On the importance of separation of powers

[zulu9812]

I was reading this article in the Guardian today. I won't quote it: suffice to say that Hayden, Bush's pick for CIA chief, has said that the mass wiretapping programme is legal. It occured to me that it's not up to the CIA chief, nor the President, to say what is and what is not legal. The job belongs to the judiciary.

It is, quite frankly, ludicrous for the intelligence services to go around making legal judgements on the programmes that they themselves have instituted. This is precisely why America is supposed to operate a system of checks and balances - where no single branch of government has absolute authority.

The intelligence services, presumed part of the executive branch for the purposes of this discussion, are not the judiciary and hence should not be making legal decisions. Likewise, the NSA recently refused to give security clearance to a congressional inquiry into the wiretapping scanda. No security clearance means no access to pertinent information - hence, no inquiry.

What we have seen with the Bush administration is a catalogue of errors: the sustained erosion of this precious system of checks and balances, all for the sake of wielding greater personal power. This alone should see several cabinet members impeached.

 

[skadistic]

The CIA, NSA and white house have throngs of lawers that comb over the details to see if they fit within legalities. If it was illegal where are the lawsuits? Surely it would be front page news and the feds would lose by a land slide. But it ain't gonna happen because its not a violation.

 

[History_Buff]

There are no lawsuits because people aren't being told their phones are tapped, and the NSA won't let anyone look at it. Therefore, there is no real evidence, only hearsay, and no lawyer in their right mind would launch a lawsuit right now.

 

[greekguy]

the Supreme Court can't rule that the NSA wiretapping/bugging/etc. is illegal because not all the info is made public. the only way it is possible to prove the government comitted a crime is to have all the info out in the open, which it isn't. the only way i see the a gov takedown on the NSA issue is if some guy on the inside grows a conscience and decides to blow the whistle on the whole operation (like how Nixon got busted).

 

[warpus]

The CIA, NSA and white house have throngs of lawers that comb over the details to see if they fit within legalities. If it was illegal where are the lawsuits? Surely it would be front page news and the feds would lose by a land slide. But it ain't gonna happen because its not a violation.

Where are the lawsuits?

Uhmm.. right here:

NEW YORK (CNN) - A lawsuit is asking a federal court to order President Bush, the National Security Agency and Verizon to end a secret snooping program, and Verizon's stock took a hit on the news Monday.

Verizon (down $0.36 to $31.43, Research) stock fell more than 1 percent on the New York Stock Exchange early Monday.

The suit, filed Friday by two New Jersey lawyers on behalf of all Verizon subscribers, contends the phone records collection - first reported by USA Today on Thursday - violates the Constitutional right to privacy and federal law.

 

[Tycoon101]

Where are the lawsuits?

Uhmm.. right here:

NEW YORK (CNN) - A lawsuit is asking a federal court to order President Bush, the National Security Agency and Verizon to end a secret snooping program, and Verizon's stock took a hit on the news Monday.

Verizon (down $0.36 to $31.43, Research) stock fell more than 1 percent on the New York Stock Exchange early Monday.

The suit, filed Friday by two New Jersey lawyers on behalf of all Verizon subscribers, contends the phone records collection - first reported by USA Today on Thursday - violates the Constitutional right to privacy and federal law.

I do not believe in snooping, but who am I to contenc with my president. Hopefully this case will be thrown out as a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[warpus]

I do not believe in snooping, but who am I to contenc with my president. Hopefully this case will be thrown out as a frivolous lawsuit.

The president is right no matter what?

 

[Tycoon101]

The president is right no matter what?

No, God is. I just do not believe in opposing a President who I believe in.

 

[greekguy]

No, God is. I just do not believe in opposing a President who I believe in.

is it ok then for Bush to break the law, if you believe in him?

 

[Tycoon101]

is it ok then for Bush to break the law, if you believe in him?

No, he must be prosecuted at a Court of law. This is not illegal in my eyes.

 

[History_Buff]

I do not believe in snooping, but who am I to contenc with my president. Hopefully this case will be thrown out as a frivolous lawsuit.

A citizen? The whole reason America has their precious second amendmend is so the citizens will always have the power to stop their government should it being doing unconstitutional things. Now it's happening, but you're all running about and doing nothing.

 

[greekguy]

No, he must be prosecuted at a Court of law. This is not illegal in my eyes.

what would be illegal in your eyes, concerning the NSA spying deal? basically, what would the NSA/gov have to do to break the law in your opinion?

 

[warpus]

No, he must be prosecuted at a Court of law. This is not illegal in my eyes.

And thankfully it is not up to you to decide if this is legal or not.

