the document is nothing more than a warmed over version of the DoJ's earlier defense. you know, that argument that the non-partisan congressional research service concluded "does not seem to be . . . well-grounded." as robert reinstein, dean of temple law school, said in today's new york times:
he considered the eavesdropping program [to be] "a pretty straightforward case where the president is acting illegally," and he said there appeared to be a broad consensus among legal scholars and national security experts that the administration's legal arguments were weak.all that the justice department's latest brief on the issue really demonstrates is that we need an independent counsel appointed to investigate this matter. when the nation's top law enforcement office is faced with a clear case where the president broke the law and offers nothing but flimsy defenses of the administration's policies, it becomes apparent that they are incapable of seriously investigating this issue. indeed, despite the clamor from legal scholars, the the DoJ is saying there is nothing to investigate.
it's time for an independent counsel. the january 19, 2006 justice department memo is Exhibit A for why we need one now.
