by Katherine
To explain what I think is at stake with the Feingold censure resolution, I was going to write a post explaining the legal theory that links the NSA program and the torture scandals. It turns out that several months ago Marty Lederman (who I like to think of as the head of the OLC-in-exile) explained it more clearly than I can:
Their argument — just to be clear — is that FISA, and the Torture Act, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the federal assault statute, and the War Crimes Act, and the 60-day-limit provision of the War Powers Resolution — and even the 9/18 AUMF itself (to the extent it is read, as it ought to be, as in some respects limiting the scope of force — and treaties governing the treatment of detainees, and (probably) the Posse Comitatus Act, and who knows how many other laws, are unconstitutional to the extent they limit the President’s discretion in this war. In OLC’s words — written just one week after the AUMF was enacted — neither the WPR nor the AUMF, nor, presumably, any other statute, "can place any limits on the President’s determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response." "These decisions," OLC wrote, "under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make."
This is the legal theory that originally justified the NSA program. It is exactly the same legal theory that John Yoo relied on when he calmly told Jane Mayer: “It’s the core of the Commander-in-Chief function. [Congress] can’t prevent the President from ordering torture.”