Intelligence Court: Illegal Wiretapping Legal
A federal intelligence court is expected to disclose a ruling Thursday saying that the program implemented by the Bush administration to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a court order, even when Americans’ private communications may be involved, is legal.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review has only disclosed two other rulings in history. The far majority of the court’s decisions, then, are secret.
If the report at the New York Times about the matter is correct, ruling about the wiretapping program, which was made in December 2008, will give a major boost to the Bush administration while its most aggressive critics will be delivered a massive blow. Bush et al. were criticized for years; most liberals assumed the program to be illegal. It now seems that the only court that reviewed the matter disagrees.
And so the debate among historians will kick off; perhaps Bush will be justified nonetheless, or at least seen in less bad light than his most passionate critics thought and hoped for years. History may not judge Bush as kindly as he hopes, but it may not be as unkind to him as liberals hope either. At least when this particular subject is concerned, Bush and Congress did not overreach.
The war on terrorism in the tools used to fight it will be up to debate for years to come. This particular program, however, may very well be used by the U.S. government for years to come; if the program is legal, and the court says it is, there is no reason to abolish it, especially not if it helped protect Americans and saved American lives. History may yet vindicate Bush, at least partially. And if history doesn’t, perhaps courts will.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
The following is from the New York Times story that this post was written about:
Additionally the comments to this article were 10 to 1 against this foolishness. The following are the three most recommended comments to the NYT about this article.
Obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinions on this ruling BUT facts are facts and the Fourth Amendment DOES NOT contain exemptions… any exemptions.
Note: EMPHASIS in the NY Times quotes are mine.
Right. Because clearly the comments section of a web site is a much better source for constitutional interpretation than a court of law.
I have heard of cherry-picking your sources, Steve K, but you really take the cake with this one.
Jason,
The reason I included the “most recommended” comments was to give an idea of what the majority think of the speculation surrounding a yet to be made public court decision… In my opinion the report in the NYT does not say what Michael’s article seems to say that it says.
The NYT story said: The opinion DOES NOT directly rule on the legality of the once-secret operation authorized by President Bush between October 2001 and early 2007 and it MAY (& therefore MAY NOT) offer legal credence to the Bush administration’s repeated assertions.
The NYT story also said that the court “found that the Protect America Act did not violate the Constitution because the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, contained an exception for the collection of foreign intelligence information.” and that simply IS NOT the case. Judicial Activism anyone?
.
NYT stories are worse sources for the interpretation of Con law than even their comment sections. And Lichtblau, who first started the hue and cry on this subject, is hardly an impartial source either.
I’ll wait to see the actual opinion, but I’d be less than startled to find that Lichtblau’s description of the August ruling was less than accurate as to the constitutional source of the exception.
Jason, I was not cherry picking, my only source was the one provided in the article.
I think picking out the comments and acting as if they trumped the analysis of the actual court was what I was talking about, Steve.
I bet Greenwald is apoplectic, though. He’s even a lawyer. You might pick him to quote from next time, though I doubt his opinion carries any more weight than any other activist who denies the reality of intelligence gathering. LOL
I think that your continuing to try and keep this discussion about my alleged cherry-picking rather than the validity of the story speaks volumes.
I explained my reasons for including, as an afterthought, an sampling of the “most recommended” comments… Then I tried to bring the discussion back to the article itself. I guess that didn’t come through in my comment #3. LOL
.