Bush On "Roving" Domestic Wiretaps THEN...and Bush On "Roving" Domestic Wiretaps NOW

"So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means. Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." (President George W. Bush on the importance to homeland security of information sharing and the Patriot Act that was part of "Conversation on the U.S.A. Patriot Act" in Kleinshans Music Hall in Buffalo, New York, on April 20, 2004.).

Congress has a dual role to: (1) "set" (ie establish, create, make) law, and (2) enforce federal law law. Federal compliance rules do NOT allow for incorrect interpretations of federal law to serve as valid support for a President's ability to abdicate adherence to the U.S. Constitution and/or federal law that is consistent with the U.S. Constitution. There is no Presidential precident during wartime (when actual War was declared by Congress---- please note that Congress did NOT even declare war on Iraq, al-Quaeda, etc...which would have triggered some other very specific powers) that allows for the circumvention of federal law, or the ability to sidestep the check-and-balances of both the judiciary (FISA Court) or the legislative (Congress) bodies.

The idea that the post-9/11 resolution gave the Prez a "blank check" is disingenuous (at best) and dangerous (at worst). The resolution gave the Prez the ability to use absolute and full force, as commander-in-chief, to capture and bring-to-justice the perpetrators of 9/11 and RELATED terrorist acts. The President's commander-in-chief powers are limited to his position as commander-in-chief of the military (the resolution authorized him to utilize military forces to bring al-Quaeda perpetrators to justice). The resolution does NOT allow the President to circumvent the Constitution, or existing international/domestic law (both of which are engrossed in the Constitution at Article VI para 2 --- "This Constitution, and THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."). If W thought he got a blank check --- and everyone believed that he got a blank check --- then there would be NO ISSUE OR DEBATE RELATED TO (a) TORTURE, OR (b) CRUEL, INHUMAN[E], AND DEGRADING TREATMENT THAT FALLS BELOW THE TORTURE THRESHHOLD. The President would say "Hey, these are a part of my commander-in-chief powers (absolute force), and I am going to torture and maim in order to keep America secure from terrorism." But --- Nope! --- he can't use that because the U.N. Charter, U.S. War Powers Act (1973), U.N. Convention Against Torture And Other Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Article II), U.N. Geneva Conventions, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights, U.S. War Crimes Act (1945), U.N. Convention On The Rights Of Children, and FISA (anti-wiretapping law w/o FISA Court approval) all do NOT allow for Congress to grant the President with the autority to circumvent federal law, nor do they allow for the President to do so by Executive Fiat.

Progressively,

LeftAngst