Tonight at 8 p.m. Attorney General Brown, on behalf of the ANSWER coalition, filed a suit against the Bush Administration. The lawsuit is rapidly approaching the Supreme Court level. The case is being argued by UACL veteran lawyer Jameel Jaffer, who prosecuted a case against the NSA in 2007. The full text of the filing can be found here.
-Michael Soneff
Monday, December 10, 2007
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Syllogism
For anyone who is still unclear on how the Executive Order is unconstitutional, here it is, in plainer English than the White House can use:
1. The White House has made it very clear that the EO gives powers to the AG that he didn't have before. They have made it very clear that the EO changes when the President has to submit what to FISC. That is by their own admission. So, there can be no argument; the EO contradicts the current law. If you still doubt that the EO violates the law, look here. The first paragraph makes it vert clear that the AG has to go to FISC before the tap takes place. The EO says the AG can go to FISC later. Thus, it clearly changes the law.
2. The Supreme Court has ruled at least twice that an executive order cannot violate the law. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Court invalidated President Truman’s EO 10340, because the order didn’t enforce the law, so much as it rewrote the law. Second, in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, the Court ruled that congress may not give the President the power to make laws. So, it's clear that if the EO violates the law (see #1) then it is illegal.
3. The EO is clearly illegal, as it violates the law.
4. However the Administration has made the argument that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Terrorists allows them to use any means necessary to combat terror. They argue that the EO is justified through the AUMF.
5. The Supreme Court has said otherwise. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the court ruled that the AUMF does not authorize the Administration to do anything that isn't specifically allowed under the AUMF. The AUMF does NOT allow the Administration to alter FISA, or any other surveillance laws for that matter.
6. So, the AUMF clearly doesn't justify the EO, thus the EO is clearly illegal by any standard.
- Michael Soneff
1. The White House has made it very clear that the EO gives powers to the AG that he didn't have before. They have made it very clear that the EO changes when the President has to submit what to FISC. That is by their own admission. So, there can be no argument; the EO contradicts the current law. If you still doubt that the EO violates the law, look here. The first paragraph makes it vert clear that the AG has to go to FISC before the tap takes place. The EO says the AG can go to FISC later. Thus, it clearly changes the law.
2. The Supreme Court has ruled at least twice that an executive order cannot violate the law. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Court invalidated President Truman’s EO 10340, because the order didn’t enforce the law, so much as it rewrote the law. Second, in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, the Court ruled that congress may not give the President the power to make laws. So, it's clear that if the EO violates the law (see #1) then it is illegal.
3. The EO is clearly illegal, as it violates the law.
4. However the Administration has made the argument that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Terrorists allows them to use any means necessary to combat terror. They argue that the EO is justified through the AUMF.
5. The Supreme Court has said otherwise. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the court ruled that the AUMF does not authorize the Administration to do anything that isn't specifically allowed under the AUMF. The AUMF does NOT allow the Administration to alter FISA, or any other surveillance laws for that matter.
6. So, the AUMF clearly doesn't justify the EO, thus the EO is clearly illegal by any standard.
- Michael Soneff
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Senator Clinton Takes a Stand
In today's Congressional hearing, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) vehemently defended the freedoms of American citizens against the surveillance authorities claimed in the President's recent Executive Order. Clinton contended that FISA law had been bypassed, and therefore violated by the order. The UACL applauds/welcomes Senator Clinton's continuing efforts to combat the administration's unlawful actions. Her high-profile symbolic move to hold AG Mukasey in contempt of congress, if nothing else, should certainly draw some much needed attention to this issue of vital importance.
-Jordan Lonner
-Jordan Lonner
whoACL?
At this afternoon's press conference, President Bush quite conspicuously avoided taking any questions from UACL media representative Michael Soneff. In the last press conference before today, Soneff had been aggressive in going after the new Executive Order, and had asked questions that led to some controversial (and at times comical) answers from administration officials. Perhaps the President hopes to avoid all questions that might be critical of his most recent order. One might even venture to say that he's punishing Mr. Soneff, by showing that if the UACL doesn't want to play ball, the Administration doesn't have to deal with them. Is it appropriate for the Administration to require passive acceptance of all executive acts in order to acknowledge the UACL as a legitimate media outlet? Fortunately, after today's Press Conference Ms. Perino agreed to respond to any and all written questions submitted by the UACL. Hopefully this represents a new way forward for the Administration.
