Rep Conyers -- "(Harvard Law Prof.) Larry Tribe on Spying: A Grave Abuse"

[understandinglife]

Larry Tribe on Spying: A Grave Abuse
Calls Legal Justifications "Poppycock"

I announce a January 20 Democratic Hearing on this abuse of power

Amid the scandal about the President’s secret spying on law abiding Americans, I asked Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, the most respected legal scholar when it comes to constitutional questions, for his opinion. You can read his entire letter to me in plain text in the extended entry below, but – as first reported by the Wall Street Journal – his analysis confirms my suspicions that this is an utterly lawless and unconstitutional act. My reading of his letter: from the perspective of legal scholarship, the Administration’s justifications don’t pass the laugh test. To cast a little more light on this issue, I announced today that I am calling Democratic hearings (though all are welcome) on this issue, on January 20 at 10am.

Professor Tribe begins by dissecting the Administration’s attempts to minimize the secret spying. As he indicates, there are types of communications which contain so little content that the collection of it has been held to not be a “search or seizure,” such as routing information on electronic communications. The President tried to cloud the issue by making it seem like these were the type of intercepts the NSA was gathering when he said “the program is one that listens to a few numbers” because “we want to know who they’re calling...” Tribe charitably calls this “less than forthright,” especially in light of the Attorney General’s concession that the intercepts were much more than that.

Tribe also rejects the Administration’s attempts to diminish this activity by claiming that it solely encompassed U.S. citizens’ communications with “members of Al Qaeda.” In fact, the Attorney General let slip that the program is far broader, so broad that, in Professor Tribe’s view, the “definition casts so wide a net that no-one can feel certain of escaping its grasp.”

He concludes that there is a “strong case” that the program likely violates the Fourth Amendment, especially in light of the lack of Congressional authorization for it. In terms of the legal precedents, Tribe concludes that when the secret spying is so far outside the category of allowable unilateral Presidential actions, that it “misses it by a mile”.

More at the link including the complete text of Professor Tribe's letter to Congressman Conyers:

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000348.htm

Traction.


Peace.

[understandinglife]

1. Link to comments at HuffPo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-conyers/larry-tribe-on-spying-a-_b_13575.html


Peace.

[understandinglife]

2. WSJ: Hearing Problem?

House Democrats slate a Jan. 20 panel on the president's domestic surveillance program, saying Republicans have ignored their December request for the House Judiciary Committee to hold a formal hearing.

The Democrats' star witness: Bruce Fein, former Reagan administration lawyer who has criticized the classified program, in which the National Security Agency did not seek warrants to monitor communications by U.S. citizens said to be in touch with people allegedly linked to international terrorism. Critics say the program, disclosed last month, violates a 1978 law establishing a secret court to oversee counterintelligence operations, even during wartime. The White House says Congress implicitly approved the spying program in its resolution authorizing a military response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Michigan Rep. John Conyers, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, releases Harvard prof Laurence Tribe's analysis of the administration argument: "The technical legal term for that, I believe, is poppycock," Tribe writes.

More at the link:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/washington_wire.html

Peace.

[understandinglife]

3. Link to the .pdf original version of Prof. Tribe's letter to Rep Conyers:

The inescapable conclusion is that the AUMF did not implicitly authorize what the FISA expressly prohibited. It follows that the presidential program of surveillance at issue here is a violation of the separation of powers — as grave an abuse of executive authority as I can recall ever having studied.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/letters/tribensaconyersltr10606.pdf

Peace.

[Time for change]

4. One more document supporting the need for impeachment

As you pointed out in an earlier post, it is absurd to think that Bush would break the law in this manner in order to obtain information on conversations between Americans and Al Queda, which could easily be obtained via FISA warrants.

I look forward to hearing what those hearings produce.

[understandinglife]

6. Indeed. "Impeachment is no longer a partisan issue, it is the only way ...

... both Democrats and Republicans can justify their existence, honor their oath of office, and not be collabortors in Bush's crimes.


Peace.

[Time for change]

8. Yes, it will be a dark stain on this country if he doesn't get impeached

[understandinglife]

5. Link to Prof. Stone et al., letter:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x92335

The messaging is really simple -- BUSH BROKE THE LAW.

Impeachment is no longer a partisan issue, it is the only way both Democrats and Republicans can justify their existence, honor their oath of office, and not be collabortors in Bush's crimes.


Peace.

[understandinglife]

7. Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/facdir.php?id=74


Peace.

[kpete]

9. Another nail in the coffin...