Over at Power Line, John asks:
Do we have the Democrats’ pledge that under a Democratic administration, the government would not use radiation-detecting equipment to search for dirty bombs? If so, that should make it a lot easier for millions of Americans to cast their votes in the 2008 election.
Likewise, I’d like to hear the Democrats stand up and say that they’re also going to terminate the NSA intercept program. It will make it a hell of lot easier for the electorate to choose sides.
Of the many legal analyses of the NSA’s wiretap program that I’ve read – at least the ones actually written by lawyers – John @ Power Line Blog appears to have the best breakdown of the legality of this program that I’ve seen:
There is no mystery about the legality of the NSA intercept program. It is intended to capture foreign intelligence information, including information about potential terrorist threats, and as such, every federal court that has addressed the issue has held that it is within the inherent constitutional power of the President as Commander in Chief. Everything else is immaterial.
This brings us back where we started, i.e., the Constitution. The only constitutional limitation on the President’s power to intercept communications by Americans for national security purposes is that such intercepts be “reasonable.” Is it reasonable for the administration to do all it can to identify the people who are communicating with known terrorists overseas, via the terrorists’ cell phones and computers, and to learn what terrorist plots are being hatched by those persons? Is it reasonable to do so even when—rather, especially when–some portion of those communications come from people inside the United States? I don’t find it difficult to answer those questions; nor, if called upon to do so, would the Supreme Court.
There are, of course, liberal law professors who would like the law to be different from what it is. They are free to develop theories according to which the Supreme Court, should it someday address this issue directly, would rule as they wish. But the administration is entitled to rely on the law as it currently exists. And there is simply no question about the fact that under the Constitution and all controlling precedents, the NSA intercept program is legal.
John Schmidt, who was one of Clinton’s Associate Attorneys General, writes in the Chicago Tribune:
President Bush’s post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.
It will be interesting to see in the coming years how this plays out. My prediction is that a Court of Appeals, unless it’s the 9th Circuit, will rule in favor of the President. The Supreme Court will likely do the same – but much hinges as well on some other cases that will be heard before this as I believe they will establish precedent that may be applicable in this case in terms of the wartime powers of the President under Article II.
American Future grabs this tidbit from the press briefing earlier this week with the Attorney General & General Hayden, the Deputy Director of National Intelligence and former Director of the National Security Agency:
Q Have you identified armed enemy combatants, through this program, in the United States?
GENERAL HAYDEN: This program has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States.
The text of the full briefing is available.
Bubblehead writes of Germany’s release of Mohammed Ali Hamadi:
I have a new standard by which I’ll measure the success or failure of the current Administration: whether or not this scumbag is still breathing in January 2009. Chapomatic makes pretty much all the points I’d make about the Germans freeing Mohammed Ali Hamadi, murderer of SW2(DV) Robert Stethem, in what they’re claiming was not a “terrorist for hostage” deal.
As much as I’d like to see Hamadi dead, I guess I wouldn’t mind too much if he’s just captured and returned to the U.S. to face trial and subsequent execution. And if he’s captured overseas, and our European allies make a big stink about flying him through their airspace, I know just the warship that should carry him here.
Where’s that missile equipped Predator when you need it?
I haven’t had the time or the right mindset yet to dig into the legal arguments surrounding the New York Time’s disclosure of the NSA Wiretaps of some US Citizens thought to be connected to Al-Qaeda, but I did enjoy this little tirade from Froggy:
So essentially what the liberals are saying is that the US should not monitor calls from known terrorists abroad to previously unknown US co-conspirators under any circumstances. They are proposing in essence that only calls to terrorist co-conspirators who are well known and under surveillance already can be monitored. The idea that the US should put its fingers in its own ears and repeat, “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you!” when terrorists communicate with their agents in the US is one of the most ridiculous and silly ideas that I have ever heard. Members of the Frogosphere already know that Democrats cannot be trusted with the security of the United States, but this highly political stance cannot be mistaken as anything other than the utterly irresponsible and laughably weak gesture that it is.
I am especially encouraged by the President’s rapid and forceful defense of this practice which has already compelled his leftist malefactors to take indefensible positions that they will undoubtedly regret at the ballot box. Timing the release of this story with the filibuster of the Patriot Act and the successful Iraqi elections demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the MSM and the radical left are one single purpose entity focusing on any possible method of attacking the President and prematurely ending his term. When Democrats make the same argument against wiretaps targeting terrorists trying to kill millions of Americans with eavesdropping on civil rights leaders and anti-war activists in the 1960’s one shudders at the implications of that level of timidity and cowardice.
When I get a chance to read the 20+ articles I have tabbed here in Firefox about this, I’ll spout off some more…
Former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giulani pens this editorial in the New York Times:
It is simply false to claim, as some of its critics do, that this bill does not respond to concerns about civil liberties. The four-year extension of the Patriot Act, as passed by the House, would not only reauthorize the expiring provisions – allowing our Joint Terrorism Task Force, National Counterterrorism Center and Terrorist Screening Center to continue their work uninterrupted – it would also make a number of common-sense clarifications and add dozens of additional civil liberties safeguards.
Concerns have been raised about the so-called library records provision; the bill adds safeguards. The same is true for roving wiretaps, “sneak and peek” searches and access to counsel and courts, as well as many others concerns raised by groups like the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Given these improvements, there is simply no compelling argument for going backward in the fight against terrorism. Perhaps a reminder is in order. The bipartisan 9/11 commission described a vivid example of how the old ways hurt us. In the summer of 2001, an F.B.I. agent investigating two individuals we now know were hijackers on Sept. 11 asked to share information with another team of agents. This request was refused because of the wall. The agent’s response was tragically prescient: “Someday, someone will die – and wall or not – the public will not understand why we were not more effective.”
How quickly we forget.
Looks like the CIA struck and took out a few enemies of the state.
How y’all feeling about those safe houses now?