-Michael Soneff
-Michael Soneff
Texas Barbecue
President Bush held a press conference today, immediately preceding the congressional hearings. The first question came from veteran UACL representative Jordan Lonner:
"Mr. President, Attorney General Mukasey admitted that your executive order contradicts FISA, but that your order was necessary. However, FISA already has the emergency authorization provision that gives the Attorney General the ability to tap any phone, foreign or domestic, and get a warrant from a FISA court 72 hours later, after the tap has been done. So why do you need this order?"
An excellent question. The President doesn't need his illegal executive order because the AG can already tap any phone that he believes he needs to tap in order to combat terror. The only difference between FISA and the President's EO is that the AG has to go to the FISA court within 72 hours after the phone has been tapped under FISA. This doesn't hinder the abilities of the AG in the slightest. The only possible reason that the President would want this ability is in order to tap phones without ever having to provide a reason in a court. His reasoning has nothing to do with a time problem. So, in that context, let's examine the President's response. He said:
"This order is put in place to make sure that we have a very hastened and speedily way to track our enemies. {inaudible} Uh, they are able to move at such a speed that uh, it's frankly quite frightening. {the President laughs} Uh, this enemy is able to assume different identities is able to be in parts, different groups at different times, and is a threat to our national security. I issued this order to make sure that everything could be done to make sure that this december plot, which, from the information I have received, could be potentially one of the greatest attacks ever planned on any country, was prevented from happening."
The point of Mr. Lonner's question was that the AG already had "a very hastened and speedily way to track our enemies." The question was, why do we need this new ability, in light of the Emergency Authorization Provision of FISA.
The President later went on to say:
"This Executive Order has been issued to make sure that lives of Americans are not lost. {inaudible} We want to keep the citizens of this country safe, we want to make sure they enjoy a good holiday this year, and uh, anyone opposed to this executive order, while perfectly within their rights, is indirectly saying they value their emails more than they value american lives."
Strong words. Incorrect... but strong none the less. Of course the UACL cares more about life than it does about E-mails. The problem with President Bush's argument is that he doesn't need his EO to fight terrorism. The FISA EA provision is perfectly sufficient; that was the point of Mr. Lonner's question, which the President either failed to understand or decided not to answer. The President's argument is, frankly, quite offensive. The UACL cares about the precedent of protecting our civil liberties, codified in the Constitution of the United States, a document which he swore an oath to protect and uphold. As a matter of fact, the entirety of the Presidential oath of office reads:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Nowhere in that does he swear that he will violate the Constitution if he feels he needs to. The UACL is concerned about protecting the rights of Americans, ALL their rights, even the ones that the President wants to be able to violate.
By: Michael Soneff
"Mr. President, Attorney General Mukasey admitted that your executive order contradicts FISA, but that your order was necessary. However, FISA already has the emergency authorization provision that gives the Attorney General the ability to tap any phone, foreign or domestic, and get a warrant from a FISA court 72 hours later, after the tap has been done. So why do you need this order?"
An excellent question. The President doesn't need his illegal executive order because the AG can already tap any phone that he believes he needs to tap in order to combat terror. The only difference between FISA and the President's EO is that the AG has to go to the FISA court within 72 hours after the phone has been tapped under FISA. This doesn't hinder the abilities of the AG in the slightest. The only possible reason that the President would want this ability is in order to tap phones without ever having to provide a reason in a court. His reasoning has nothing to do with a time problem. So, in that context, let's examine the President's response. He said:
"This order is put in place to make sure that we have a very hastened and speedily way to track our enemies. {inaudible} Uh, they are able to move at such a speed that uh, it's frankly quite frightening. {the President laughs} Uh, this enemy is able to assume different identities is able to be in parts, different groups at different times, and is a threat to our national security. I issued this order to make sure that everything could be done to make sure that this december plot, which, from the information I have received, could be potentially one of the greatest attacks ever planned on any country, was prevented from happening."
The point of Mr. Lonner's question was that the AG already had "a very hastened and speedily way to track our enemies." The question was, why do we need this new ability, in light of the Emergency Authorization Provision of FISA.
