Specter moves on

From the other day...

SPECTER: Attorney General Mukasey, we have seen the expansion of assertions of presidential authority under Article II, illustrated, as I said earlier, by his violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, saying that he had Article II powers as commander in chief.

We have seen the president disregard the National Security Act of 1947, which mandates telling the Intelligence Committees in both houses when he undertakes a program like the terrorist surveillance program.

And the question comes down to whether the president may assert Article II power to violate the U.S. statute prohibiting torture and to act in variance with the Geneva Convention to protect America.

I'm going to read you a judgment by former Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann, now a Harvard professor. And in a book he wrote to this effect, quote: "For the extremely rare case of an immediate threat to U.S. lives, unavoidable in any other way, we would allow the president to personally authorize an exception to the U.S. obligation under the Convention Against Torture and the U.S. Constitution not to engage in cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment short of torture, so long as the decision by the president is based on written findings documenting his reasons and is promptly submitted to the appropriate congressional committees," close quote.

My question to you is that under the standard which former Deputy Attorney General Heymann articulates, is there a legitimate argument that the president has Article II powers to undertake such conduct?

MUKASEY: There are a number of concepts in your question, including whether he has authority to undertake torture.

Torture, as you know, is now unlawful under American law. I can't contemplate any situation in which this president would assert Article II authority to do something that the law forbids.

SPECTER: Well, he did just that in violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He did just that in disregarding the express mandate of the National Security Act to notify the Intelligence Committees. Didn't he?

MUKASEY: I think we are now in a situation where both of those issues have been brought within statutes, and that's the procedure going forward.

SPECTER: That's not the point. The point is that he acted in violation of statutes, didn't he?

MUKASEY: I don't know whether he acted in violation of statutes.

SPECTER: Well, didn't he act in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? Expressly mandates you have to go to a court to get an order for wiretapping. There's really no dispute about that, is there?

MUKASEY: It required an order with regard to wire communications when that was a surrogate for foreign communication, for domestic communications, when foreign communications became something that traveled by wire.

SPECTER: I'm not talking about foreign communications. I'm talking about wiretapping U.S. citizens in the United States. Terrorist surveillance program undertook to do that.

SPECTER: Well, not getting very far there. Let me move on to the...

Look where he's moved on to!

The ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee wants N.F.L. Commissioner Roger Goodell to explain why the league destroyed evidence related to spying by the New England Patriots.

In the stretch of 12 days, from Sept. 9 to Sept. 20, the Patriots were caught filming the Jets’ defensive signals in violation of N.F.L. rules, ordered to hand over all tapes of illegal filming to the league office, fined $750,000 and made to forfeit a first-round draft pick.

Then the N.F.L. announced it had destroyed the evidence.

In a telephone interview Thursday morning, Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and ranking member of the committee, said that Goodell would eventually be called before the committee to address two issues: the league’s antitrust exemption in relation to its television contract and the destruction of the tapes that revealed spying by the Patriots.

“That requires an explanation,” Specter said. “The N.F.L. has a very preferred status in our country with their antitrust exemption. The American people are entitled to be sure about the integrity of the game. It’s analogous to the C.I.A. destruction of tapes. Or any time you have records destroyed.”

It's vital that we protect the rights of sports bettors. And it's interesting to learn that Specter finds the destruction of evidence of torture by the CIA to be analogous to the Patriots filming (gasp!) what the other team is doing on the sidelines in a game that is...um...televised in hi-def using probably ten different camera locations.

Good God. Next we'll find out that our legislators will be going after Chuck Knoblauch. Oh.