How to ‘Connect the Dots’

www.nationalreview.com ^ | 1/30/06 | ANDREW McCARTHY

[dervish]

Washington’s scandal du jour involves a wartime surveillance program President Bush directed the National Security Agency to carry out after al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001. The idea that there is anything truly scandalous about this program is absurd. But the outcry against it is valuable, highlighting as it does the mistaken assumption that criminal-justice solutions are applicable to national-security challenges.

The intelligence community has identified thousands of al-Qaeda operatives and sympathizers throughout the world. After Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of military force immediately following the 9/11 attacks, the president, as part of the war effort, ordered the NSA to intercept the enemy’s international communications, even if those communications went into and out of the United States and thus potentially involved American citizens. According to reports from the New York Times, which shamefully publicized leaks of the program’s existence in mid-December 2005, as many as 7,000 suspected terrorists overseas are monitored at any one time, as are up to 500 suspects inside the U.S.

As is typical of such wartime operations, the NSA program was classified at the highest level of secret information. It was, nevertheless, completely different from the kind of rogue intelligence operations of which the Nixon era is emblematic (though by no means the only case). The Bush administration internally vetted the program, including at the Justice Department, to confirm its legal footing. It reviewed (and continues to review) the program every 45 days. It briefed the bipartisan leadership of Congress (including the intelligence committees) at least a dozen times. It informed the chief judge of the federal Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the tribunal that oversees domestic national-security wiretapping. And it modified the program in mid-2004 in reaction to concerns raised by the chief judge, national-security officials, and government lawyers.

'snip'

[dervish]

excellent review of all the reasons this was wholly permissable

[phoenix0468]

Also an excellent review of why the NY-Ts is a bunch of traitors for revealing this surveillance to the terrorists.

[ops33]

In some ways this is moot. The terrorists are not stupid; they have already moved onto some other form of communications. If, and when, they are ready for a new attack I could see them stepping up the methods of communication that NSA had been tracking in order to confuse us and send our folks after false leads.

[HiTech RedNeck]

It's also difficult to believe that if people from al-Qaeda are calling buddies in the States to set up more mischief, they aren't using some strong privately developed version of voice encryption anyhow. So all the gummint can tell is that Mo called Joe, but has no idea what about.

[T. Buzzard Trueblood]

Bump.

[dervish]

are they that sophisticated? Disposable cell phones are pretty low tech.

[Just Lori]

As Bush said in KS, "If I was going to do something illegal, why would I inform congress?" Whoever leaked this truly needs to face a harsh punishment.

[swmobuffalo]

Is there any other way to view the article? I don't subscribe.

[dervish]

you have mail

[Boot Hill]

FTM2_Magill:   "it scares me that ANY politician thinks it is okay to suspend a citizen's rights."

No citizen's rights have been suspended. The bare words of the 4th Amendment do not guarantee you will be free from warrantless searchs, only to be free from unreasonable searches. The exceptions to the usual warrant requirement are rare, but the present case of the NSA intercepts is one of those exceptions.

"However, because of the President's constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm what we held in United States v. Clay, supra, that the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence."

--United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (1973)

"We agree with the district court that the Executive Branch need not always obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance."

--U.S. v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 913 (1980)

"Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."

--United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (1984)

"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent [constitutional] authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

--In re Sealed Case, 310, F3d. 717, 742 (2002)

[NonValueAdded]

bttt

[dervish]

Thank you.

I knew someone smarter than me would be able to answer that post.

Life is a near absolute Constitutional right and Liberty is a limited one.

FTM2_Magill welcome to FR.

[John O]

I think they're writing about you.

[Revolting cat!]

._._._._._._._

[connectthedots]

I have a very appropriate screen name.

[John O]

I agree