And I’m happy to call acting extra-constitutionally breaking the law. I meant not to fudge about that.

in genuine emergency circumstances, the executive may take extraordinary, even extra-constitutional, actions, while incurring the attendant obligation to openly acknowledge to the country and the Congress having broken the law under necessity and throwing him- or herself upon the justice of the country.

even if Addington had accepted this view, i would still object – although i do support a version of the idea that conscience sometimes necessitates breaking the law by all citizens, not just the president.

but the description here sounds like a twisted version of the tradition of law breaking (when dire need and conscience require) as practiced, for example, by the berrigan brothers. they broke the law by breaking into draft offices and burning records – but then they waited for the police to arrive so that they could be arrested. they willingly accepted years of imprisonment for their actions. in this way, while they did indeed break the law, they also showed their respect for the rule of law.

i think in the case of a president breaking the law – or acting “extra-constitutionally” as you say in the case of emergency – it would require, at the very least, 1) the actions be taken openly and honestly without any attempt at subterfuge and 2) that as a result of the actions taken, the president would voluntarily resign and present himself/herself for arrest so that the public, via the courts, could pass judgment.

anything less strikes me as an attempt to avoid both the constitutional limitations placed on the presidency and accountability for acting outside those limitations.

that we are so far removed from even this is, imo, a tragedy.

Where to start? I’d like to know much more about Saudi involvement with Al Qaeda

There is evidence that Loyal Bushie Prince Bandar helped finance the hijackers. Or who would have thought that Saudi Arabia was was “following with precision” the hijackers. I wonder why? But US officials are to blame for the WTC attacks.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018657.php

(CNN) — Saudi Arabia could have helped the United States prevent al Qaeda’s 2001 attacks on New York and Washington if American officials had consulted Saudi authorities in a “credible” way, the kingdom’s former ambassador said in a documentary aired Thursday.

Speaking to the Arabic satellite network Al-Arabiya on Thursday, Bandar — now Abdullah’s national security adviser — said Saudi intelligence was “actively following” most of the September 11, 2001, plotters “with precision.”

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/U…..i.fbi.911/

Law enforcement sources told Newsweek the FBI has uncovered financial records showing that the family of Omar Al Bayoumi, a student in San Diego, began receiving payments amounting to about $3,500 a month in early 2000.

According to Newsweek’s sources, the money came from an account at Riggs Bank in Washington in Princess Haifa Al-Faisal’s name. She is the daughter of the late King Faisal.

After Al Bayoumi left the United States in July 2001, similar payments were being made to another San Diego student, Osama Basnan, Newsweek reported.

According to the magazine’s report, Al Bayoumi and Basnan befriended two men who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 and crashed it into the Pentagon — Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi.

I’m just always in search of more information.

Thank you for being here today.