{"id":1647,"date":"2006-02-07T17:56:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-07T17:56:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=1647"},"modified":"2006-02-07T17:56:00","modified_gmt":"2006-02-07T17:56:00","slug":"1647","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=1647","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"<p><b>WHILE I&#8217;M GETTING MY OWN ACT TOGETHER&#8230;<\/b><\/p>\n<p>I suggest you check out <a href=\"http:\/\/www.caerdroia.org\/blog\/archives\/2006\/02\/the_nsa_kerfuff.html\">Jeff Medcalf&#8217;s post on war powers and the NSA wiretapping<\/a> at <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.caerdroia.org\/blog\/\">Caerdroia<\/a><\/strong>:<\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color:#336666;\">&#8220;The Constitution does not limit the President to fighting the enemy abroad, nor require a separate declaration of Congressional intent to fight the enemy in the United States. The President&#8217;s power is to fight the enemy defined in the declaration of war, wherever that enemy is.<\/p>\n<p>Thus the President has the power to surveil the enemy wherever that enemy is.<\/p>\n<p>The question becomes, who is the enemy? That is answered by the AUMF: &#8220;those nations, organizations, or persons [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>The Congress explicitly gave the President to power to determine who the enemy is, within the limitation of being connected to 9\/11. Since the President decided that this includes al Qaeda, any al Qaeda operative falls within the definition of the enemy even if that operative is a US citizen. The term we&#8217;re searching for here is &#8220;treason&#8221;, though for the life of me I cannot understand why we aren&#8217;t charging people such as Padilla, Hamdi and Lindh with exactly that. Hamdi and Lindh, in particular, were captured on the battlefield and the case is a slam dunk (Padilla is a harder case, and a court is going to have to work that one out).<\/p>\n<p>The only valid way to claim that the surveillance is illegal is to claim that the AUMF does not trigger the President&#8217;s war powers because the AUMF is not a declaration of war. But nowhere in the Constitution is the President&#8217;s power to make war divided between &#8220;real wars&#8221; and &#8220;so so wars&#8221;: there is no way to grant the President the power to make war except to declare war. The Constitution does not require that such a declaration contain particular wording, such as &#8220;a state of war exists between the United States and [enemy]&#8221;. So on what grounds, other than claiming that the Constitution is a &#8220;living document&#8221; and means whatever we want, can anyone claim that AUMF is not a declaration of war? If not, then what is it?&#8221;<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jeff has hit the nail on the constitutional head. There is no such legal distinction unless specifically articulated by the Congress in the language of their <a href=\"http:\/\/www.yale.edu\/lawweb\/avalon\/sept_11\/sjres23_eb.htm\">AUMF<\/a> which makes the &#8221; not a real war&#8221; argument legally specious. And in the case of the 9\/11 resolution, the Congress itself  declared the terms of the War Powers Act to be satisfied by the AUMF.<\/p>\n<p>International law is even more of a slam dunk than American Constitutional law as IL requires only the <strong><em>de facto<\/em><\/strong> recognition of a &#8221; state of armed conflict&#8221;. We have a <strong><em>de jure<\/em><\/strong> recognition by NATO which has invoked <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nato.int\/docu\/basictxt\/treaty.htm\">Article IV<\/a>, recognizing 9\/11 as an act of war for which &#8221; an attack against one is an attack against all&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>The Bush administration may be politically inept but they are constitutionally correct and their critics are wrong. AUMF trumps FISA. Separation of powers trumps statutes.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>WHILE I&#8217;M GETTING MY OWN ACT TOGETHER&#8230; I suggest you check out Jeff Medcalf&#8217;s post on war powers and the NSA wiretapping at Caerdroia: &#8220;The Constitution does not limit the President to fighting the enemy abroad, nor require a separate declaration of Congressional intent to fight the enemy in the United States. The President&#8217;s power [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1647","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1647","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1647"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1647\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1647"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1647"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1647"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}