| PRESSTHENEWS.COM |
|
Immigration Backwardness
Nature; its Power, and our Effect
Upon it To Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution Missed Opportunities in the War on Terror The Standard Line on the Economy Press Coverage of Leaks and Wiretaps Irresponsibility on Defining the War The Right Questions in the War on Terror
Bio Weapons Labs: Scapegoating the Media Misconstruing the Constitution The Democrats and Harry Taylor The Bush Administration Environmental Record The Bush Administration Obsession with Secrecy The 2004 Election Vote Controversy
Sheep Following the Herd
|
THROWING OUT THE CONSTITUTION (May 25, 2006) Reuters reports that the Executive Branch, having "potentially" violated the separation of powers clauses of the Constitution, now also believes that it is the sole arbiter as to whether or not it has. Which, of course, would mean that there is no arbiter. The administration's reasoning? The same used to undertake programs which violated the Constitution's system of checks and balances in the first place. The new, legally magical, "get out of constitutional jail free card," i.e., "national security." Reuters reports: The United States government, not any court, is the best judge of whether to keep programs such as its ["controversial"] effort to eavesdrop on citizens a secret, an assistant attorney general said on Wednesday. Peter Keisler, an assistant attorney general, and other U.S. officials made the claim in the latest filing to a lawsuit alleging that telecommunications firm AT&T illegally allowed the government to monitor phone conversations and e-mail communications. "In cases such as this one, where the national security of the United States is implicated, it is well established that the executive branch is best positioned to judge the potential effects of disclosure of sensitive information on the nation's security," they wrote in a filing on Wednesday evening.
This is a gross misapplication of the law.
The plaintiff in the case, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (who
should have been joined by Congress, and every American citizen), is
seeking an injunction that would order the government to stop the
program. Therefore, the issue of judging the potential effects of
sensitive information is not relevant. (Also, for those Americans
who do think that giving up some liberty to grant the government the
power to engage in unchecked spying "to protect us" is not cowardly, but
necessary, write your congressional representatives and ask them to pass
such a law. Until such time, the applicably Law,
FISA,
amended since the attacks of September 11, specifically forbids such a
program as this, applied without warrant. Additionally Congress could
write a new law or amend the law again, to allow for the
ostensible aims of the current
program, but still provide a basis for review). In other words, the system of checks and balances which our Constitution was written to institute, is thrown right out of the window. Under this contorted reasoning, the executive branch can do whatever it wants under the auspices of national security (secretly, too, to boot, and, prosecute any whistleblowers or press members for reporting it), prevent any review if there is a difference of opinion, and prevent the rest of the country, even congress, from knowing about it. The administration's argument for the program in the first place, takes the Constitution and turns it on its head. Yet now the administration, of all things, is also arguing that this decision as well can not be reviewed. This is somewhat incredible for an open democracy based upon a system of governent checks and balances. (Links to the contact information for every Senator and Congressman are to the right. Call them). And it is EXACTLY what the Constitution was written to prevent.
Copyright2006PresstheNews |
ABC News
ORGANIZATION,
Cato Institute
Glenn Greenwald
Congress MORE
|