Working for an Has Senator Obama actually read the text of FISA Amendments Act of 2008? aka H.R. 6304 (new pdf link)
Not one of his staffers, he himself?
I mean all of it.
Specifically Title II Section 802?
Specifically a) 4) B) ii)?
I would like a lawyer to explain to me how "determined to be lawful" is consistent with US law and precedent?
As far as I understand it, a deputy head of an element of the intelligence community indicating that the action was "determined to be lawful" is meaningless.
Determined by who? A court? A judge? Their dog?
I understand the pragmatism, the political traps and the general sausage making, but I also understand the concept of ex post facto laws, and what happens to principles when you violate them.
The executive in the US does not determine what is lawful. Not the President, not the Attorney General and not deputy heads of elements of undefined agencies.
Although I must say it will simplify the Supreme Court schedule if the AG can just issue written directives determining what is lawful.
PS - hrmph thomas.loc.gov expires searches on congressional bills - typical.
Makes sense in a way, since bills under consideration may be amended, but the old versions are still of historical interest and ought to be static, not dynamic.
Politics
Comments
Your link is broken!
I'm interested -- please fix when you get a chance!
I think this instance is particularly egregious, and hopefully will not stand, but there is some, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity and laws attempting to define it, as well as Harlow v. Fitzgerald. On the other side, there's is (for example), Crawford-El v. Britton. See http://law.jrank.org/pages/12709/Crawford-El-v-Britton.html
Posted by: J | July 2, 2008 5:00 PM
fixed - not points to GPO pdf version, which is hopefully a static link
Posted by: Steinn Sigurdsson | July 2, 2008 5:14 PM