Beating The WaPo Like A Bongo Drum
Today, David Broder offered up this bit of idiocy.
No member of the Senate is more conservative than Sam Brownback of Kansas -- a loyal Republican, an ardent opponent of abortion and, not coincidentally, a presidential hopeful for 2008.
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, he has supported President Bush on every one of his court appointments. He is not one to find fault with the administration.
And that is why the misgivings he expressed Monday about the surveillance policies Bush has employed in the war on terrorism are so striking. Along with three other Republicans and all eight of the committee Democrats, Brownback emerged as part of a potential majority that could insist that Bush come back to Congress for authority to continue the wiretaps -- but under court supervision.
In questioning Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Brownback said, "It strikes me that we're going to be in this war on terrorism possibly for decades . . . [and] to have another set of eyes also looking at this surveillance technique is an important thing in maintaining the public's support for this."
What Brownback put in gentle terms is exactly the issue that clearly troubled all but six of the 18 senators in the hearing -- the absence of any external checks on the secret wiretapping the president ordered after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Gonzales, in his testimony, made an effective rhetorical point by citing examples going back to Washington, Lincoln, Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt of presidents ordering interception of wartime communications -- on their own authority. But as several senators pointed out, those actions all came before the Supreme Court applied the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches" to telephone calls and before Congress in 1978 responded to the scandals of secret FBI wiretapping by enacting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), declaring such intercepts illegal except as approved by a specially constituted court.
Now, one can forgive David Broder. He isn't a lawyer, and knowing the MSM, he hasn't done his homework. The courts have upheld the president's powers. In 1970, Clay was a benchmark case, and one in which the courts ruled that federal statutes prohibiting wiretapping do not "[forbid] he President, or his representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence in the national interest." In 1972, United States v. US District Court stated that the warrant requirement would “unduly frustrate” the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations. In 1974, the court ruled in Butenko that no judicial warrant was necessary where "surveillances ... were 'conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information. And, in 1980 the court said the following in Truong:
In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs.
Finally, we end up In re Sealed Case 02-001. The 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that, "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
Here's a hint for anyone else in the MSM before they attempt to tackle this legal argument. Either do your homework, or have a lawyer present when you address it. Speaking out on an issue that you don't even have the basics about is not only foolish, but kills your credibility.
Publius II
Today, David Broder offered up this bit of idiocy.
No member of the Senate is more conservative than Sam Brownback of Kansas -- a loyal Republican, an ardent opponent of abortion and, not coincidentally, a presidential hopeful for 2008.
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, he has supported President Bush on every one of his court appointments. He is not one to find fault with the administration.
And that is why the misgivings he expressed Monday about the surveillance policies Bush has employed in the war on terrorism are so striking. Along with three other Republicans and all eight of the committee Democrats, Brownback emerged as part of a potential majority that could insist that Bush come back to Congress for authority to continue the wiretaps -- but under court supervision.
In questioning Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Brownback said, "It strikes me that we're going to be in this war on terrorism possibly for decades . . . [and] to have another set of eyes also looking at this surveillance technique is an important thing in maintaining the public's support for this."
What Brownback put in gentle terms is exactly the issue that clearly troubled all but six of the 18 senators in the hearing -- the absence of any external checks on the secret wiretapping the president ordered after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Gonzales, in his testimony, made an effective rhetorical point by citing examples going back to Washington, Lincoln, Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt of presidents ordering interception of wartime communications -- on their own authority. But as several senators pointed out, those actions all came before the Supreme Court applied the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches" to telephone calls and before Congress in 1978 responded to the scandals of secret FBI wiretapping by enacting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), declaring such intercepts illegal except as approved by a specially constituted court.
Now, one can forgive David Broder. He isn't a lawyer, and knowing the MSM, he hasn't done his homework. The courts have upheld the president's powers. In 1970, Clay was a benchmark case, and one in which the courts ruled that federal statutes prohibiting wiretapping do not "[forbid] he President, or his representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence in the national interest." In 1972, United States v. US District Court stated that the warrant requirement would “unduly frustrate” the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations. In 1974, the court ruled in Butenko that no judicial warrant was necessary where "surveillances ... were 'conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information. And, in 1980 the court said the following in Truong:
In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs.
Finally, we end up In re Sealed Case 02-001. The 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that, "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
Here's a hint for anyone else in the MSM before they attempt to tackle this legal argument. Either do your homework, or have a lawyer present when you address it. Speaking out on an issue that you don't even have the basics about is not only foolish, but kills your credibility.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 7:22 PM
1 Comments:
The fewer member of Congress that need to know about out Intel, the safer we are. I thought Barr went to work the aclu. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home