Justice Department to declare warrantless wiretaps legal

[Stephanie]

John Byrne
Published: January 19, 2006


In a detailed 42-page legal memorandum set for release this evening the Bush Justice Department will defend the President's warrantless wiretap program as legal. A copy of the document was leaked to RAW STORY.

"The NSA activities are supported by the President’s well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs to conduct warrantless surveillance of enemy forces for intelligence purposes to detect and disrupt armed attacks on the United States," Justice Department lawyers write, referring to the President's order to wiretap Americans' calls overseas.

It adds, "The President has the chief responsibility under the Constitution to protect America from attack, and the Constitution gives the President the authority necessary to fulfill that solemn responsibility."


The first two pages are shown below, with a pdf link to the full document beneath that. Democrats plan unofficial hearings on the legality of the wiretaps Friday (Article here). No formal congressional hearing has been scheduled by the Republican congressional leadership to examine the taps, despite widespread concern among civil liberty advocates and constitutional scholars.

For the first two pages are there at the link below. Then they have the pdf link for the other 42 pages. But this little piece right here says a lot
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Justice_Department_to_declare_warrantless_wiretaps_0119.html

 

[jillian]

The four key words in that post...

the Bush Justice Department

 

[Diuretic]

My response to the opening paragraph is "Sez who?"

Now before I get bombarded I need to make my point. This is merely a brief. The Justice Department can claim what it likes. The question is, is the claim valid?

Now this is where I need some help. Is any impartial body going to hear this brief? It looks as if Congress isn't interested. I presume that the Supreme Court isn't going to hear it either. So, why the brief? Can anyone enlighten me on that?

 

[5stringJeff]

My understanding is that both the Senate Judiciary Commitee and the FISA court already gave their OK to this program years ago.

 

[Mr. P]

I don’t have a problem with monitoring or tapping “overseas” calls, it’s legal.
I do have a problem with gathering domestic phone records without cause, that’s illegal.

IMO, this is nothing more than a slick attempt to divert attention from “that illegal practice", and focus attention on what is legal already.. Lame. But most will buy it. Smoke an mirror shit works.

 

[Diuretic]

My understanding is that both the Senate Judiciary Commitee and the FISA court already gave their OK to this program years ago.

Thanks. If that's the case - and I'm not contesting that because I don't know - then whywas this brief written? Was it to justify the action to the above bodies? Or has it been written as post facto justification? I'm asking because the link to the pdf from Raw Story doesn't work for me or I would read it before asking questions like that.

 

[jillian]

My response to the opening paragraph is "Sez who?"

Now before I get bombarded I need to make my point. This is merely a brief. The Justice Department can claim what it likes. The question is, is the claim valid?

Now this is where I need some help. Is any impartial body going to hear this brief? It looks as if Congress isn't interested. I presume that the Supreme Court isn't going to hear it either. So, why the brief? Can anyone enlighten me on that?

The DoJ prepared the brief because General Hayden, the guy Bush nominated to take over the CIA, was one of the people who approved the program for the NSA. It's to help give him ammo for his confirmation hearing.

 

[Diuretic]

The DoJ prepared the brief because General Hayden, the guy Bush nominated to take over the CIA, was one of the people who approved the program for the NSA. It's to help give him ammo for his confirmation hearing.

Thanks jillian, so it's basically a brief for him, not for a judicial tribunal? Now I see it.