From A USA Today editorial, 12/18/05:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-12-18-our-view-nsa_x.htm
Want to snoop on Americans?
Get a court order.
After initially refusing to discuss whether he had authorized domestic
spying without court approval, President Bush decided to come clean.
He acknowledged over the weekend that such spying had taken place,
much as it was described in Friday's New York Times.
He argued that it was vital to thwart an enemy that knows no
boundaries.
The question this disclosure raises is not why an administration would
resort to extraordinary tactics during extraordinary times by engaging
in domestic intelligence gathering.
The deadly nature and sophistication of al-Qaeda provide compelling
answers to that.
It is, rather, why an administration would skirt existing procedures
for engaging in domestic intelligence gathering while showing such
blatant disregard for the restraints on presidential power that the
Founding Fathers imposed.
Federal law requires that a court warrant be obtained for domestic
spying.
Since the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
in 1978, the government has had a special court to review such
warrants in a manner consistent with the Constitution.
The court has approved virtually all of the thousands of such warrants
sought, often retroactively to allow swift action.
Ignoring this law and circumventing this court show an inexcusable
lack of respect for the two other branches of government, for the rule
of law, and for the individual liberties that our divided form of
government was designed to protect.
Perhaps some justification for this behavior will be provided during
hearings that Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has promised now that the
overly compliant, Republican-controlled Congress is finally displaying
some interest in oversight of the power-hungry executive branch.
For the time being, the administration has responded to its critics
with a woeful mix of generalities, a we-know-best attitude and a
regrettable blame-the-messenger attack on The Times for having broken
the story.
Not since the days when Richard Nixon was fighting the Cold War, the
Vietnam War and a rising tide of domestic unrest has an administration
felt so emboldened by circumstances to put itself above the law and
expand its powers unilaterally.
Then, as now, a decision to go around the law in the name of national
security or preserving presidential prerogatives can quickly descend
into widespread abuses.
In this latest case, the administration authorized the National
Security Agency to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails
of people within the USA without court approval.
It defends the practice by saying post-9/11 plots have been broken up.
These include the 2003 guilty plea of an Ohio truck driver named Iyman
Faris, who was accused of aiding a plan to blow up the Brooklyn
Bridge.
While it is essential that the government take action to stop such
attacks before they happen, the administration has yet to explain why
it needs to act without a warrant to accomplish this.
The administration has also turned its wrath on a familiar target: the
news media.
In his Saturday radio address, Bush said the disclosure by The Times
had provided information that terrorists could use to put Americans at
further risk.
Because so much about this domestic spying episode is cloaked in
secrecy, it is hard to fully evaluate this claim.
(The Times said it had held off publishing its story for a year -- an
eternity in the competitive news business -- to evaluate the national
security implications.)
Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that the issue of whether U.S. agents
conduct their intelligence gathering with court warrants or without
them would be of much interest to terrorists.
They must surely assume that the U.S. government is aggressively
trying to find them.
These terrorists are evil people.
They do not care much for our democratic way of life.
It would be a tragedy if we, and not they, undermined it.
______________________________________________________
President's oath of office;
The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1):
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/donors/solicit.php?http_referer=/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
The 4th Amendment states;
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Harry
.
|
