Reply With Quote
Well, if it's premature to call for the administration's head it is also such to start labelling critics as traitors.
Really, what exactly are the questions that couldn't be "raised" about any covert, top-secret, national security intelligence program?
Are there any specific allegations of wrongdoing? If so, what are they?
No, citizens are traitors when they expose a top-secret program in an effort to score political points and, in the process, compromise our nation's ability to detect and stop an enemy attack.
Well, if it's premature to call for the administration's head it is also such to start labelling critics as traitors.
I believe the "current and former NSA" employees that leaked the program's existence have committed an act of treason.
If there were any intelligence benefits reaped from that program at all, any mere suppositions that it may have been used wrongly should have been supported with a concrete case and, instead of revealed in a NYT opinion piece on the publication of a book it should have been properly reported through the NSA's Inspector General's office.
To do otherwise was a treasonous act for personal and political gain...or worse, aiding and abetting an enemy. Period.
Oh, I just thought I'd get back to the truth in the middle of all this jibberish. Let's all hold hands in rememberance of a speech the President gave.
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
-George W. Bush
Stop posting the same thing over and over, it's getting freaky for a second there I thought I could tell the future
And then you have the dimm-o-crap version of things, but note she didn't say
it was illegal. Just she THOUGHT they should follow guidelines. Got to love it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press
Pelosi Questions Bush's Spying Program
By KATHERINE SHRADER , 01.28.2006, 01:34 PM
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi says President Bush should have used his extensive authority under the law to monitor suspected terrorists rather than approve the National Security Agency's disputed monitoring program.
"I would not want any president - Democrat or Republican - to have the expanded power the administration is claiming in this case," Pelosi, D-Calif., said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Pelosi did not say the NSA's surveillance program was illegal. But she said the administration should follow the procedures in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows government lawyers to ask a secretive court for warrants for surveillance in the United States during national security investigations.
"If you say ... this is for a narrow universe of calls, there is absolutely no issue with getting a FISA warrant for that," said Pelosi, who was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and has been involved for the past 13 years in overseeing U.S. intelligence agencies.
"It is when you go beyond that, that it becomes a challenge," she said in the interview Friday. "The president says he is not going beyond that, so why can't he obey the law?"
Pelosi declined to offer specifics about warrants granted, but she said the administration already has "the mother of all FISAs which enables them to do a lot."
Shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush approved a program that allows warrantless monitoring by the NSA of the international communications of people on U.S. soil who may be linked to al-Qaida.
Pelosi has spoken publicly about the need for congressional oversight on this program. While she has been briefed several times by the administration, Pelosi has said that does not mean she approved of the surveillance.
She wants Congress and the president to have the best intelligence available, yet broadly questions the legality of the domestic surveillance.
The Justice Department, in the administration's most recent defense of the NSA program, issued on Friday a six-point "Myth vs. Reality" rebuttal of criticism leveled against Bush's action. It claims that Bush has legal authority through his position as commander in chief as well as through a congressional resolution passed shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The administration also resists descriptions of the program as domestic spying, arguing that the communications under surveillance involve an overseas party. And it contends that the program is consistent with FISA, which the administration suggests moves too slowly for some monitoring.
In her first extensive comments on the NSA program, Pelosi offered additional details during the interview about her concerns, including her belief that the administration is making weak arguments to justify the monitoring.
Pelosi said if new technology is making it difficult for U.S. authorities to monitor communications, then Bush should ask for updates in the law to keep up with the advances.
If the FISA court process is too laborious, "get more lawyers, add more people to it," Pelosi said. "We are only talking about the Cons ution of the United States."
Pelosi said she told administration officials that several criteria must be met "to even consider" such a program. She said the information must be "so rich and so valuable" that it cannot be obtained any other way and there is "absolutely no time" to get a warrant.
The monitoring is not as simple as Bush, his aides and administration officials have explained, Pelosi said. She said Congress must have a full set of facts in hearings to determine "how far down the road" the administration went.
For example, Pelosi did not know if a reporter covering the war in Iraq would be caught in the surveillance net.
If Congress's intelligence and judiciary committees fail to investigate thoroughly, she said, "it will be in dereliction of its duties."
