Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Backlash! - Empiricum

On Tuesday, December 20, 2005, TREOWTH published my article which I link below to provide the reader a continuity of thought. That article contains a link to an updated Report to Congress by Elizabeth B. Bazan of the Law Division of the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. In that Report, Ms. Bazan discussed on pages 21 and 35 the inadmissibility of evidence obtained through an illegal surveillance.

Today, there are reports that there are lawyers who are now questioning the evidence in certain "terror cases" that they are currently handling. (This latest news is also linked below for the same reason stated above.)

There is also a report that there are contemplated private suits against Bush on this particular issue of domestic surveillance.

Immediately after the disclosure by the New York Times of Bush's domestic spy program, Dick Cheney came out of his bunker firing and warning that this disclosure will have a "backlash" on the administrations critics.

Certainly, these latest developments are not the "backlash" that Cheney had in mind!

Treowth: Back to the era of cloak and dagger - Empiricum

Lawyers Question Evidence in Terror Case - Yahoo! News

Defense says NSA likely illegally spied on cleric - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com

1 comment:

Empiricum said...

The following news article would serve to update the above post:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/28/lawyers.spying/index.html?eref=aol

(To read the article, please copy and paste it in your URL tool bar.)

The article states, inter alia:

****The Justice Department and White House refused to comment on the expected legal moves by defense attorneys.

"I don't think it should serve as any surprise that defense attorneys are looking for ways to represent their clients. That's what defense attorneys do," White House Spokesman Trent Duffy told reporters.

He said Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Gen. Michael Hayden, the head of NSA when the program began and now deputy director of national intelligence, "did a very thorough briefing about the legal underpinning that the administration is basing the program on." (Full story)

The Justice Department has cited as legal justification for the program Article II of the Constitution, which gives the commander in chief authority to protect the nation, and a post-9/11 law that authorized the president to use force against al Qaeda.****

----
It is sad to note that mouthpieces of the White House, like Trent Duffy and Ron Christie, would even dare to spin in what appears to be a clear violation of the law and the Constitution. (N.B.: Christie appeared in yesterday's Hardball edition of MSNBC... and he did say a mouthful of praise and defense for Bush!)

It is even more sad to note that Alberto Gonzales, and other "legal scholars" would argue that Bush derives his "authority" from the post 9/11 law which I call the "urge Resolution." Gonzales and these other "legal scholars" SHOULD know that the 9/11 "urge Resolution" did not and cannot trump the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment! Gonzales SHOULD know that there is a specific mechanism for effectively and lawfully amending the Constitution... and an "opinion" of the Attorney General or White House Counsel is NOT that mechanism!

Like I said in an earlier post here on Treowth, Gonzales is very "creative" when it comes to interpreting the law... which becomes an invasion of the prerogative of the judiciary when he puts a stamp of finality and accuracy on that opinion. This is reminiscent of his "opinions" on Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Torture Law, and Executive Privilege, among others.

I am sure that these "public officers" are aware that the offices that they occupy are offices of public trust and that while they serve at the will of the president, they IN FACT serve the interest and welfare of the American people ... but not that of Bush!

 
Personal Blogs - Blog Top Sites