Why You Shouldn't Let Important Legal Justifications Be Written By Idiots
Hello again loyal readers. I hope everyone has recovered from their Super Bowl parties.
The title of this post refers to the current battle over the legality of the NSA wiretapping program.
I was reading the Bush Administration's arguments for justifying the NSA wiretapping program when I came across something that I hadn't noticed before. The administration states that presidential authority to conduct warrantless surveillance has been around for as long as there have been US Presidents. It goes on to cite the fact that, during the American Revolution, George Washington himself authorized the intercept of British mail.
Now, this is true. George Washington did authorize the interception of British mail during the Revolution. However, this citation fails to take into account one small, but exceedingly important, fact...George Washington WAS NOT the US President at the time!!! At the time of the interception authorization, George Washington was merely the leader of a band of rebels. As such, he was already acting outside of the law and one more illegal act would have made little difference in his fate had the revolution failed. Also, it is implied that because Washington was authorized by the Continental Congress to lead the American forces, the Continental Congress was the legal authority in America at the time. Bad news for Bush, it wasn't. The Continental Congress was meeting illegally at the time that it gave Washington his authority. The officially sanctioned legal authorities in America were (from lowest to highest) the individual colonial assemblies, the royally approved colonial governors, the British Parliament, and finally, King George III (and Parliament and the King can be reversed depending on your interpretation of British law at the time). Furthermore, because he was appointed by an illegal body, under British law Washington had no more authority or standing than any other British subject at the time, and was, in fact, considered an outlaw by both Parliament and the Crown!
What all this means is that Washington had no more legal authority to intercept mail than any other citizen at the time. His order to intercept the British mail would the equivalent of your neighbor swiping your mail out of your mailbox today.
Thus the Bush Administration's assertion that Presidential surveillance authority dates back to the time of George Washington and the American Revolution fails due to the fact that Washington was not the President at the time, was appointed by an illegal body, and, while leader of the American cause, he had no more legal authority than any other citizen.
I'm not sure whether the Bush justification is disingenuous or, plainly put, borne of stupidity. I do know that the next time the White House wishes to make a historical argument they should probably consult a historian first (or at least someone who has taken more than just a freshman level Intro to American History). And as I said to open this post, this is why you shouldn't let important legal justifications be written by idiots!
I am Chuck and this has been a brief "bitch slapping" of the historical arguments of the Bush Administration!
The title of this post refers to the current battle over the legality of the NSA wiretapping program.
I was reading the Bush Administration's arguments for justifying the NSA wiretapping program when I came across something that I hadn't noticed before. The administration states that presidential authority to conduct warrantless surveillance has been around for as long as there have been US Presidents. It goes on to cite the fact that, during the American Revolution, George Washington himself authorized the intercept of British mail.
Now, this is true. George Washington did authorize the interception of British mail during the Revolution. However, this citation fails to take into account one small, but exceedingly important, fact...George Washington WAS NOT the US President at the time!!! At the time of the interception authorization, George Washington was merely the leader of a band of rebels. As such, he was already acting outside of the law and one more illegal act would have made little difference in his fate had the revolution failed. Also, it is implied that because Washington was authorized by the Continental Congress to lead the American forces, the Continental Congress was the legal authority in America at the time. Bad news for Bush, it wasn't. The Continental Congress was meeting illegally at the time that it gave Washington his authority. The officially sanctioned legal authorities in America were (from lowest to highest) the individual colonial assemblies, the royally approved colonial governors, the British Parliament, and finally, King George III (and Parliament and the King can be reversed depending on your interpretation of British law at the time). Furthermore, because he was appointed by an illegal body, under British law Washington had no more authority or standing than any other British subject at the time, and was, in fact, considered an outlaw by both Parliament and the Crown!
What all this means is that Washington had no more legal authority to intercept mail than any other citizen at the time. His order to intercept the British mail would the equivalent of your neighbor swiping your mail out of your mailbox today.
Thus the Bush Administration's assertion that Presidential surveillance authority dates back to the time of George Washington and the American Revolution fails due to the fact that Washington was not the President at the time, was appointed by an illegal body, and, while leader of the American cause, he had no more legal authority than any other citizen.
I'm not sure whether the Bush justification is disingenuous or, plainly put, borne of stupidity. I do know that the next time the White House wishes to make a historical argument they should probably consult a historian first (or at least someone who has taken more than just a freshman level Intro to American History). And as I said to open this post, this is why you shouldn't let important legal justifications be written by idiots!
I am Chuck and this has been a brief "bitch slapping" of the historical arguments of the Bush Administration!
posted by Chuck | 03:03
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home