I’m sure the White House would never abuse this. I trust them. Just like we trusted J. Edgar to protect us. Sure, he was secretly handing over FBI and other records to Pres. Johnson (remember when they found out he kept stacks of IRS records under his bed?) to use against his political enemies, but that was different. Right?
SENATE JUDICIARY Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has cast his agreement with the White House on legislation concerning the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance as a compromise — one in which President Bush accepts judicial review of the program. It isn’t a compromise, except quite dramatically on the senator’s part. Mr. Specter’s bill began as a flawed but well-intentioned effort to get the program in front of the courts, but it has been turned into a green light for domestic spying. It must not pass.
[…]
But the cost of this judicial review would be ever so high. The bill’s most dangerous language would effectively repeal FISA’s current requirement that all domestic national security surveillance take place under its terms. The “compromise” bill would add to FISA: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the constitutional authority of the President to collect intelligence with respect to foreign powers and agents of foreign powers.” It would also, in various places, insert Congress’s acknowledgment that the president may have inherent constitutional authority to spy on Americans. Any reasonable court looking at this bill would understand it as withdrawing the nearly three-decade-old legal insistence that FISA is the exclusive legitimate means of spying on Americans. It would therefore legitimize whatever it is the NSA is doing — and a whole lot more.
If I ever get caught boldly breaking the law, I hope my lawyer can get me one of these ‘compromises’ where I agree to , at my discretion, voluntarily do what I was required by law to do in the first place!
As the great Russian philosopher once said about America:”What a country!”
Kongress suffers from criminal incompentence and cowardice — especially when they are predominantly of the same party as the president. Not that there’s much difference between either flavor of sleaze.
Why have a Constitution with checks and balances when the result of that process is — judges who provide kissies to the White House that appointed them — and a Kongress that rolls over and offers retroactive legalization for illegal acts?
If defense of the Constitution is a sham, how long before a series of amendments removing it altogether? Dittoheads would agree to it. State legislatures run by local lawyers and realtors would say, “Yes, sir. You can count on me to be a paytriot!”
The “y” is intentional.
Yeah – but J. Edgar Hoover was from an era when we a monomanical despot in office – not like now…………………..
……………………………………………..when we have lots of them
Sen. Specter seems to be like the Sen. John Glenn from Clinton’s administration. Wonder what his payoff/reward will be? Maybe a trip on the shuttle?
There is no question that this is a Constitutional dilemma. In short, how far does the President’s power to protect against foreign agents extend? One problem is that there is nothing in the Constitution about surveillance. Admittedly, it does seem pointless to draft a law that codifies massive loopholes in existing law.
From the description in the Post, it looks like the bill was written not by Specter but by Cheney and Addington instead. Christmas will come early this year if it passes.
Speaking of Christmas, has anyone been watching Santa lately? Some children of suspected terrorists have been writing him letters, and I think we better open a full scale surveillance program for any suspicious activity at the North Pole. He might be planting explosives in little Billy’s train set.
What does that have to do with wiretapping? They are not going into homes and searching. They can already take a look at bank records, credit card records, phone records, etc.
Roman Berry,
Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out where exactly in the fourth Amendment it says anything about being watched?
Here we go again. First, there is nothing specifically in the Fourth Amendment that says anything about surveillance. At the time the Fourth Amendment was drafted, surveillance was not a consideration. Rather the courts have extended the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to including surveillance such as wiretapping. That is an important distinction. Specifically, it means that at any time it can be reinterpreted or changed through legislation. Second, a lot of law has passed or been reviewed since 1972. The most notably example would be the Patriot Act which changes the circumstances under which surveillance may take place. Lastly, we are at war and as such the President is granted far more power in the interest of protecting the nation than he would in peace time.
I’m not suggesting that the surveillance conducted by the Executive branch has been entirely ethical (although much of it undoubtedly has) or even entirely within the bounds of government intrusion. What should be clear however is that the issue of whether this surveillance is legal is not is not at all clear. What seems obvious to the layman is not nearly as obvious in a court of law.
Here’s another one that may shock you — the courts have decided that freedom of the press also applies to television journalists, even though the First Amendment never mentions television specifically. The courts had a far-reaching, activist idea that what originally applied only to operators of the printing press should also apply to people who disseminate information using new, unforeseen tools.
Of course, this probably means that at any time it can be reinterpreted or changed through legislation.
Geez, what a surprise — freedoms aren’t absolute!