The "Use of Force" resolution authorized by the Congress

[kentuck]

That is the argument that Atty-General Gonzalez used this morning to justify the White House monitoring of US citizens. He said the "use of force" that was authorized included wiretapping and eavedropping, not just military force.

However, if we were to take that argument to its logical conclusion, the President would also be authorized to declare martial law or to suspend habeus corpus. Where is the line drawn if all laws are suspended in the resolution? What else can they do if they can eavesdrop on American citizens? If one law can be ignored, then why not another law and then another law??

[NativeTexan]

1. They authorized "force", NOT....

....the authority to suspend the Constitution...simply because THEY don't have the power to do that!!!

[atreides1]

2. They Do Have The Power

It's called the cowardice of those Americans who can't see beyond their own interests and hatreds.

He has lawyers telling him he can do what he wants, the Federal Courts system has provided him with cart blanche, and soon the SCOTUS will make him Emperor.

And it is the fault of those "Americans" who are cowards, at last count there were at least 59 million of them.

That's where he gets his authority from, and the Republican/Nazi Party.

[NativeTexan]

6. I call it the Bush Facist Party (BFP), but.....

...Republican/Nazi works for me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. It's only legal if the Supreme Court says it is --

and they're working on that.

[SeattleVet]

4. If the authorization was titled "Use of Force", the...

current resident of the Oval office appears to have 'mis-readed' it as giving him license for "Use of Farce", and applied it to his whole administration.

[kentuck]

5. But until that happens...

the law is the law...

[AZBlue]

7. I believe they are referring to the 9/14/01 resolution, not the Iraq res.

It's vague. I'm sure it's not what Congress meant when they passed it. But it did leave it open-ended and doesn't define what's ok and what's not. You wouldn't think they'd have to add "within the law" but with Bush & Co you do need to point that out to them. Not that it would have stopped them. I still think it's an impeachable crime, with or without the resolution.

To read the text:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html

[kentuck]

8. If it's open-ended , as you say....

then the President could declare martial law or suspend habeus corpus, could he not? Where does he have to stop?

[AZBlue]

10. Martial Law would be much more difficult to attribute to the resolution

Martial law would blatantly affect those not involved in the terrorist attacks and that's all that's covered under the resolution (I've pasted the paragraph below that is the core of the resolution). They claim that the eavesdropping is only on people who are suspects (although we know that's B.S.) and so it's not affecting everyone.

As for habeas corpus, yes, that it certainly be easier to suspend it rather than delcaring matial law by citing the resolution, although it's not a use of force so it's still questionable. But I don't think suspected terrorists have that right or any others already - another issue that should be investigated.

I'm certainly not defending these actions - like I said before, I still think it's an impeachable crime. But, I can see where this spin is coming from - I just don't think it will hold up.

From the Resolution:
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

[kentuck]

12. "..planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks.."

Yep. That would be those Quakers and those people handing out peanut butter sandwiches....

[AZBlue]

16. LOL...yeah, Quakers and grandmothers are the scariest kind!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. Huh????

What does military force have to do with wiretapping? If this resolution authorizes wiretapping, what DOESN'T it authorize? It seems to me that the resolution is pretty clear that it's talking about "military force/operations" against those people responsible for 9/11 like in Afghanistan against the Taliban (but NOT Iraq or anywhere else!) and I fail to see where it can even be BENT into authorizing any kind of wiretapping but maybe I'm just hopelessly stupid (unlikely) or there is some kind of "code" buried within the text of that resolution that only Bush/GOP can see? OR maybe Bush believes that illegally wiretapping people is o.k. because the voices in his head told him it is?

[kentuck]

11. I agree...

It's called the AUMF...Authorization to Use Military Force. If it includes wiretapping, what else does it include? Good question!

[AtomicKitten]

13. Apparently BushCo asked for limitless power in the Iraq Resolution

and the Senators cut him off at the knees. He was told a flat-out no. For Gonzales to re-write history on precisely what the Congress granted is ludicrous.

[kentuck]

14. True...

It cannot be said often enough, it seems.

[jarab]

15. Henceforth, Congress must be hesitant to give any

President carte blanc "use of force" powers.
And, when they do, it should be lengthy and detailed without any doubts as to what is implied. Simply saying "nothing else is implied!" would be enough.
If we can't make hay out of this abuse issue, or if it slips out of our grasp, we're officially impotent.

...O...

[kentuck]

17. Well...they didn't ...

Remember they went to Tom Daschle to add the language they wanted at the very last minute and they were refused. So they decided to skirt the law and do it anyway...and pretend they were "informing" the Congress..