Difference between revisions of "2008-02-07 Mukasey says No, I Will Not Investigate Warrantless Wiretapping"
(new page from form at http://www.issuepedia.org/Issuepedia:Filing_Room/filing_forms) |
Dashmcwayne (talk | contribs) |
(No difference)
| |
Revision as of 01:25, 8 August 2008
{{#vardefine:keylist|}}{{#vardefine:Date|2008-02-07}}{{#vardefine:keylist|{{#var:keylist}}\Date}}{{#vardefine:Date.disp|2008-02-07}}{{#vardefine:Date.disp|[[{{#var:Date}}]]}}{{#vardefine:Topics|\Continuity of Government (US)\Michael Mukasey\stonewalling\warrantless wiretapping\FISA}}{{#vardefine:keylist|{{#var:keylist}}\Topics}}{{#vardefine:Topics.disp|\Continuity of Government (US)\Michael Mukasey\stonewalling\warrantless wiretapping\FISA}}{{#vardefine:URL|http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/mukasey_no_i_will_not_investig_1.php}}{{#vardefine:keylist%7C{{#var:keylist}}\URL}}{{#vardefine:URL.disp%7Chttp://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/mukasey_no_i_will_not_investig_1.php}}{{#vardefine:Title%7CMukasey: No, I Will Not Investigate Warrantless Wiretapping}}{{#vardefine:keylist|{{#var:keylist}}\Title}}{{#vardefine:Title.disp|Mukasey: No, I Will Not Investigate Warrantless Wiretapping}}{{#vardefine:Text|“The question came after Mukasey had baldly asserted that it was not a "practical view" that the president could order someone to act outside the law. Nadler wanted to know if the president hadn't done just that with his warrantless wiretapping program, which had ignored the constraints of FISA. .. Well, Mukasey said, the President had ordered that on the advice of the Justice Department that it was lawful. So, just as he will not initiate an investigation of waterboarding since the DoJ had given its OK, he will also not investigate whether the warrantless wiretapping was lawful, since it was legal, because the DoJ said it was ("there are views on both sides of that" he acknowledged).” A different variation of the "we said it was ok, so we can't investigate it" plea: we said it was ok, so by definition it's legal. That would be consistent with CoG being in effect.}}{{#vardefine:keylist|{{#var:keylist}}\Text}}{{#vardefine:Text.disp|“The question came after Mukasey had baldly asserted that it was not a "practical view" that the president could order someone to act outside the law. Nadler wanted to know if the president hadn't done just that with his warrantless wiretapping program, which had ignored the constraints of FISA. .. Well, Mukasey said, the President had ordered that on the advice of the Justice Department that it was lawful. So, just as he will not initiate an investigation of waterboarding since the DoJ had given its OK, he will also not investigate whether the warrantless wiretapping was lawful, since it was legal, because the DoJ said it was ("there are views on both sides of that" he acknowledged).” A different variation of the "we said it was ok, so we can't investigate it" plea: we said it was ok, so by definition it's legal. That would be consistent with CoG being in effect.}} {{#xploop:{{#var:Topics}}||}} {{#xploop:{{#var:keylist}}|\n* $s$: \o#var:$s$.disp\c}}