Posted by | December 21, 2008 18:29 | Filed under: Top Stories

Speaking with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Dick Cheney once again proved that his reading of the Constitution doesn’t comport with the way the Supreme Court interprets it.


Cheney: “I think you can have a robust interrogation program with respect to high value detainees.”


[…]


Wallace: If the president during war decides to do something to protect the country, is it legal?


Cheney: In general proposition, I’d say yes…clearly when you take the oath of office…there’s no question about what your responsiblities are in that regard…I think what we’ve done has been totally consistant with what the Constitution provides for…”


The good stuff starts at 1:45 in:



Think Progress reminds us how the administration has consistently been rebuffed by the Supreme Court.


– In June 2004, The Supreme Court dealt a setback to the Bush administration by refusing to endorse the claim that “the government has authority to seize and hold suspected terrorists or their protectors and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers while interrogating them.”

 

 

– In June 2006, the Supreme Court “rolled back the sweeping powers appropriated by the Bush administration in the war on terror, ruling it could not order military trials for Guantánamo detainees without the protections of the Geneva convention and American law.”

 

 

– In August 2006, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that “the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional, delivering the first decision that the Bush administration’s effort to monitor communications without court oversight runs afoul of the Bill of Rights and federal law.”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2008 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.