Bush Implicitly Admits His FISA Defenses Are Worthless

US Administration Admits It Was Following Foreign Rules, While Ignoring US Laws Ref

The President and GOP Members of Congress have fatally asserted a legal argument contrary to the President's legal interests. The Attorney General and others have argued the laws did not apply during wartime that the President's hand could not be tied.

Today's revelations destroy these legal defenses. The Administration, despite arguments saying they could not be held to laws during wartime, has pointed to Iraqi laws they have followed.

Stunning.

* * *

These are important legal issues which the American public needs to openly debate in the context of fitness for duty, law enforcement, oath of office, and whether the President does or does not have a double standard, during wartime, to ignore or use the laws as excuses for his failures.

These are issues of criminal law and alleged malfeasance by the President in asserted his oath of office.

The rules of evidence permit these assertions to be admitted for purposes of showing the President has two standards on the laws: Domestic laws are ignored; foreign laws are selectively enforced.

The President and his legal advisors have a major problem: The President's public media litigation strategy has been dealt a fatal blow. The President can be shown to have two standards on the laws, and cannot credibly assert that special conditions warrant ignoring the laws.

If the President wants an excuse he will point to foreign laws; if he wants to ignore the law, he will ignore Congress. A US government that is constrained by rules outside our Congress' ability to enact or review, is no longer legitimate or sovereign.

The President's inconsistent approach to laws -- whether they are or are not followed -- undermines his legal defense on FISA; and forms the basis to conclude the President is not asserting his oath as required, 5 USC 3331.

Bush Has Two Standards on Laws

The Unitary Theory of Government argues that the President shall be in charge of the troops under his command.

The NeoCons need to explain why they have assented to rules which the US Congress was not allowed to review.

One of the arguments of this Administration has been that the US President need to assent to the Congress because Congress had no role in making rules. This is incorrect and contrary to the Constitution.

Now we find the President, despite the so-called NeoCon support of the unitary theory, has assented not to rules of Congress, but to the rules of Iraq.

* * *

Recall the non-sense the Attorney General gave us: Congress was not given the respect of being told when the AG or President were going to ignore the laws.

On issues of FISA, NSA, warrants, and other illegal activity, the President and Attorney General sad, "We're not going to tell Congress. This is secret."

Yet, when confronted by a non-US government, suddenly the President would have us believe that the US government must follow those rules.

___ Why is the President giving greater respect to the rules of Iraq, but not the laws of the United States?

* * *

The arguments this President, DoJ Staff, and Republican Congress gave to block impeachment were that we were in a war.

Yet, we find that in war, the President is able to follow rules; and is able to follow the laws; and is able to listen to government standards.

___ Why is the President arguing "we're at war" as a basis to say he does not have to follow the law; yet the President, "despite being in war in Iraq," will follow those rules?

___ Are these rules real?

___ Did the President ignore real FISA rules; but is making up new rules as an excuse for what has not worked?

* * *

The common pattern is that this President wants to go it alone. Even before Sept 2001, he was violating the law. 9-11 wasn't an excuse for secrecy, but a pretext to block oversight.

This President, if he decides the weather is favorable, will assent to rules. He's shown he's capable of deferring to non-Executive bodies outside the US and claim that his hands were tied.

yet, when the real legal obligations of FISA, the US Constitution, and Acts of Congress come into play, the President says he can't follow those laws.

* * *

All defenses this President has given for ignoring the US Constitution, Acts of Congress, and Congressional rules were never valid.

Today's revelations that the President will follow rules of Iraq shows the President and Gonzalez have been retroactively making excuses to ignore US laws.

These are serious matters. The unitary theory of government requires the President to have total control.

___ Why is the President or anyone in the GOP or NeoCon establishment arguing for Unitary Theory of Executive power at home; but not asserting that power abroad?

____ Is there a reason that the US, despite claiming the Kyoto Protocols were infringing with US interests, is able to listen to US governments, but not willing to listen to the US Congress?