The President later went on to say:
"This Executive Order has been issued to make sure that lives of Americans are not lost. {inaudible} We want to keep the citizens of this country safe, we want to make sure they enjoy a good holiday this year, and uh, anyone opposed to this executive order, while perfectly within their rights, is indirectly saying they value their emails more than they value american lives."
Strong words. Incorrect... but strong none the less. Of course the UACL cares more about life than it does about E-mails. The problem with President Bush's argument is that he doesn't need his EO to fight terrorism. The FISA EA provision is perfectly sufficient; that was the point of Mr. Lonner's question, which the President either failed to understand or decided not to answer. The President's argument is, frankly, quite offensive. The UACL cares about the precedent of protecting our civil liberties, codified in the Constitution of the United States, a document which he swore an oath to protect and uphold. As a matter of fact, the entirety of the Presidential oath of office reads:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Nowhere in that does he swear that he will violate the Constitution if he feels he needs to. The UACL is concerned about protecting the rights of Americans, ALL their rights, even the ones that the President wants to be able to violate.
By: Michael Soneff
Mukasey Dodges Questions, is Held in Contempt and Released
WASHINGTON, D.C.-- During public hearings held today on Capitol Hill, Attorney General Michael Mukasey became increasingly evasive when confronted with objections to the Administration's actions since the attack on the U.S. embassy in Sumatra. Appearing in front of a Congressional panel chaired by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California), Mukasey conceded that the administration's failure to notify congress of the Executive Order was a mistake, but refused to admit anything further, denying that the new measures taken violated citizens' civil liverties. The UACL's representatives looked on in patriotic terror as Mukasey stated that he would do "whatever is necessary" to protect America, and even going back on a previous statement to state that he believes measures taken to bypass Congress "are appropriate because Congressional oversight might endanger national security." The UACL and its associates view this as an affront to the liberties and principles America stands for, as well as to the ideas put forth by the Founding Fathers. Mukasey's evasiveness at one point prompted committee member Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York) to incredulously ask, "can you READ?"
When prompted to produce documents for which he had been subpoenaed, Attorney General Mukasey failed to produce them and invoked executive privilege "on behalf of the president," echoing the irrational statements J. Lewis "Scooter" Libby made during the Valerie Plame espionage case. The Attorney General refused to respond to the subpoena and Senators Clinton and Obama called for his arrest in contempt of court. A tied vote on the Senate floor failed to support Mukasey's imprisonment and he was released.
The UACL has become more and more worried about the administration's rogue attitude: ignoring Congress and failing to respond to supboenas displays an increasing disregard for law and democratic practice in the U.S.
--Matt Lerner
When prompted to produce documents for which he had been subpoenaed, Attorney General Mukasey failed to produce them and invoked executive privilege "on behalf of the president," echoing the irrational statements J. Lewis "Scooter" Libby made during the Valerie Plame espionage case. The Attorney General refused to respond to the subpoena and Senators Clinton and Obama called for his arrest in contempt of court. A tied vote on the Senate floor failed to support Mukasey's imprisonment and he was released.
The UACL has become more and more worried about the administration's rogue attitude: ignoring Congress and failing to respond to supboenas displays an increasing disregard for law and democratic practice in the U.S.
--Matt Lerner
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Bush Not to Testify
Today, President Bush declined congress's invitation to testify in tomorrow's Senate Select Committee hearings. However, the President will be giving a statement tomorrow, to be followed by an opportunity for the press to ask questions. We at the UACL hope that some of the many questions we have will be answered there. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and UACL representative Jameel Jaffer will be testifying in front of the Senate. Sparks should fly as the two titans of national policy go head to head. Tickets are already sold out, but you can watch the main event at home with CSPAN on demand.
-Jordan Lonner
-Jordan Lonner
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Presidential Power-Grab
This isn't the first time that the President has amended FISA. On July 28, 2007, President Bush called on Congress to pass legislation to reform the FISA in order to ease restrictions on surveillance of terrorist suspects where one party to the communication is located overseas. On August 3, 2007, the Senate passed a Republican-sponsored version of FISA in a vote of 60 to 28. The House followed by passing the bill, 227-183. The Protect America Act of 2007 was then signed into law by George W. Bush on August 5, 2007.
