Interesting People mailing list archives
Why AUMF and the Hamdi case do nothing to make the NSA wiretaps legal
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:48:57 -0500
Begin forwarded message: From: Peter Swire <peter () peterswire net> Date: December 22, 2005 11:09:23 PM EST To: dave () farber netSubject: Why AUMF and the Hamdi case do nothing to make the NSA wiretaps legal
Dave: Here are the key parts of a blog post at http://swireblog.blogspot.com/ explaining why the Bush Administration islegally wrong to rely on the Authorization of Military Force and the Hamdi
case for its NSA wiretaps: The Bush Administration is trying to say that it was authorized byCongress to do the NSA wiretaps. It is relying on Justice O'Connor's opinion in the Hamdi case to support its position. But that opinion does nothing of
the sort. <snip> The facts are key. Hamdi, after all, was seized on the battlefield in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance. The government alleged that Hamdi"affiliated with a Taliban military unit and received weapons training." He
was held as an enemy combatant. Quick quiz - do you think that the authorization of force allows such a capture? <snip> OK, that's O'Connor's opinion in Hamdi. Does it support the idea thatCongress intended the Authorization of Military Force to apply to wiretaps
of U.S. citizens in the United States? No, for at least four reasons.Congressional intent. It is clear that Congress intended persons captured on
the battlefield to be detained.History of authorizations of force. O'Connor says detaining combatants is
"fundamental and accepted." Would Congress have agreed at the time? Of course Congress would have allowed detention of someone fighting in Afghanistan against the U.S. Foreign battlefield. The discretion of the President is at its maximumoverseas (long legal tradition symbolized by the Curtis-Wright case) and in
the theater of war (President as Commander-in-Chief). All four of these factors are entirely different for wiretaps of U.S. persons in the U.S.Congressional intent. Members of Congress have been startled and skeptical,
to say the least, at the idea that they authorized these wiretaps. They never dreamed they were doing so.History of authorizations of force. Capturing prisoners on the battlefield
is a fundamental and traditional part of Congress authorizing the use of force. Widespread wiretapping of your own citizens is not.Would Congress have agreed at the time? No. The Administration has admitted
they would not have gotten Congressional approval.Foreign battlefield. In contrast to the foreign battlefield, the power of the President to do searches (wiretaps) of U.S. persons within the U.S. is
constrained by the 4th Amendment and numerous laws. Where Congress has spoken clearly about "the exclusive means" of wiretapping, the President cannot overrule the law.In sum, Justice O'Connor's opinion in Hamdi says it is limited to detention
of persons seized on the battlefield. It offers no support for the NSA wiretaps. Prof. Peter P. Swire C. William O'Neill Professor of Law Moritz College of Law of The Ohio State University Visiting Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress (240) 994-4142, www.peterswire.net ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- Why AUMF and the Hamdi case do nothing to make the NSA wiretaps legal David Farber (Dec 23)