February 3, 2006
The Deeply Unbiased and Fair-Minded Antique Media
Here are a pair of paragraphs from the Reuters story on Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, declaring that the NSA al-Qaeda intercept program is "legal, necessary, reasonable and within the president's powers." (The quote is Reuters', not Roberts'.)
The administration, which refers to the eavesdropping as a limited "terrorist surveillance program," says it is justified by Bush's constitutional authority as commander in chief and by the authorization of military force that Congress granted the president after the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.
Democrats and other critics say the NSA program could violate constitutional protections against unreasonable searches, as well as the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to seek wiretap warrants from a secret court even during times of war.
What a difference a verb makes!
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, February 3, 2006, at the time of 2:58 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/457
Comments
The following hissed in response by: Gbear
"Depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
W.J.Blythe-Clinton - 1998
The above hissed in response by: Gbear ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://biglizards.net/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 3, 2006 6:02 PM
The following hissed in response by: RBMN
I think the President's constitutional War Powers clearly trump FISA (if his War Powers even conflict with FISA, in the current situation) when the executive branch is collecting war-related intelligence. But imagine...if the text of FISA had a flat restriction on all same-sex marriage buried deep in the small print. The Left would be racing to the US Supreme Court, trying to have FISA declared unconstitutional. Might be hard to do. But in the case of the President’s War Powers, the Constitution actually spells out his/her authority in a time of war. You don’t have to extrapolate from the penumbra of an inference of a sub-clause to get there. You just read from the text.
The above hissed in response by: RBMN at February 3, 2006 6:13 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)
(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved
)
