« Sunday Funnies (Early Christmas edition) | Main | Twas the fright before Christmas »
December 22, 2005
The Law He Broke
The actual law the president broke is Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802 of the US Code. The money quote is this:
...the President may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order to acquire foreign intelligence information if the Attorney General certifies in writing that (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at... means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers... (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party...
But the punchline isn't until you read Section 1809 of that same law.
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
That's the nub right there. Everything else is fluff. Of course "everything else" is the sort of thing that keeps lawyers well paid and plenty busy. As a social studies teacher I get paid to be an expert on the way things ought to go, not how they really are. But below the fold I've got a few thoughts on how this could all turn out for the better for the president.
Like most people I know, I get all giddy when the word impeachment gets tossed around without any antecedent mention of the word semen. But I'm a poliactive person; I get a thrill out of seeing government in action. I won't pretend that most people feel the same. In general, people--including most people who voted against Bush last time--don't want to see an impeachment happen.
It's a heavy thing and voters don't want to see it used for frivolous purposes. Unless your memory stretches back to before the Love Boat, you don't have a recollection of a presidential impeachment that wasn't frivolous, callous, and motivated by petty partisan tribalism. As a people, we American don't like it and are wary of those who propose using it too quickly.
Before you undo a whole election (and install Dick Cheney in the White House, by the way) there's a number of steps that we ought to go thru first. These including hearings, deliberations, public debate, and sundry other democratic mechanisms designed to prevent us from having such a monumental show down. Avoiding impeachment, on the other hand, would be pretty easy right now. The president could do this:
First, declare his presidency represents an affirmation of the principle of transparent government. He could open all his records on the actions he took for Congressional review and, where appropriate, release to the public such details that let us in on the thinking in the White House that brought them to evesdrop on American citizens without court orders.
Next, he could direct all administration officials to fully cooperate with the Senate and House investigations of these incidents and encourage the nation's lawmakers to have a full debate on the propriety of these actions.
After the Congress affirms, as it must, that the president in his overly zealous pursuit of national security broke the law, the president can come before the people and give a heartfelt apology. He could recognize that, while he believed at the time that he had the right to snoop on the communications of suspected terrorists, he sees now that he was wrong and asks for our forgiveness.
That's what a mensch would do. I won't hold my breath.
There's one other step that we, as a nation, must go thru before we can even begin to consider impeachment a viable option. We have to elect a Congress controlled by lawmakers who love the Constitution more than they love their own party.
Posted by Bucky at December 22, 2005 06:23 PM | Permalink
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.houstondemocrats.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/737
Comments
Whoa. Welcome back, Buck.
Posted by: PDiddie at December 22, 2005 07:59 PM
It's interesting that the statute states "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party", yet they've tried to justify their actions by saying they were snooping on conversations between one person in the United States and one in a foreign venue. So their very justification is an admission that they violated the statute.
Posted by: Lyn Wall at December 22, 2005 08:15 PM