Thursday, December 22, 2005

"JUSTIFICATION"

Here's the latest from BushWorld:

Bush administration defends spying program
By TONI LOCY
Associated Press Writer
Dec 22, 7:21 PM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration formally defended its domestic spying program in a letter to Congress late Thursday saying the nation's security outweighs privacy concerns of individuals who are monitored.

In a letter to the chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the Justice Department said President Bush authorized electronic surveillance without first obtaining a warrant in an effort to thwart terrorist acts against the United States.

"There is undeniably an important and legitimate privacy interest at stake with respect to the activities described by the president," wrote Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella. "That must be balanced, however, against the government's compelling interest in the security of the nation."

Moschella maintained that Bush acted legally when he authorized the National Security Agency to go around the court to conduct electronic surveillance of international communications into and out of the United States by suspects tied to al-Qaida or its affiliates.

Moschella relied on a Sept. 18, 2001, congressional resolution, known as the Authorization to Use Military Force, as primary legal justification for Bush's creation of a domestic spying program. He said Bush's powers as commander-in-chief give the president "the responsibility to protect the nation."

The resolution "clearly contemplates action within the United States," Moschella wrote, and acknowledges Bush's power to prevent terrorism against the United States.


I've read this bill and I can find no mention of anything being allowed besides the use of the Armed Forces. Here's the bill:

Public Law 107-40
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
[note: Sept. 18, 2001 - [S.J. Res. 23]]

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States:

Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, [NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.]


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) [note:President.] In General.--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.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--

(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. [[Page 115 STAT. 225]]

(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S.J. Res. 23 (H.J. Res. 64):

No comments: