Associated Press reported today that A government lawyer used a dramatic scenario of a nuclear attack on Washington to illustrate his arguments Tuesday in defense of President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.

According to the lawyer Anthony Coppolino, the Constitution gives the President the right to do whatever he deems as necessary to surveil terrorists and prevent any further attack that could affect the U.S.A. and U.S. citizens. This “constitutional right” includes that of interrogating someone who might have information about an imminent attack.

“Suppose for example the president obtains intelligence that a nuclear bomb was planted ... right there in Washington, and the only way he was going to find out whether that was going to happen was to grab the person and interrogate him," Coppolino said in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. "Would that be in his constitutional authority? I would say so."

This impressive argument was used to justify the decision by Bush administration to monitor international phone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involving people potentially involved in terrorist plots.

 The lawsuit was brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights seeking to stop Bush and government agencies from conducting warrantless surveillance of communications in the United States.

The attorney brushed off the "ticking bomb hypothetical," saying the example did not prove the legality of an unprecedented intrusion on Constitutional rights.

Coppolino said Bush did not need Congress approval to start monitoring phone conversations of suspected terrorism operatives, because the Constitution directly gives him the "power to detect the activities of an enemy attempting to attack the United States."
Frankly, the first question coming up after reading about all this issue is… Are they joking?

I mean, we’ll never stop saying that terrorism must be wiped off at any cost, but our e-mails are scanned, our phone calls are eavesdropped, any time we move we are constantly spied and monitored.. and they really think that we’ll quietly accept it just because “the constitution gives Bush the right to do that”?

But, is my memory cheating me or was it President Bush in person to declare “the constitution is just a Goddamned piece of paper”?

Comments Index (Total Messages: 5)

Wrong interpretation Written by bobysolo on 2006-09-07 17:10:53 Re: Wrong interpretation Written by Guest on 2006-09-08 13:53:21 Re: Re: Wrong interpretation Written by Guest on 2006-09-08 22:50:15 Re: Re: Wrong interpretation Written by Guest on 2006-09-20 00:48:58 Re: Re: Re: Wrong interpretation Written by Guest on 2006-11-03 16:52:58

Powered by a Zone-H(ified) version of AkoComment 3.0!