A Senate hearing on the program is set for Feb. 6. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has written Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the former White House counsel, about subjects he wants to see addressed:
_Why did the White House not ask Congress for changes to a 1978 foreign surveillance law?
_Why didn't the administration go to an established intelligence court to get approval for the monitoring?
_Will the White House consider doing that now?
Gonzales has agreed to answer questions about the legal basis of the program, but not its operations.
Pelosi tried to walk carefully between making a case for national security and protecting civil liberties.
She rejected recent comments by Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican Party, that Pelosi and Democratic Party leader Howard Dean would want the NSA to hang up when terrorists dial their sleeper cells.
"It is a disservice to a very serious debate about security and liberty for him to resort to that kind of a statement," Pelosi said.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
Here's my bottom line on this.
I think that the administration's NSA surveillance program, as described by the president, the vice president, the Attorney General, and General Hayden is legal. I don't think it's even a close question based on all that has been published in the media and posted in this thread. However, I will concede reasonable people can disagree on that point.
What is clearly illegal, however, in my view and the view of everyone involved in the Times story disclosing the existence of the NSA surveillance program, are the leaks that led to the story. The illegality of the leaks is precisely why the "nearly a dozen current and former government officials" who leaked the story to James Risen and Eric Lichtblau in connection with the original December 16 story demanded and received anonymity from the Times.
They should be found, arrested, tried and punished.
I'm not trying to pick here; I'm trying to understand the structure of your argument this isn't "even a close question," since there is certainly no controlling legal authority on the issue and the existing high court authority seems to suggest that just the opposite is true.
With that said, I'm still not sure how you conclude that decisional law that predates the enactment of a controlling statute (which was addressed to the very questions raised by those decisions) is somehow precedential.
And if it's not precedential, it seems to me that you're left with arguing that an unreviewed decision of, in essence, a magistrate-type panel is controlling authority for the entire nation and forecloses any further inquiry into the matter. Isn't that right?
I'm also not sure why the legal analysis of General Hayden, whose biography details absolutely no legal education, is somehow unassailable, while the arguments advanced by prestigious lawyers and law professors are questionable.
Okay, you're going to have to cite specific case law that speaks to the President's cons utional prerogative to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence in national security matters. Take your time.
Stick with me to the end of this post and maybe you'll be more certain how I do it.
I'm not sure I understand your point here but, for the sake of argument, I'm going to assume the remainder of my post will be a response to this...I hope.
Okay, let's go to the case law...and please, please stay with me to the end.
You and the "prestigious lawyers and law professors" ("PLLPs for short) purport to be making a technical legal argument but, without citing specific case law, relevant to the particular question.
As a person around too many freakin' lawyers, day in and day out, I can relate to technical legal arguments and they've cherry-picked a few that seem to have sucked you into believing they know of what they speak.
But, if you're going to rely on a legal argument, isn't it necessary to actually...make a legal argument? One would think so, but neither you nor the PLLPs can be bothered to go beyond the broad questions touched on in the cases cited in the PLLPs letter. Instead, they simply denounces the administration's program because it violates the law as currently written and throw out a bunch of case law they believe people will see as supporting their position. And, they do so without specifically addressing, then refuting, the case law presented by the opposition.
So does their letter really cons ute a legal argument? When lawyers make technical legal arguments, they generally cite case law that specifically refutes the case law cited by opposition. These Bozos didn't even mention the case law used by the administration in support of the legality and cons utionality of the NSA Program.
Like, for example, United States v. Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970), in which the court held that federal statutes prohibiting wiretapping do not...
That seems obviously pertinent and, please, note the absence of the word domestic in that case law cite; what do the PLLPs have to say about the Clay case? Nothing. They don't mention it.
Another relevant case is United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), where the court held that no judicial warrant was necessary where...
Butenko blows a giant hole in the PLLPs' legal theory. What do they have to say about the Butenko case? Nothing. They don't mention it.
Then there's United States v. Truong, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), where the court sustained the federal government's position, which it summarized as follows:
The court explained why the President has the inherent cons utional authority to order warrantless electronic surveillance:
If the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals was right, then the PLLPs are wrong. So, surely they must have some persuasive rebuttal to the Truong decision in support of their technical legal argument? No, they don't. The PLLPs never refer to Truong.
