more on AP Story Justice Dept. Probing Domestic Spying Leak

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Brock Meeks <Brock.Meeks () msnbc com>
Date: January 1, 2006 5:44:17 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: RE: [IP] more on AP Story Justice Dept. Probing Domestic  
Spying Leak

While I agree with you in spirit, Mike, that truth is the Executive
Branch of our government has treated this section of the Constitution as
if it were a rough draft.

President after president have thumbed their noses at the congressional
power to approve being "at war."

And of course, we are "at war," against terrorism and in no less a
quagmire as the infamous "war on drugs."

We have never had a national debate about what it means to be "at war"
against terrorism.  The White House marshaled its forces against
terrorism and cobbled together a great amount of power in those first
breathless and emotional months directly following 9/11.

There were some congressional hearings, yes, but these were largely
rubber stamp hearings.  I vividly remember then Attorney General
Ashcroft out and out saying that anyone... ANYONE that did not believe
the Patriot Act was a good thing was essentially a terrorist; that
anyone even QUESTIONING the moves Bush wanted to make was a terrorist.

The message of the day:  "If you are not for us you are against us and
if you are against us it is because you are harboring or supporting
terrorists."

Of course this argument was only selectively employed at the convenience
of President Cheney, er... Bush.  Because when it came to other rogue
nations, such as North Korea (a country that AHEM, actually HAS nuclear
weapons) Bush simply sat around paying the geopolitical equivalent of
pocket pool.



-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 12:53 PM
To: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: [IP] more on AP Story Justice Dept. Probing Domestic Spying
Leak



Begin forwarded message:

From: "Mike O'Dell" <mo () ccr org>
Date: January 1, 2006 11:41:56 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on AP Story Justice Dept. Probing Domestic
Spying Leak

Mr. Bray's comment is important:

> > revealing an ongoing intelligence operation *in wartime*.
(emphasis added)

Here we see "The Essential Big Lie" repeated yet again,
asserting that we are somehow "at war".

(NOTE: This is not to single-out Mr. Bray per se but rather to
note how pervasive this collective misapprehension has become.)

Unless the Congress took a vote which somehow went unreported,

*THERE WAS NO DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE US CONGRESS*

The US Constitution is extremely specific as to what is
required for the United States to "go to war".  Congress
has the sole power to declare the United States to be "at war",
quite specifically to counterbalance the powers of the President.

President George Bush did not seek nor did the US Congress grant an
official Declaration of War; therefore the US is not "at war"
and there is no condition of "in wartime".

No Declaration of War, no "war powers" - it's just that simple;
anything else is an attempted "end-run" around the Constitution.

There is no Constitutional recognition for "kinda sorta like war",
and the continued reliance on this non-condition is
particularly ironic given President Bush's preference for Supreme
Court justices who interpret the Constitution "as written".
Congress complicitously repeating the infamous
"Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" fiasco after 9/11 doesn't make the
current situation "war" any more than it ensured success in
the Vietnam "conflict".

 From the historical record, it seems to be immensely useful for the
suppression of dissent that this central assertion be pounded into a
populace again and again, that they are indeed "at war" with
A Great Enemy, thereby lending credence to assertions that
critical thinking about that government's behavior is even
more dangerous than usual.

The legal facts, however, are transparently clear:
there has been no Declaration of War by the US Congress,
therefore the US is not "at war". Claims to the contrary
are simply untrue, innocently or otherwise.

My larger point is that it is hard enough to have
reasoned discourse about something this emotionally charged
(and with such immense political spoils at stake)
without allowing the conversation to be subverted
by an erroneous premise extremely convenient
to one participant.

        -mo



Hiawatha Bray wrote:
intelligence operation in wartime.
----------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the Valerie Plame leak was a crime, this leak is doubly so.
> Hiawatha Bray



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as brock.meeks () msnbc com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


-------------------------------------
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/