Diggs-Taylor's Ten Minutes of Shame
David Corn declares that Anna Diggs-Taylor has ruined "King George's plans; the
WSJ calls her "President Taylor. For the best explanation I've heard, look no further than
Special Report's Roundtable. Let's first deal with the silliest 'analysis of the ruling:
The Founding Fathers gave the Executive Branch in general, and the President specifically, the power and responsibility to prosecute wars because they knew we didn't need 535 generals running the war. They knew we needed a 'CEO' of sorts to be held accountable.
What Corn breezes past is a list of precedents on warrantless intercepts. Those precedents doom Diggs-Taylor's ruling. It's just a matter of time before that suicide pact ruling will be overturned.
The WSJ editorial board also weighs in, saying:
The WSJ makes a great point in pointing out the political consequences of this ruling by saying "But her decision is all the more noteworthy for coming on the heels of the surveillance-driven roll up of the terrorist plot in Britain to blow up U.S.-bound airliners." This decision doesn't come in a vacuum. It comes in the context of the threat that terrorists are still trying to kill us.
Here's the best analysis on this issue:
The bottom line is that this won't be more than a blip on the radar screen in the GWOT but it will play a motivating factor for this year's elections. This ruling will motivate Republicans to vote so that Democrats can't endanger our nation's security. The bottom line is that Democrats lose even when they win.
Posted Friday, August 18, 2006 12:19 PM
July 2006 Posts
Comment 1 18-Oct-07 02:11 AM by {SPAM} deleted.
Once again, a court has told Bush that he is not all-powerful. He cannot create military tribunals on his own. He cannot detain American citizens as enemy combatants without affording them some elements of due process. Taylor's decision will probably be appealed by the Bush administration, and the case will wind its way toward the Supreme Court. But this decision reaffirms, and puts into practice, the bedrock principle that a president's power does not trump the workings of a republican government, even when it comes to war.Corn's right that President Bush can't "create military tribunals on his own." Likewise, he can't "detain American citizens as enemy combatants without affording them some elements of due process." After that, Corn's analysis is more a display of constitutional ignorance than anything else. Consider his stating "the bedrock principle that a president's power does not trump the workings of a republican government, even when it comes to war." Who prosecutes wars? do the 535 'generals' of the House and Senate prosecute wars? Or do the district and circuit court judges prosecute them?
The Founding Fathers gave the Executive Branch in general, and the President specifically, the power and responsibility to prosecute wars because they knew we didn't need 535 generals running the war. They knew we needed a 'CEO' of sorts to be held accountable.
What Corn breezes past is a list of precedents on warrantless intercepts. Those precedents doom Diggs-Taylor's ruling. It's just a matter of time before that suicide pact ruling will be overturned.
The WSJ editorial board also weighs in, saying:
The 44-page decision, which concludes by issuing a permanent injunction against the wiretapping program, will doubtless occasion much rejoicing among the "imperial Presidency" crowd. That may have been part of her point, as, early in the decision, Judge Taylor refers with apparent derision to "the war on terror of this Administration." We can at least be grateful that President Taylor's judgment won't be the last on the matter. The Justice Department immediately announced it will appeal and the injunction has been stayed for the moment. But her decision is all the more noteworthy for coming on the heels of the surveillance-driven roll up of the terrorist plot in Britain to blow up U.S.-bound airliners. In this environment, monitoring the communications of our enemies is neither a luxury nor some sinister plot to chill domestic dissent. It is a matter of life and death.I'm sure that the WSJ wasn't specifically refering to David Corn when they said that there will be "much rejoicing among the 'imperial Presidency' crowd" but they couldn't have drawn a bigger target on Corn's back. Frankly, Corn's hyperventillating 'analysis' is embarassing.
The WSJ makes a great point in pointing out the political consequences of this ruling by saying "But her decision is all the more noteworthy for coming on the heels of the surveillance-driven roll up of the terrorist plot in Britain to blow up U.S.-bound airliners." This decision doesn't come in a vacuum. It comes in the context of the threat that terrorists are still trying to kill us.
Here's the best analysis on this issue:
MORT KONDRACKE, "ROLL CALL": Yeah, well I read the opinion and, you know, what the judge seemed to be saying is that the, is that, is that the right of journalists, scholars, and lawyers to have private conversations with people that they think might, maybe terrorists and may be under surveillance.Let's summarize the roundtable's opinion:
---------------
NINA EASTON, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: The feedback I got today was that this is going to be overturned by the sixth circuit. And I thought the legal analyst you had on earlier was remarkably measured. I got, some of the feedback I got was that this was overtly ideological, that the legal reasoning, it was thin.
And this question of the standing of these folks you're talking about, the scholars and journalists and so on, and whether they actually had standing to bring this suit, well she wrestled with some of those questions, but then she dismissed the concerns saying well, if they don't have standing then who's going to keep the president, who's going to keep the president, hold his feet to the fire and who's going to let courts come in and hold him accountable? Like, well, I got to give them standing.
---------------
FRED BARNES, "WEEKLY STANDARD": Yeah, no, I certainly agree with that. That was well said by Nina. You know, there's a situation at a time of war, a soldier could go and if he encountered terrorist, someone he thought was a terrorist to shoot him, right in the head immediately, but he, but he couldn't wiretap his phone. You know, I mean, I mean, that's absurd situation and I think this was an absurd opinion that will be overturned. You know, obviously, the ACLU was "judge shopping." Five of the 11 Court of Appeals circuits in the country have already ruled that there is a national security exception, or an intelligence exception to the fourth amendment rule that would require a warranty before wiretapping. I mean, the second, the ninth circuit, the most liberal in the country said foreign security wiretaps are a recognized exception to the general warrant requirement. The judge didn't seem to take this into account at all.
- Diggs-Taylor gives more constitutional rights to journalists to talk with terrorists than she gives the Executive Branch to protect us from terrorists.
- The ruling will be overturned the minute the Sixth Circuit gets the case because Diggs-Taylor's ruling is "thin."
- A soldier can shoot the enemy on the battlefield but we can't listen into the the operative telling a terrorist about an upcoming terrorist plot.
The bottom line is that this won't be more than a blip on the radar screen in the GWOT but it will play a motivating factor for this year's elections. This ruling will motivate Republicans to vote so that Democrats can't endanger our nation's security. The bottom line is that Democrats lose even when they win.
Posted Friday, August 18, 2006 12:19 PM
July 2006 Posts
Comment 1 18-Oct-07 02:11 AM by {SPAM} deleted.