United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir. 1984), was a terrorism case in which the court, among other rulings, upheld the cons utionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The court wrote:
"VIRTUALLY EVERY COURT..." What happened to your "no controlling legal authority"?
A damning summary, to be sure. Surely the PLLPs have a rejoinder to the court's statement that the universal weight of authority is against their position? Nope.
Those cases are pre-FISA, of course, and many (including the PLLPs) are arguing that FISA is the statute the administration "violated." So maybe the PLLPs would argue that the pre-FISA cases don't apply. Such a claim would be unpersuasive on its face, simply because Congress cannot by statute, or other means, strip the executive branch of its cons utional powers.
But there is, in fact, a post-FISA case that specifically addresses the question of whether the passage of that statute could have changed the pre-existing principle that the President has cons utional power to order warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Since that case is directly on point, surely the PLLPs discussed it. Right? Wrong. The PLLPs never mention In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, decided in 2002 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, the very court which is responsible for interpreting and applying FISA.
It's not hard to figure out why the PLLPs pretend that Sealed Case No 02-001 doesn't exist. It conclusively refutes their legal position:
So the only federal appellate court that has ruled on the issue says that the PLLPs are wrong about the law. The PLLPs, ostrich-like, pretend that the federal courts don't exist. Or, at least, these federal courts don't exist.
You (nor PLLPs) can't base a technical legal argument on what you think the law ought to be. You can only base a technical legal argument on what the law actually is. And the current state of the law, as uniformly articulated by the federal courts, is that the NSA's international surveillance program is a legal implementation of the President's cons utional powers. So, technically speaking, the PLLPs are simply wrong. And, I'm not even a PL or an LP and I can see that!
Oh, and I find it king of amusing that the case law cites used by the PLLPs are, I believe in all cases, older than any of the case law cited herein...and, yet, they didn't see fit to specifically address the problems it created for their argument.
Which leaves me wondering what the hyperventilating is all about. It's also why I say it's not even a close question.
So, the short answer is:
1) Prior to FISA, the president had the cons utional authority to conduct warrantless searches such as the type done by the NSA Program. None of the case law cited by the PLLPs change this universally held legal opinion supported by case law mentioned above and, in fact, supported by "VIRTUALLY EVERY COURT THAT HAD ADDRESSED THE ISSUE..." if FISC is to be believed.
2) Congress cannot pass a law that diminishes or removes a cons utional power of the executive branch. That is a universally accepted principle of cons utional law.
3) FISA is a law passed by Congress and, therefore, no matter what anyone says, PLLP or not -- is incapable of rendering a President's cons utional power illegal. Period. End of argument. It's not even close.
Now, can we get on with prosecuting the traitors that leaked this vital program and damn near rendered it unusable?
Last edited by Yonivore; 01-29-2006 at 11:34 PM.
I guess no one wants to take this on?
I'll take the silence as agreement the President violated no laws in ordering warrantless eavesdropping.
or we're tired of the subject, maybe. I guess you should take your victories in whatever form you happen to find them.
You're right. Whatever blog you pulled this off of is the ultimate authority on the subject. It's a wonder that the issue is still being debated.
Also, if you go back and read FWD's prior post he addresses most of the issues you refer to in your post that no one wants to "take on."
or maybe thread starter also killed his (her?) own thread, and Oh, Gee!! and Peabody are burying it.
Here is my short response:
1) Prior to FISA, the president had the cons utional authority to conduct warrantless searches such as the type done by the NSA Program. None of the case law cited by the PLLPs change this universally held legal opinion supported by case law mentioned above and, in fact, supported by "VIRTUALLY EVERY COURT THAT HAD ADDRESSED THE ISSUE..." if FISC is to be believed.
Yes, because prior to FISA there was little statutory authority detailing the manner in which the President may gather foreign intelligene. This is why many people are arguing that the pre-FISA cases do not apply. Those cases were dealing with the President's powers in the absence of statutory authority.
2) Congress cannot pass a law that diminishes or removes a cons utional power of the executive branch. That is a universally accepted principle of cons utional law.
