So you would have been A-OK with Bill Clinton wiretapping Americans? 'Cause that's not what the consensus opinion was on FR back when they toyed with the idea.
Just pointing out how opinion on presidential power did a 180 on this site when the clock hit 12:00 p.m. on January 20, 2001.
All Bush needs to do it go to a judge and get a warrant, like we've been doing for covert surveillance for years, and there wouldn't be any issue at all.
Reminder, we were not at war when Clinton was the President
How do you get a warrant issued on an unknown person/number? From what HAS been leaked about the program (thank you NYT), only calls to or from a know or suspected AQ member overseas have been monitored. So if he calls a contact in the US that we aren't aware of, how do you get a warrant to monitor that conversation? We don't NEED one for the overseas AQ suspect/target.
If he had done it against American phone conversations with known al Qaeda members, yes.
However, there also is a KEY difference between Clinton and Bush. Clinton demonstratably abused the process for political purposes - the FBI files being exhibit A. I have never seen any evidence of the Bush Admin doing such. Clinton poisoned the well early in his term regarding trusting him with such powers. Bush hasn't.
But I do think appropriate oversight of this process needs to be crafted to bring FISA into compliance with both separation of powers and with modern technology. Just to help make sure this cannot be abused.
Uh, my opinion on presidential power changed a few months later - at 9:03 AM EDT on Septebmer 11th, when the second tower was hit and it became clear we had been attacked by terrorists and were at war.
And what also subsequently became clear that Bush's predecessor never treated al Qaeda as a military problem but as a law enforcement problem. So with that viewpoint, he would be quite comfortable choosing to operate within the constraints of FISA.
And we also have seen just how ineffective the law-enforcement approach ended up being. Whereas Bush's military approach has chased al Qaeda to the corners of the globe. But they are still capable of calling from those remote regions to potential terror cells in this country. And they continually adapt their techniques to avoid survelliance, such as using prepaid cell phones.
Do you think it would be a wise use of antiterrorism resources to fill out FISA warrant applications for an endless stream of prepaid cell phones? Or should we sic the NSA survelliance apparatatus to run down plots discussed on those phones?
This is is a different situation. Our lives could be indanger if the president had to wait for 72 hours until a warrant is issued
I would date the 180 to about eight months later -- around 9 AM CDT, on September 11, 2001.
We are at war, silly.
During WW II, it was understood that all international telephone calls and telegrams were open to governmental surveillance. It was less understood, but still true, that ALL first class mail going into or out of the company was steamed open and read (and, if necessary, censored).
Gathering intelligence is a legitimate military activity. And it is NOT subject to the purview of the courts, anymore than the enemy can sue for injunctive relief.
If you're in communication with al-Qaeda, then your lines of communication shouldn't be "secure". If you're not in communication with a-Q, then you have nothing to worry about.
The same would be true if Clinton were President. Thank God, he's not.