Monday, August 21, 2006
Judge Taylor's Ruling
For those of you who have not been following this story. A judge in Detroit has delievered an incredibly harsh (and true) ruling on George Bush's illegal surveillance of Americans. In response the pundit class in the U.S. has been attack Judge Taylor for her lack of "scholarship" and the "language" of her ruling. Jonathan Turley (via Glenn Greenwald) explains why.
The far more difficult question is the implication of Taylor's ruling. If this court is upheld or other courts follow suit, it will leave us with a most unpleasant issue that Democrats and Republicans alike have sought to avoid.The president can issue pardons... Can he issue one to himself?
Here it is: If this program is unlawful, federal law expressly makes the ordering of surveillance under the program a federal felony. That would mean that the president could be guilty of no fewer than 30 felonies in office. Moreover, it is not only illegal for a president to order such surveillance, it is illegal for other government officials to carry out such an order.
For people working in government, this opinion may lead to some collar tugging. If Taylor's decision is upheld or other courts reject the program, will the president promise to pardon those he ordered to carry out unlawful surveillance? The question of the president's possible criminal acts has long been the pig in the parlor that polite people in Congress refused to acknowledge (Emphasis not mine).
