White House spying defense rests on shaky legal ground

[deadparrot]

In the seven weeks since The New York Times revealed that President Bush has been ordering wiretaps on communications into and out of the USA without asking for the warrants required by law, the explosive debate has been long on political spin and short on hard fact.

The White House has waged disingenuous political and legal campaigns, suggesting that critics of its "terrorist surveillance" program are soft on al-Qaeda and that only known evil-doers are being monitored.

Some on the left, meanwhile, have declared that Bush's "domestic spying" is flatly illegal and that impeachment proceedings should begin forthwith.

What's needed at this point is a sober, bipartisan investigation into just what has been going on. Senate hearings that begin today, with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as the leadoff witness, provide that opportunity, if only both sides will use it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/whitehousespyingdefenserestsonshakylegalground

[fooj]

1. It doesn't just violat Fed Law...it violates the US Constitution.

It is a felony and grounds for impeachment.

Peace.

[Kagemusha]

2. Speaking hypothetically, the grounds for impeachment is not the felony

It is the willful, lucid, knowing and wanton violation of a federal statute that exercises Congress' jurisdiction over the laws of war and peace which the Executive is required to follow according to the powers provided to the Legislative branch in the Constitution. Therefore, a violation of the Constitution itself. A violation of mere statute law (i.e. a felony) is much thinner grounds for impeachment. Violation of separation of powers by the assertion of the right to knowingly order the commission of felonies under Executive discretion, is much thicker grounds.

For the record. I know many disagree that this even is a separation of powers issue because they say the Executive ought to have power unrestricted by law or judicial review in a time of war, I just politely disagree.