This statement is misleading. FWD addressed this in his post. Here is the quote --
To say that the President has inherent authority does not mean that his authority is exclusive, or that his conduct is not subject to statutory regulations enacted (as FISA was) pursuant to Congress's Article I powers. As Justice Jackson famously explained in his influential opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring), the Cons ution "enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity. Presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress." For example, the President in his role as Commander in Chief directs military operations. But the Framers gave Congress the power to prescribe rules for the regulation of the armed and naval forces, Art. I, § 8, cl. 14, and if a duly enacted statute prohibits the military from engaging in torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, the President must follow that dictate. As Justice Jackson wrote, when the President acts in defiance of "the expressed or implied will of Congress," his power is "at its lowest ebb." 343 U.S. at 637. In this setting, Jackson wrote, "Presidential power [is] most vulnerable to attack and in the least favorable of all cons utional postures." Id. at 640.
Congress plainly has authority to regulate domestic wiretapping by federal agencies under its Article I powers, and the DOJ does not suggest otherwise. Indeed, when FISA was enacted, the Justice Department agreed that Congress had power to regulate such conduct, and could require judicial approval of foreign intelligence surveillance.[7] FISA does not prohibit foreign intelligence surveillance, but merely imposes reasonable regulation to protect legitimate privacy rights. (For example, although FISA generally requires judicial approval for electronic surveillance of persons within the United States, it permits the executive branch to install a wiretap immediately so long as it obtains judicial approval within seventy-two hours. 50 U.S.C. § 1805(f).)
3) FISA is a law passed by Congress and, therefore, no matter what anyone says, PLLP or not -- is incapable of rendering a President's cons utional power illegal. Period. End of argument. It's not even close.
See response to 2.
Also, if you actually took the time to read Sealed Case No. 02-001, you would realize that the issue that was decided in that case has nothing to do with this current debate. People like yourself, and whoever wrote the blog that you stole argument from, mention the case because of that one statement where they discuss Truong. That statement is mere dicta and as such, is non-binding.
Contrary to your assertion, the PLLP, as you call them, do discuss Sealed Case No. 02-001 and Truong. Here is the analysis --
Three years ago, the FISA Court of Review suggested in dictum that Congress cannot "encroach on the President's cons utional power" to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance. In re Sealed Case No. 02-001, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FIS Ct. Rev. 2002) (per curiam). The FISA Court of Review, however, did not hold that FISA was uncons utional, nor has any other court suggested that FISA's modest regulations cons ute an impermissible encroachment on presidential authority. The FISA Court of Review relied upon United States v. Truong Dihn Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980)—but that court did not suggest that the President's powers were beyond congressional control. To the contrary, the Truong court indicated that FISA's restrictions were cons utional. 629 F.2d at 915 n.4 (noting that "the imposition of a warrant requirement, beyond the cons utional minimum described in this opinion, should be left to the intricate balancing performed in the course of the legislative process by Congress and the President") (emphasis added).
Again, Yoni, I am not saying that my word is the final word on this issue. Ultimately, the courts may decide in favor of Bush.
I just don't feel that you are giving this complex issue the respect it deserves. It is an issue where we are unclear about the applicable law (SC has never ruled on the issue of whether a President can conduct warrantless surveillance without following the statutory scheme created by Congress and the President to regulate it) and a situation where we are still not aware of all the underlying facts. Knowing that, how can you assert that the issues are simple and "not even close"?
But FISA also does not require the President to use it, either...particularly if, as the FISC said, it encroaches on his article II powers.
No one suggested FISA was uncons utional. Just that it didn't apply here.
Because he's a law enforcement officer, and an EMT, and he works around lawyers all day, and he's forgotten more about any subject than you will ever know.
That's funny because you spent a good part of your previous post attacking FISA
And you know this because you are aware of the underlying details of the NSA program?
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 01-30-2006 at 04:41 PM.
but we're at war with teh terrorism, prez declared it. Next he'll declare war on drugs, poor people, democrats, etc.
^^We aren't at war?
I'm with Mr. Peabody in the belief that the issue is far from decided. I will accede to the possibility that it may ultimately be decided in the President's favor. I think it's a close call, but I believe in the primacy of Cons utional liberties and believe that existing law amply supports an argument that the NSA program is uncons utional because it infringes upon the requirements of the 4th Amendment.
What gets me is the unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that this issue necessarily presents a close call, and that a decision of the issue will (if decided by the Supreme Court) be unlikely to gain a unanimous vote.
