56.7 F
Clarksville
Thursday, March 28, 2024
HomeOpinionWhat the Judge actually said regarding the NSA spying program. Why doesn't...

What the Judge actually said regarding the NSA spying program. Why doesn’t the press care?

VIII. The Authorization for Use of Military Force

After the terrorist attack on this Country of September 11, 2001, the Congress jointly enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force (hereinafter ā€œAUMFā€) which states:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. (46) The Government argues here that it was given authority by that resolution to conduct the TSP in violation of both FISA and the Constitution.

First, this court must note that the AUMF says nothing whatsoever of intelligence or surveillance. The government argues that such authority must be implied. Next it must be noted that FISA and Title III, are together by their terms denominated by Congress as the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance may be conducted. Both statutes have made abundantly clear that prior warrants must be obtained from the FISA court for such surveillance, with limited exceptions, none of which are here even raised as applicable. Indeed, the government here claims that the AUMF has by implication granted its TSP authority for more than five years, although FISAā€™s longest exception, for the Declaration of War by Congress, is only fifteen days from date of such a Declaration. (47)

FISAā€™s history and content, detailed above, are highly specific in their requirements, and the AUMF, if construed to apply at all to intelligence is utterly general. In Morales v. TWA, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992), the Supreme Court taught us that ā€œit is a commonplace of statutory construction that the specific governs the general.ā€ Id. at 384. The implication argued by Defendants, therefore, cannot be made by this court.

The case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) in which the Supreme Court held that a United States citizen may be held as an enemy combatant, but is required by the U.S. Constitution to be given due process of law, must also be examined. Justice Oā€™Connor wrote for the court that:

[D]etention of individuals . . . for the duration of the particular conflict in which they are captured is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the ā€œnecessary and appropriate forceā€ Congress has authorized the President to use. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 518.

She wrote that the entire object of capture is to prevent the captured combatant from returning to his same enemy force, and that a prisoner would most certainly return to those forces if set free. Congress had, therefore, clearly authorized detention by the Force Resolution. Id. at 518-519.

However, she continued, indefinite detention for purposes of interrogation was certainly not authorized and it raised the question of what process is constitutionally due to a citizen who disputes the enemy combatant status assigned him. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 521, 524.

Justice Oā€™Connor concluded that such a citizen must be given Fifth Amendment rights to contest his classification, including notice and the opportunity to be heard by a neutral decisionmaker. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 533 (citing Cleveland Board of Education v. Laudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)). Accordingly, her holding was that the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution must be applied despite authority granted by the AUMF.

She stated that:

It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nationā€™s commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad.

Any process in which the Executiveā€™s factual assertions go wholly unchallenged or are simply presumed correct without any opportunity for the alleged combatant to demonstrate otherwise fallsconstitutionally short. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 532, 537.

Under Hamdi, accordingly, the Constitution of the United States must be followed. The AUMF resolution, if indeed it is construed as replacing FISA, gives no support to Defendants here. Even if that Resolution superceded all other statutory law, Defendants have violated the Constitutional rights of their citizens including the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Separation of Powers doctrine.

Bill Larson
Bill Larson
Bill Larson isĀ  is politically and socially active in the community. Bill is a member of the Friends of Dunbar Cave. You can reach him via telephone at 931-249-0043 or via the email address below.
RELATED ARTICLES

Latest Articles