Is This Legal?

Since when does the attorney general write editorials? I'm sorry but this just seems a desperate move to prove you are right when you know you are dead wrong! The hearings start today and he will be under fire. I find this editorial completely inappropriate. But then again, this is classic Bush adminisration: inappropriate and illegal.

In the days following Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush charted a course of action to respond to the worst attack on our homeland in history. He promised to use every tool available to defeat al Qaeda and pledged to take the fight to the enemy abroad as he worked to prevent another attack. As he said in the State of the Union address, 'Our country must remain on the offensive against terrorism here at home.' The president has the constitutional responsibility--and authority--to lead this response.

After Sept. 11, Congress immediately confirmed the president's constitutional authority to 'use all necessary and appropriate force' against those 'those nations, organizations, or persons he determines' responsible for the attacks. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) gave the president the latitude to use a full complement of tools and tactics against our enemy. A majority of Supreme Court justices have concluded that the AUMF authorizes the president to use 'fundamental and accepted' incidents of military force in our armed conflict with al Qaeda. The use of signals intelligence--intercepting enemy communications--is a fundamental incident of waging war.

The commentary is much longer. I really didn't even read it. Finish it if you must.