Why Bush Is Toast (A Proof By Contradiction)

[berni_mccoy]

In mathematics, a technique of proving the truth of a theorem is called proof by contradiction: to assert the exact opposite is true and take a logical step-by-step approach to prove it is incorrect. The theorem today: Bush is toast because of illegal wiretapping.

Let's start by making the assumption that Bush has the Constitutional Authority to wiretap without a warrant and that he needs no approval or advise-and-consent.

If that were true, then by the same logic, Cheney would have the Constitutional Authority to authorize the leaking of Valerie Plame's Identity (as some of you may know, it has come to light today that Cheney authorized Libby to break the law here).

If that were true, there would be no need to delete White House emails and there would be no further investigation by Fitzgerald.

By observation, White House emails were deleted AND Fitzgerald is still investigating (and Cheney is a person of interest).

Therefore, by contradiction, Bush is Toast. QED.

[Sammy Pepys]

1. No, it wouldn't

If that were true, then by the same logic, Cheney would have the Constitutional Authority to authorize the leaking of Valerie Plame's Identity (as some of you may know, it has come to light today that Cheney authorized Libby to break the law here).

Wiretapping and outing an operative have nothing to do with each other.

[berni_mccoy]

4. Bush's Claim on Wiretapping is that he has the Cons. Auth.

To break the law. He doesn't need FISA, he doesn't need warrants.

That's their entire argument.

The same argument can be used in the outing of Plame or just about any law they want to break.

The commonality is that BOTH ACTIONS ARE BREAKING THE LAW.

That's how simple it is. And Bush has no defense (and neither does Cheney).

[rpgamerd00d]

5. My LTTE to WSJ

The Bush Administration claims they are not breaking the FISA law. Their defense claims three things.

1) Bush claims that FISA is not the exclusive law on wiretapping, citing the phrase "except as authorized by statute" in section 1809.
2) Bush claims that the Authorization to Use Military Force against Afghanistan (AUMF) is exactly that statutorial exception.
3) Bush claims that the reason they didn't just use FISA was because its not fast enough.

These things are patently untrue. The AUMF is not an exception to FISA. The AUMF does not include any language regarding wiretapping, nor does it imply the involvement of any military or government forces inside the USA. In fact, Bush asked the Congress to add "and in the United States" to the AUMF, and this request was specifically denied by Congress. That makes it clear that no operations of the AUMF are allowed to occur in the US. Remember, the AUMF was passed to allow the invasion of Afghanistan, and only covered the force allowed to be used in doing that task.

There is also no way a more general statute such as the AUMF can override a more specific statute like FISA, this is settled law by the courts. In addition, all prior declarations of war occurred before FISA even existed, so no other declarations of war can be used as an examples, even though Gonzalez implied they were.

Lastly, it is clear that FISA could have been used. It could have been modified as needed if Bush had just asked for Congress to modify it. It has already been modified many times since the Sept 11 attacks, by exactly such requests from Bush. There is no plausible reason for Bush to think that another such request would have been denied.

The most devastating part of this entire scandal, is that a few, brave, honest Republicans totally agree that Bush has violated the law. This is in addition to every renouned legal scholar in the country, prior administration officials, judges and lawyers around the country. This is a clear sign that this activity is completely illegal.

Hardline Republicans are now trying to cover up Bush's felony. They are trying to get FISA changed to make this illegal wiretapping, legal. This is hardly surprising given the culture of corruption in the Republican party. A party that just elected John Boehner to clean up lobbying even though he has ties to the Jack Abramoff scandal and ties to lobbyists, and put Tom DeLay, who is under criminal indictment, to a submittee overseeing the Justice Department. Tomorrow I expect the Republicans will appoint John Gotti to head up a task force to "clean up" the mafia.

[Sammy Pepys]

6. I don't think proof by contradiction works the way you're describing it.

Your theorem:
"Bush is toast because of illegal wiretapping."

So we start:
"....by making the assumption that Bush has the Constitutional Authority to wiretap without a warrant and that he needs no approval or advise-and-consent."

So we can express that as "Bush is toast because of X, unless Y."

X=illegal wiretapping
Y=the opposite of X, that the wiretapping is in fact legal.

You only need to go so far as disproving Y (which is rather easy). The Cheney part of the problem is completely irrelevant (for the purposes of PbC anyway).

[knowbody0]

2. as the parent of four teenagers

i rely upon logic which invariably leads to the truth. it is simple.

their only weapon is fear, and it is wearing soooooo thin today.

[ChiciB1]

3. And For This... We Need A Laugh Track!!

We can laugh and the nonsense all we want, ain't NOTHIN' gonna get done!!

We've been HIJACKED, HOODWINKED, SCREWED AND F--KED ALL on a regular basis!!