Under the Protect America Act, communications that begin or end in a foreign country may be wiretapped by the US government without supervision by the FISA Court. The Act removes from the definition of "electronic surveillance" in FISA any surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. As such, surveillance of these communications no longer requires a government application to, and order issuing from, the FISA Court.
The Administration's justification for the Executive Order is that they need to be able to tap calls that go overseas without a warrant. The only reason the administration would want this power is because they want to listen to phone calls from anti-war groups calling American citizens, without obtaining a warrant. The Administration is lying and fear-mongering to try to expand their powers. They are needlessly encroaching on our civil liberties, with the sole goal of listening to lawful conversations between American citizens. Americans have an absolute civil right to carry on a conversation which isn't listened to by the NSA, so long as they follow the law. MORE...
By: Michael Soneff
Under the Protect America Act, communications that begin or end in a foreign country may be wiretapped by the US government without supervision by the FISA Court. The Act removes from the definition of "electronic surveillance" in FISA any surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. As such, surveillance of these communications no longer requires a government application to, and order issuing from, the FISA Court.
The Administration's justification for the Executive Order is that they need to be able to tap calls that go overseas without a warrant. The only reason the administration would want this power is because they want to listen to phone calls from anti-war groups calling American citizens, without obtaining a warrant. The Administration is lying and fear-mongering to try to expand their powers. They are needlessly encroaching on our civil liberties, with the sole goal of listening to lawful conversations between American citizens. Americans have an absolute civil right to carry on a conversation which isn't listened to by the NSA, so long as they follow the law. MORE...
By: Michael Soneff
Clinton Strong on Civil Liberties
In an interview today, Hillary Clinton made some strong statements in support of civil liberties. When asked, "Do you feel that the rights of Americans are being violated by the Bush administration?" She said, "Yes, I do feel they are violating the citizens’ rights. This is a serious issue and something must be done but in such a way where we are protecting their civil liberties." The UACL applauds Mrs. Clinton's strong statements. We hope that she can help to shape the debate in congress, and move to override the President's unlawful action.
By: Michael Soneff
White House Defends Controversial Order
WASHINGTON, D.C.-- Speaking at a hastily assembled press conference held this afternoon at the White House, Press Secretary Dana Perino attempted to defend the Administration's choice in the controversial passage of yesterday's Executive Order. Ms. Perino told those members of the press who had assembled that the Order's expedient and--as has been argued, unconstitutional--composition was necessary. According to the White House, the new measures created by the Order have turned up evidence of an extant and highly dangerous terrorist threat. "We did what we thought was in the best interests of national security," she said later by phone, insisting that the bill was more effective if brought into action urgently. Ms. Perino went on to say that "there is a potential attack on our country that [NSA] has been made aware of" and that the NSA's foreknowledge of this threat is a direct result of the measures put forth in the executive order. In both the press conference and later, the Press Secretary insisted that the White House hopes Congress will pass a bill both strengthening and building on the Executive Order. But, she says, "I cannot predict what Congress will do."
This new development has many civil rights advocates concerned, as the UACL and others wonder about the unbelievable day-old efficacy of such an expediently produced piece of legislation. The White House has yet to release a print copy of Ms. Perino's suspiciously hasty statements, and is unlikely to release even a partially-redacted version of the NSA memo which the White House claims supports the controversial Executive Order.
--Matt Lerner
This new development has many civil rights advocates concerned, as the UACL and others wonder about the unbelievable day-old efficacy of such an expediently produced piece of legislation. The White House has yet to release a print copy of Ms. Perino's suspiciously hasty statements, and is unlikely to release even a partially-redacted version of the NSA memo which the White House claims supports the controversial Executive Order.
--Matt Lerner
Letter to the President
In a letter to the President, the UACL has raised concerns over the new Executive Order issued by the President yesterday. The letter can be found here.
