now is not the time to be playing games with our national security and trying to score political points on the bush administration. the democrats are engaged in this effort to bring down the president of the united states any way they can. some are even floating the idea of impeachment, like barbara boxer and john lewis. any presidential abuse of power should be harshly punished and would be considered an impeachable offense in my book. however, that’s not what happened here with the wiretapping/NSA situation.
Moreover, where is the historical precedent for a commander-in-chief, especially during war, being required to ask permission from a court to spy on the enemy, including intercepting communications? Did Abraham Lincoln (Civil War), Woodrow Wilson (World War I), FDR/Harry Truman (World War II), Ike (Korean War), and/or JFK/LBJ/Richard Nixon (Vietnam War) use probable cause as the basis for intercepting enemy communications? Did they go to court each time and ask permission from a judge to intercept foreign intelligence? Of course not. And as pointed out by Byron York and others, recent presidents such as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton have all issued presidential orders making clear that while they will attempt to follow FISA, they retain their inherent constitutional authority to gather foreign intelligence, protect our national security, and wage war. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to al-Qaeda terrorists as they conspire to blow up our cities.
what he said. the president has the constitutional authority to do what he did.
he goes on to say:
The president has not acted in a reckless or lawless way. He has sought and received extensive legal advice from scores of legal experts, many of whom are no doubt civil servants. He has numerous internal checks built into the process, requiring a constant review of procedures. And despite the pronouncements of some on the Hill, certain members of Congress were briefed, i.e., it’s not as if they weren’t aware of the program. Sometimes a president has to do what’s right in his eyes and be prepared to defend it, as Bush is now. We used to call that leadership.
other legal eagles agree, including john schmidt, who was associate attorney general from 1994-1997 under president clinton.
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.
In the Supreme Court’s 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president’s authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
it’s important to note that no actual cases of abuse of the patriot act and its provisions have been alleged, simply the hypothetical possibility of such abuses taking place. also, according to a CNN/gallup/usa today poll… only 34 percent of the public thinks that the patriot act goes too far. sixty-two percent approve of it (44 percent) or think it doesn’t go far enough (18 percent).
(hat tip: nro)
yet some democrats have the temerity to ignore their own personal disregard for privacy (including chuck schumer and his interest in michael steele’s credit records) and act shocked and outraged that the president might want to authorize surveillance on suspected terrorists. it is understandable to be concerned that a president or a government would have the legal right and the desire to listen to our personal phone calls and read our emails. i am concerned about that, but according to what we know right now, it doesn’t seem that any law has been abused in the execution of this program.
the weekly standard’s mackubin thomas owens has more on that point here. i’ll give him the (almost) last word.
Today, once again we face the perennial tension between vigilance and responsibility as the United States is the target of those who would destroy it. In all decisions involving tradeoffs between two things of value, the costs and benefits of one alternative must be measured against the costs and benefits of the other. At a time when the United States faces an adversary that wishes nothing less than America’s destruction, President Bush is correctly taking his bearing from Lincoln, who understood that in time of war, prudence dictates that responsibility must trump vigilance. In response to criticism of his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, Lincoln asked, “. . . are all the laws but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?” Lincoln’s point is as applicable today as it was during the Civil War. If those responsible for the preservation of the republic are not permitted the measures to save it, there will be nothing left to be vigilant about.
i agree with that. if there needs to be changes in the patriot act to better protect the civil liberties of US citizens, fine. the democrats should go ahead and propose those changes. just don’t completely throw away legislation that will help to keep us safe from terrorism simply because one part or another is not acceptable. do you really want to fix the patriot act or do you want to kill it completely? that’s the question to the democrats. make up your minds, gentlemen. choose one position on something.
related:
Privacy hypocrisy–michelle malkin
Patriot Act Showdown–opinionjournal.com
September 10 America— the excellent editorial from national review online