Mr. Peabody has done an excellent job summing up the argument to counter Yoni's.
[as an aside, I find it interesting that the fact that nobody posted for approximately 12 hours somehow gave Yoni a right to claim victory in the argument -- notwithstanding (or apparently disregarding) the fact that some of us have other obligations that prohibit non-stop posting to this forum. (I was in a day-long meeting and went to bed early last night; I guess by tending to those obligations, I lost?). That is some kind of precedent -- I'll have to pocket that to use when the tables are turned.]
As to the argument itself, I find it curious that Yoni's singular attack on the argument that I've proposed to counter the argument he co-opted from a still unnamed source, is that it is "a technical legal argument." I have no idea, despite the fact that I practice law in state and federal appellate courts with some success, what "a technical legal argument" is. Lawyers routinely argue for the recognition of particular rules in cases lacking direct authority by relying on analogous authority to suggest an outcome, or by seeking to distinguish existing authority for the same means. It is a very rare occurrence, for example, that a case reaches the United States Supreme Court with controlling and non-distinguishable precedent on the precise issue raised by the case. Were that a regular occurrence, the Supreme Court wouldn't be deciding many cases. If by "a technical legal argument," Yoni means one that borrows from a line of cases to suggest that the holdings point to a governing rule in a particular case -- and if in using the term "technical legal argument" in a pejorative sense, Yoni means to suggest that such arguments are untenable -- then I'd suggest that Yoni has a rather myopic (and incorrect) view of how the legal system works.
Nevertheless, the argument is more important than such bickering.
I would argue that the one issue that does not even present a close call in this cir stance is Congressional rule making authority and the cons utionality of FISA. It is interesting to note that the White House and the Attorney General (and I'm sure the very learned General Hayden, whose credentials to offer legal analysis are still unclear to me) have offered among their arguments one that FISA was implicitly (but not expressly) repealed by the AUMF. In other words, it would seem, to some extent that the Administration's means to cir vent the effect FISA is to suggest that it no longer exists, at least to some extent. That argument makes some sense -- though controlling precedent makes it unlikely to succeed -- because if FISA is cons utional and remains in effect, that law would seem to trump the pre-FISA case law suggesting that Presidential power is somehow non-contiguous with the requirements of the 4th Amendment. Even the much ballyhooed statement in Duggan seems to acknowledge the line of demarcation between cases decided before and after FISA's enactment -- while Yoni highlights the remainder of this paragraph, it is the first clause that is likely the most significant:
Duggan, then, recognizes that the congressional decision to enact FISA is a significant development in determining whether Article II vests the President with an implicit power that is beyond Congress's express Article I power. The argument made in my post builds from that observation to note that in cases involving separation of powers issues, express authority afforded to one branch will generally prevail over a claim of implied authority by another. Again, that is not a controversial issue.
The question remaining from the standpoint of legal authority is the effect of Sealed Case's dicta, which certainly is not controlling authority in any sense of that term. It's curious to me that if Sealed Case is somehow dispositive of this issue, it is not a more prominent part of the White House's defense of its program. If it truly were the end-all-be-all of this issue, there would be no need to suggest (even as an alternative) that FISA was inapplicable here or that FISA had been somehow repealed, since, ostensibly, FISA would have been ineffective to curtail the President's inherent authority.
Point taken. Being involved in what I thought was a good dialogue with you, over the issue, I used the taunt to keep the thread at the top so it wouldn't be bumped to page two.
No, my point is you presented no argument with relevant court citations. Not only that, you didn't refute those that were presented and obviously relevant to the question.
Agreed and I apologize for the taunt.
No one is arguing that FISA is uncons utional. Only that FISA is incapable of negating the President's cons utional prerogative vis-a-vis warrantless searches for foreign intelligence.
Obviously we disagree. And, as FISC pointed out, virtually every court to have decided the issue disagrees with you as well.
As far as the administration's reliance on AUMF, I tend to agree it does not help their position...Nor does it harm it. I believe, and there's no way for me to know this, that the administration raised the AUMF issue in an attempt to end the issue and not have to reveal any more about the program than was absolutely necessary. Discussing the relevant case law might unnecessarily reveal more details than is desired.
Just a guess.