By: Michael Soneff
Monday, December 3, 2007
Obama and Clinton See Eye to Eye on the Need for Lawful Surveillance
Today, Senators Barack Obama (D-Illinois) and Hillary Clinton (D-New York) stated similar opinions when asked if they would protect the civil liberties of citizens, saying that they would respectively handle wiretappings on "a case to case basis". Both Senators agreed that all surveillance of the American public must be carried out lawfully, with granted permission under a judicial warrant. The statements made by both Senators, while reinforcing the UACL's stance on the matter, were noncommital in nature. Other Senators involved in yesterday's argument presented views similar to those stated by the two democratic Senators. When asked whether she endorsed the President, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California) stated that although she believes that all our resources need to be used to find suspected terrorists, the constitution cannot be violated and the proper measures must be taken, which she said included getting proper warrants in order to wiretap citizens. She also said that the FISA agreement had been broken by the Executive order. Senator Arlen Specter stated that while he isn't in favor of the act, he wouldn't go as extreme to support a comment he made in January 2006, when he stated that if the president approved this action, he should be impeached. It is encouraging to see that at least some officials within our nation's government recognize the threat posed by the President's independent and unlawful actions. Hopefully, they will follow their statements with consistent action in favor of respected civil liberties when the issue hits the floor of Congress. We will just have to wait and see.
by: Jordan Lonner
Fox News Accuses the Bush Admin of Helping Terrorists
In the most recent press conference called by the administration, FOX news reporter Rachel Twersky asked Attorney General Mukasey if it was possible that democrats had leaked the memo from the Department of Justice asking the President for greater powers for the NSA. Dana Perino appeared stunned by the question, mostly because it was the administration, not democrats, who had leaked the memo. Ms. Twersky suggested that the leak of the memo could jeopardize ongoing investigations, potentially exposing the US to additional terrorist attacks. Ms. Twersky seems to be implying that the memo was leaked in order to assist terrorist efforts. She certainly realizes that the memo wasn't leaked by democrats, as the administration, not the congress, has control over the Department of Justice. Could Fox News, through Ms. Twersky's question, have been accusing the administration of treason? Was she implying that the administration wants to create an atmosphere of fear, in order to justify further curtailing civil liberties? Ms. Twersky declined to comment, saying that the question was written by a colleague, and that questions should be directed to Alisa Wecker. Ms. Wecker also declined to comment, but did ask that the UACL refrain from running the story. When confronted with the whole text of this article, Ms. Wecker and Ms. Twersky didn't dispute any of the facts stated, but refused to comment on the event. Does this refusal to comment indicate that Fox is standing by its question? Fox News reporters threatened UACL representative Michael Soneff, saying that they would run stories that imply the UACL supports terrorists if the UACL ran a story detailing Ms. Twersky's questions. These facts might call into question the journalistic integrity of Fox News.
by: Michael Soneff
Attorney General Mukasey: The President Can Abolish Congress
This morning AG Mukasey and White House Press Secretary Dana Perino announced the new NSA spying program, which doesn't require warrants in order to initiate a wiretap. The new plan, by Mr. Mukasey's own admission, violates FISA requirements. Mr. Mukasey says that the President has the power to amend any act of congress, even the constitution itself, with the use of an executive order. He claimed that the President can legally do, quite literally, whatever he wants, until the congress or the courts over rule him. When asked, by UACL media representative Michael Soneff, whether or not the President can abolish congress and the judiciary, AG Mukasey declined to comment. This should raise some serious questions in the hearts and minds of all Americans. The Head of the Department of Justice, the Attorney General of the United States, claims that the President has the constitutional authority to unilaterally amend laws passed by congress. Dana Perino has admitted that this executive order literally contradicts standing law. That means that the President has violated an act of congress and overridden judicial precedent. These acts on the part of the executive are outrageous.
Furthermore, When asked what is more important, civil liberties or national security, the Attorney General answered without a doubt, national security. He continued by arguing that because the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution later, the Civil Liberties protected in this document should take second place to the security of the country. Does Mr. Mukasey not realize that the Bill of Rights was the provision that allowed for the ratification of the Constitution and to this day upholds our most essential rights as American citizens? It is appalling that he would seek to deny the value of such an important part of our nation's highest law.
by: Michael Soneff
Furthermore, When asked what is more important, civil liberties or national security, the Attorney General answered without a doubt, national security. He continued by arguing that because the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution later, the Civil Liberties protected in this document should take second place to the security of the country. Does Mr. Mukasey not realize that the Bill of Rights was the provision that allowed for the ratification of the Constitution and to this day upholds our most essential rights as American citizens? It is appalling that he would seek to deny the value of such an important part of our nation's highest law.
by: Michael Soneff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
