Yuk, yuck...
Sorry about the extended vacation from the blog, but I had finals (and subsequent binge drinking) to deal with. Just for the record... I’m feeling much better now.
So what’s in the news? Well our kooky President is up to his usual hi-jinks. I actually heard him proclaim in a recent press briefing that he is going to seek treason charges against whoever leaked the info about administration’s questionable wire-tap procedures. Will someone please inform the President (Emperor) that he “has no clothes?”
Has the President become so divorced from reality that he can overlook his own constitutionally suspect actions in order to accuse an individual, who uncovered his potentially illegal actions, of treason? Does Bush fail to see the incredible irony in circumscribing the Constitution to protect the Constitution? (Or to create a constitutional government in Iraq)
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) did not set-up arduous procedures for obtaining wire-tap warrants. It simply created a secret FISA court to review government requests for warrants. The court could even issues retroactive warrants days after a wire-tap started. In the last 30 years the FISA court has issues 19,000 warrants and denied 5. In other words, the FISA court grants government wire-tap requests 99.97% of the time. Was Bush just unwilling to take that chance? Really who could know when the FISA court’s rubber stamp would run out of ink? No matter how you slice it, this does not reflect well upon the administration.
And on top of this blunder, the soft under-belly of the administration’s legal strategy has been exposed through the administration’s recent indictment of Jose Padilla. Padilla is a suspected terrorist, with a connection to Al Qaeda. At various times the administration has accused him of planning to detonate a dirty bomb, planning to blow-up apartment buildings, and conspiring with Al Qaeda.
Normally these kind of charges do not pose legal problems. Under the Presidents broad wartime powers, he can do anything "necessary and proper." But Padilla is an American citizen and he was captured on American soil. These facts pose difficulties for those who would like to lock Padilla up and throw-away the key without a trial. Hard to argue locking a citizen up without a trial is either "necessary
or proper."
The Administration initially argued before the 4th Circuit court that the President could detain Padilla indefinitely, without a trial, under his war powers. Surprisingly the argument worked, initally, and the government was allowed to continue to detain Padilla as an “enemy combatant.” Then the administration started counting Supreme Court votes and decided that a constitutional show-down before the Court would not go well for them.
So the administration decided to criminally indict Padilla, and asked the 4th Circuit to vacate it’s decision. (A tactical move to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing the case) But the 4th Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Luttig (who was recently on Supreme Court nominee short-lists) tongue-lashed the administration for it’s “shaky legal maneuvering.”
It’s gotten bad; the administration can no longer count on friendly judges buying their "shaky legal" arguments. Political pressures are forcing the administration to back-away, taking an increasingly defensive posture. The President is looking less and less clothed.