 

[Brian_B]

I was reading this article in the Guardian today. I won't quote it: suffice to say that Hayden, Bush's pick for CIA chief, has said that the mass wiretapping programme is legal. It occured to me that it's not up to the CIA chief, nor the President, to say what is and what is not legal. The job belongs to the judiciary.

It is, quite frankly, ludicrous for the intelligence services to go around making legal judgements on the programmes that they themselves have instituted. This is precisely why America is supposed to operate a system of checks and balances - where no single branch of government has absolute authority.

The intelligence services, presumed part of the executive branch for the purposes of this discussion, are not the judiciary and hence should not be making legal decisions. Likewise, the NSA recently refused to give security clearance to a congressional inquiry into the wiretapping scanda. No security clearance means no access to pertinent information - hence, no inquiry.

What we have seen with the Bush administration is a catalogue of errors: the sustained erosion of this precious system of checks and balances, all for the sake of wielding greater personal power. This alone should see several cabinet members impeached.

You are reading too much into simple argumentative language. Of course the general and his lawyers are going to say it is legal. Lawsuits have been filed and guess what? The judiciary will eventually determine it's legality.

It's called: good lawyering.

This article and this topic you've created has basically nothing to do with "Separation of Powers" other than the quick gloss you put on it. It's simply about what he is saying while testifying at his confirmation hearing. Ironically enough, if you really want to force read something into this, it is actually verification that Separation of Powers is alive and well. A potential officer of the Executive branch is being screened by the Congress and will eventually be voted up or down.

 

[Tycoon101]

what would be illegal in your eyes, concerning the NSA spying deal? basically, what would the NSA/gov have to do to break the law in your opinion?

Incarcerate an innocent. I would call it illegal if we incarcerate an innocent.

And thankfully it is not up to you to decide if this is legal or not.

I do not wish to define the law for the rest of America, only myself.

Now it's happening, but you're all running about and doing nothing.

I am not a criminal/terrorist so I have nothing to fear. If I am arrested then I will be tried in a fair Court of Law and be set free due to lack of evidence. Simple as pie.

 

[cgannon64]

Uh, as far as I'm aware, people other than judges can have opinions on what is legal.

Hayden saying that "wiretapping is legal" does not make it legal. If it did, then you'd have a point: but, as it is, it's nothing more than an opinion.

 

[The Yankee]

Although Hayden's opinion carries weight, as he is up for the CIA job and was in control for most of the NSA wiretapping program. Not that it should or would change whatever constitutional judges would think of it, but rather, as a voice of the policy carried out by the current administration.

 

[Spartan117]

phone tapping is similar to searching homes without proper warrants or any warrants at all...just because you are innocent doesnt mean that people shouldnt have the right of privacy from the government

 

[History_Buff]

I am not a criminal/terrorist so I have nothing to fear. If I am arrested then I will be tried in a fair Court of Law and be set free due to lack of evidence. Simple as pie.

I am niether a Terrorist, Criminal, or American Citizen, but the fact that the government is recording my conversations is very disturbing, on top of the fact that it is illegal.

The reason the government needs warrants for this stuff is to make it difficult to get a guilty verdict against someone, which helps to make sure they don't incarcerate innocents.

 

[MobBoss]

I was reading this article in the Guardian today. I won't quote it: suffice to say that Hayden, Bush's pick for CIA chief, has said that the mass wiretapping programme is legal. It occured to me that it's not up to the CIA chief, nor the President, to say what is and what is not legal. The job belongs to the judiciary.

Glad to see in Zulus world people are not allowed opinions.

It is, quite frankly, ludicrous for the intelligence services to go around making legal judgements on the programmes that they themselves have instituted. This is precisely why America is supposed to operate a system of checks and balances - where no single branch of government has absolute authority.

FYI, the NSA and CIA etc. have entire platoons of attorneys to research the legality of such programs far in advance of their ever becoming reality. And yesterday, during the confirmation hearings, the president of the commitee also said the NSA wiretaps were perfectly legal. He is a senator is he not?

The intelligence services, presumed part of the executive branch for the purposes of this discussion, are not the judiciary and hence should not be making legal decisions. Likewise, the NSA recently refused to give security clearance to a congressional inquiry into the wiretapping scanda. No security clearance means no access to pertinent information - hence, no inquiry.

Once more, he is not making a legal decision. He is not even an attorney. But to allege that he is most likely not advised legally, by staff attorneys familiar with such laws, is just inane.

What we have seen with the Bush administration is a catalogue of errors: the sustained erosion of this precious system of checks and balances, all for the sake of wielding greater personal power. This alone should see several cabinet members impeached.

Not at all. I see key members of congress say the NSA programs were legal almost every single day. I have yet to have seen any case before a court judge to say otherwise. If people think the executive branch has gone to far, by all means, let congress and the courts take action. The very fact that they have not speaks volumes.