But I did. If case law says one thing and a statute is enacted that contradicts the case law, the case law is no longer authority for the argument. Your argument is, as I think it must be, that the President's power to engage in domestic surveillance without a warrant is, in some cir stances, incapable of Congressional control. The case finding FISA cons utional necessarily upholds the power of Congress to curb warrantelss surveillance, at least in some cir stances.
In that sense, the intervening act of passing FISA renders that case law, for most intents and purposes, irrelevant. That's why I think the important language in Duggan is the phrase "Prior to the enactment of FISA." That phrase acknowledges that all that the courts have said about the power you espouse is tempered by an intervening Congressional action. Accordingly, it wasn't necessary for those who've made my argument to counter the earlier holdings on a case-by-case basis: FISA did that for them.
What the argument I've co-opted says is that there is no authority, in light of FISA to support the President's direct attack on the 4th Amendment. It goes on to say that the authority that is relevant to the broader separation of powers question tends to support a conclusion that is at odds with the argument the President has made. There's absolutely nothing unusual about that mode of argument in this sort of cir stance.
You're right -- all that's left is the meaning and import of the FISC decision. And you're also right that it's obvious that we disagree, though I think the disagreement stems entirely from view of the role and definition of precedent. As a lower court decision -- and dictum at that -- the opinion in Sealed Case is, at best, persuasive authority to support the position taken by the White House. It, however, is not controlling authority, even if it could be characterized as a holding, because it can certainly be overruled in subsequent cases addressing that issue. And it would seem somewhat likely to face stern review, since it is difficult to reconcile the argument advanced by the White House against the express limits on Presidential surveillance for the purposes of foreign intelligence gathering imposed by FISA. I will concede again that it is quite possible that the program could be upheld (if a plaintiff can make a plausible standing argument), but I'm swayed by the authority that suggests strongly that the President's power is somewhat limited with regard to this issue.
I appreciate the sentiment and certainly agree with you that this is an interesting argument and a good dialogue. I'm happy to keep it going to the extent my schedule will allow for rapid responses.
I understand your argument. I'm merely pointing out that, even after FISA, the FISC held that warrantless searches for foreign intelligence were within the cons utional authority of the President under article II.
Which all leads me to the question of whether or not it was necessary to compromise a valuable intelligence asset based on such a slim ambiguity. You, yourself, allowed the president would probably prevail if the argument ever carried forward in court.
Therefore, to continue dragging the issue out only diminishes the president's ability to detect and thwart enemyt attacks.
I would be in complete agreement for the need to review and settle the issue if there had been allegations the President had used the power to conduct warrantless searches for polital, partisan, or personal reasons. No one is alleging that nor are there any plaintiffs stepping forward to claim they were injured. No one is even calling for an end to the program.
FISA was intended to prevent the type of eavesdropping that occurred during Nixon's administration -- undertook for personal, political, or partisan reasons. The NSA Program has none of those characteristics and I believe the whole issue would have long ago faded had there been a Democratic President in office.
All the hullabaloo is over the possibility that the THIS president might misuse this authority.
The administration has stated, unequivocally, the NSA Program is an exception to FISA. They've stated they use FISA when appropriate and that they use the NSA Program when FISA cannot be used. There is no evidence to the contrary. To force them to explain this in any detail, publicly, threatens to further compromise their methods. I think the revelation of the program has harmed our ability to protect ourselves...I also think further discussions continue to deteriorate the program's effectiveness. I think that's unconscienable.
We've already seen signs that al Qaeda did not realize the breadth of the program. A remarkable surge in the purchase of untraceable pay-as-you go cell phones. General Hayden's response to the supposition that al Qaeda already assumed the U.S. was listening in on their conversations is also telling; "Well, they certainly didn't act like they believed we were listening sometimes."
And, completey irrelevant to the cons utionality or legality of the program, those who leaked it absolutely violated the law and should be prosecuted.
In the paraphrased words of John Kerry, "This is the wrong case, over the wrong issue, at the wrong time." I would have been a different story had the president's detractors produced an innocent "victim" of the NSA eavesdropping program. But, in the absence of that, and given the value of the information received by such an effort, it seems foolish to have a public argument over the cons utionality or legality of something that has been taken for granted for so long.
In the future, I'll just bump it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions