ACLU Ad: The President Lied to the American People and Broke the Law
(Click on the image, left, to see a bigger version of the ad.)
It's been a couple of weeks since the illegal wiretapping story broke. The story has cooled down somewhat during the holidays.
In that time, there's been a lot of macho-talk from Bush about how "we have to know what the terrorists are thinking."
Duh.
Obviously that isn't what has Democrats (Russ Feingold), Republicans (Bob Barr, George Will, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, Arlen Specter), and Independents (the Cato Institute) pissed off.
It's about whether or not the President is above the law.
And don't forget -- the NSA illegal wiretaps are just one of many cases of this kind.
The Bush Administration, protesting that the Fourth Circuit Court has engaged in an "unprecedented and unfounded assertion of judicial authority," on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to order the prompt transfer of terrorism suspect Jose Padilla out of military custody and into a regular federal prison.The new filing, escalating the inter-branch constitutional conflict that has now arisen over Padilla, complained that the lower court had made "an unwarranted attack on the exercise of Executive discretion," raising "profound separation-of-powers concerns" if not remedied swiftly. "The Fourth Circuit's order defies both law and logic," the new filing contended.
Without waiting to see how the Justices would react to the rapid change of circumstances recently in Padilla's case, Solicitor General Paul D. Clement filed an application to shift Padilla to the Federal Detention Facility in Miami, so that he can face new criminal charges claiming he aided terrorism abroad. The Fourth Circuit last week refused to allow that transfer, saying the government may be trying to undercut Padilla's pending appeal to the Supreme Court. But the Circuit Court also said it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide Padilla's placement, and thus Clement turned to the Justices seeking what the lower court had denied.
In refusing the transfer request, the Fourth Circuit, according to the new application, sought "to exercise an unidentified and unprecedented judicial authority to disregard a presidential directive to transfer an enemy combatant out of military custody, despite the agreement of both parties that the transfer should take place." (Padilla's lawyers have supported the transfer request, but insist -- contrary to the Administration view -- that even after a transfer the case would emain a live controversy for the Supreme Court.)
The Fourth Circuit's action, the application said, "second guesses and usurps both the President's Commander-in-Chief authority and the Executive's prosecutorial iscretion in a manner inconsistent with bedrock principles of separation of powers."
The government's application, which went to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, is the latest dramatic development in one of the most significant test cases on presidential powers amid the war on terrorism. The Court's reaction to the new gesture may provide the first sign of how the Justices feel about that constitutional controversy.
Leave a comment