In regard to this so-called domestic spying...Follow

Not exactly true. While the concept of executive priviledge was curtailed significantly as a result of the Watergate scandal, the issue of executive power in terms of military action was unrelated. We're really looking at two completely different issues and two completely different reactions to those. By lumping both into the same sentence, you imply that the illegal use of executive priviledge (Nixon's actions with regards to Watergate) are analgous to Bush's use of executive power with regards to the use of military and intelligence agents, in turn implying that this means that Bush's actions must also be "illegal".


But that's the significant difference here. The abuse of executive priviledge to conceal an illegal act *was* illegal. But the use of executive power to operate in Vietname was *not* illegal. So the changes made in response to Watergate, and the additional oversight of executive priviledge (really just a change in legal precident) has no real connection to the changes instituted in the War Powers Act.


I don't really feel like getting into a huge discussion of the ramification of the War Powers Act, but it's not about preventing a president from doing something illegal. It's about clarifying who has power in what situations. And there certainly are legitimate arguments on both sides. The Constitution was originally framed with the idea that Congress would decide to either declare a state of war, or not. Period. It was an on or off thing. Once war was declared, the president had full authority over the military within the scope of that conflict. Over time, presidents started to use executive power over the military in non war situations (which is not expressly forbidden by the Constitution). The War Powers Act codified that use, so as to prevent the President from bypassing the check of Congressional power with regards to military use. However, it *also* granted Congress a more detailed control over the use of military power then it had previously. Congress does not declare war anymore, they simply grant the President war powers for a period of time and for a specific purpose. They can "pull the plug" at any time if they don't like what's going on. This effectively gives Congress far more power in terms of the actual use of the military in a war-type situation then originally intended.


It's been a workable solution IMO. But there's certainly room for argument in both direction. It's absolutely incorrect to say that Congresssional power in the WPA exists solely to prevent illegal actions by a president. It also restricts absolutely legal uses of war powers that a President is granted by the Constitution, so it's a very tricky issue.

Damn. I didn't really intend to even go that much into it. Oh well...

Remember back a few posts when I said that this amounts to a challenge to the committee system used by Congress? And it took you less then 3 days to make the exact argument that I predicted would result in that sort of challenge...


You are aware that's what committees do, right? It's a structure in Congress that since not everyone in the body has the time to adequately overview every single thing going on in the government, we break them down into groups and deal with them in committees. These committees are effectively empowered to act as the whole of Congress within the context of that committee. If something comes out of a commitee that requires a vote of the entire body then it's discussed by the entire body, but the use of committees to handle day to day approval and funding of programs is a pretty standard methodology.


And being "bound to secrecy" is pretty standard for the intelligence oversight commitee. They do make decisions on classified programs, so they can't tell anyone else about them. Point is that while there's some playing around with the word "briefed" to make it seem like the White House just told them about it and they had no say in it, the reality is that this committee has the power of approval and funding for everything they are "briefed" on. If they don't like something, they can certainly vote among themselves on the issue, and they certainly can express their viewpoint (which Rockefeller does in his letter). If this program was funded and this commmitee was involved, then it *was* approved by this commmitee. Rockefeller can whine about it after the fact all he want's, but he was part of the committee involved. Now maybe he was overrulled. We don't know. But if so, then that is, by nature of the commmittee structure an "approval by Congress" of that program.

If you say it's not, then you are essentially saying that every other program that gets approved and funded out of committee (which is nearly everything) isn't really approved by Congress either. You can't just pick one program and one commmitee. Either the commitee process represents a valid approval process for government programs, or it doesn't. If it does, then the program was "legally approved", and Bush can't be charged, censured, or impeached for it. If it doesn't, then you're essentially calling all other programs approved in this manner illegal as well. Can I now demand that we declare our education funding illegal? And our wellfare programs? And our housing programs? And on, and on, and on...

No. That's not actually what you said. You said that Congress was not briefed on the program and did not approve it. But a Committee of Congres *did*. The assumption of your argument is that approval given in a commitee authorized to make such approvals is not actually binding in any way.

Get it? It has nothing to do with this one case. Whether this particular program *should* have been approved or not is a totally separate issue. I'm countering arguments that the program was illegal and/or done without the approval of Congress. The simple fact is that, by the rules currently used by Congress for approval of programs like this, it *was* legal, and it *was* approved by Congress.

You can jump up and down and yell that all of Congress didn't get to decide on it, but as I've already pointed out, this is no different then any other program approval that occurs in committee in Congress.



Again. For the purposes of determining whether this was program was legally authorized "by Congress", it *was*. You're playing semantic games. You are correct. Every single member of Congress did not know about the program and did not get to decide whether to approve it. But that's not required for the bulk of program approvals that Congress does.

You're literaly correct, but your point is irrelevant. Saying that the majority of Congress did not know about it does not make it illegal, nor does it even make it unusual. If that's all you're saying, then your not really saying anything. But if your argument is that all of Congress *should* have known about this program and been able to vote on it, then you are doing exactly what I predicted. You are arguing that the committee system currently used by Congress isn't valid and should be replaced by a full vote of every member of Congress for every issue handled by the body.


Is that what you are arguing? If not, then how does the fact only those on the committee were involved in the decision make it illegal or any less "authorized by congress"?

Edited, Thu Dec 22 23:37:18 2005 by gbaji

Wrong. Appropriations bills always originate in the House, under the appropriate House Appropriations Subcommittee. Once they are printed up, the Senate reviews them in their approps. subcommittee, and usually comes up with another version. The new version is then submitted to a conference committee (house and Senate) which decides what to put in and what to take out. However, this then has to be voted on and passed by both bodies and forwarded to the President for his signature, upon which time it becomes law.

As a casual contractor at GCHQ (Echelon) I was not required to sign the official secrets act.

An oversight that has now been redressed.

The fact that I understand discretion and despise the tabloid press is just lucky