushs-lawyers-try-to-justify-wiretapping/comment-page-1/#comment-5856 debsay Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:59:13 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1718#comment-5856 I just don't see it that way, the Constitution gives the President the authority over Foreign Intelligence gathering - this is something that cannot be taken away from the President unless it is an 'Amendment to the Constitution' - which we have not had.... There is no way that you could possibly stretch this NSA stuff to claim that it isn't 'foreign intelligence' in relation to our national security. I just don’t see it that way, the Constitution gives the President the authority over Foreign Intelligence gathering – this is something that cannot be taken away from the President unless it is an ‘Amendment to the Constitution’ – which we have not had…. There is no way that you could possibly stretch this NSA stuff to claim that it isn’t ‘foreign intelligence’ in relation to our national security.

]]> By: Meredith http://donklephant.com/2006/01/20/bushs-lawyers-try-to-justify-wiretapping/comment-page-1/#comment-5554 Meredith Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:25:22 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=1718#comment-5554 This issue is going to come down to statutory interpretation (or at least it should), and the first rule is to give the words in the statute their plain and ordinary meaning as long as they are not ambiguous. If the statute gives the prez the right to use "military force," which I believe is where they are deriving permission to wiretap, I do not think "military force" is ambiguous, and everyone knows what springs to mind when you hear the words "military force." The great thing about this rule of statutory construction is that all the viewers at home can play along because "plain and ordinary meaning" is generally what one would find in the dictionary (or in their own minds already!). I'm POSITIVE that there are a great many legal arguments around this, because there are a great many legal arguments for just about any topic under the sun, but if the decision-maker is going by the book in this case (I'm referring to a fair and impartial judge who applies the law in an unbiased manner) there is NO WAY that statute gives Bush the right to do what he did. This issue is going to come down to statutory interpretation (or at least it should), and the first rule is to give the words in the statute their plain and ordinary meaning as long as they are not ambiguous. If the statute gives the prez the right to use “military force,” which I believe is where they are deriving permission to wiretap, I do not think “military force” is ambiguous, and everyone knows what springs to mind when you hear the words “military force.” The great thing about this rule of statutory construction is that all the viewers at home can play along because “plain and ordinary meaning” is generally what one would find in the dictionary (or in their own minds already!).

I’m POSITIVE that there are a great many legal arguments around this, because there are a great many legal arguments for just about any topic under the sun, but if the decision-maker is going by the book in this case (I’m referring to a fair and impartial judge who applies the law in an unbiased manner) there is NO WAY that statute gives Bush the right to do what he did.

]]>