Replies

A couple of links re: NSA "stuff":

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf <- CRS analysis (6 Jan 2006)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181012,00.html <- Harman Interview

Some disjointed excerpts from the transcript ...

HARMAN: The program we were briefed on ... was basically a foreign collection program. I still support that program. And I think the leak of that program to The New York Times and maybe elsewhere compromises national security. ...
But it was made clear to me that conversations between Americans in America were not part of the program and require -- and I think they do -- a court warrant in order to eavesdrop on them.
And that's been a point of confusion, because some of the press articles allege that this is a so-called, as you said, domestic surveillance program. That's not what I believe it is. ...
And I believe that that is what the law requires. I also believe that members of Congress should exercise oversight over programs like this. And there are questions about whether this program complies with the domestic laws we have. And if it doesn't, either it should be changed or they should be changed. ...
HUME: And let me ask your view on this. Let's assume we're talking here about a program that is as you originally described it or it was originally briefed to you -- that is, foreign individuals under surveillance, conversations to the United States or from the United States to them.
The Congressional Research Service -- a couple of researchers, really -- has come out and said that Congress -- just in a couple of quotes from their report which was issued a couple of days ago -- quote, "Congress does not appear to have authorized or acquiesced in such surveillance." [This is the CRS report linked above]
Later, "No legal precedent appears to have been presented that would support the president's authority to bypass the statutory route when legislation is required."
Question to you: Do agree with that assessment as to the program that you were originally briefed about?
HARMAN: [after a side discussion, concludes she neither agrees or disagrees - not enough facts to reach a conclusion] Now, the people writing these opinions don't know the specifics of the program, but they know enough about how the FISA court works and how criminal wiretap law works, so that they can opine about this. ...
HUME: Now, having said all that, does anything you know about this program, whether from being briefed about it or not, raise a question with you about whether this surveillance should have been undertaken? In other words, was this a necessary thing.
HARMAN: My answer to that is basically it is a necessary thing. We absolutely do want to know the plans and intentions of Al Qaedaand these copycat terrorist cells before they're able to attack us. It's a dangerous world. I think that the notion -- and by the way, you don't need a court warrant to do this -- that we are listening to Al Qaeda operatives abroad and trying to understand what they're planning to do is totally valid.
HUME: So if you're listening in on an Al Qaeda suspect overseas, and you're listening to all of his or her, as the case maybe, phone conversations, and suddenly he's on the phone to someone in the United States, or he's in the United States and you're listening, and he's talking to somebody in the United States, do you believe that you need, then, to shut the surveillance down and go to the FISA court to get it authorized, or to go there later, or what?
HARMAN: Well, I think that in the -- those conversations in the United States would be a perfect basis to get court approval. And there is a 72-hour delay mechanism in the FISA statute. So my answer to you is, number one, it is very important to learn the plans and intentions of our enemies.
And number two, we can do that within a legal framework that would give Americans comfort and actually give our court system comfort that the Fourth Amendment is being observed and that our system of laws that Congress has passed, including FISA, which was supposed to be the exclusive way to do electronic surveillance on Americans in America, are being observed.

And number two, we can do that within a legal framework that would give Americans comfort and actually give our court system comfort that the Fourth Amendment is being observed and that our system of laws that Congress has passed, including FISA, which was supposed to be the exclusive way to do electronic surveillance on Americans in America, are being observed

I'm sorry but this demonstrates a complete failure to even remotely understand how intelligence is gathered. This is NOT a case of a police official having evidence against a criminal. The way this works is not even REMOTELY like someone building a case against a criminal. There seems to be this refusal on the part of the Legal Establishment and it's advocates to consider that American Citizens conspiring with terrorist groups are now an enemy of, not a member of, our society. By conspiring with the terrorist the person is in a state of insurrection against the US Civil Authority. We, via the instrument of our Govt, have a right to protect ourselves from that threat. It is all very well for advocates of the Legal Establishment to cling to its dogma that the criminal is a citizen with rights. That dogma should NOT be applied to the terrorists.

Legal doctrine revolves around the concept that criminals are still citizens with rights. Terrorist have gone beyond criminality to being enemies of our society. They do not fit in the pat assumptions of the legal Establishment. Thankful the vast majority of the American Public is smarter then the Legal Establishment and refuse to fall for the notion that we must NEVER change anything in the law.

Sorry but Terrorism is one of the things that slips thru the cracks of the legal code. You cannot declare war on it but you cannot grant it all the protections the civil libertarian perfectionist and the knee jerk Bush Haters claim for it. Bush is advancing an idea of how to deal with the problem. Clinging blindly to per 9-11 law and attempting to expand that law to cover Terrorism is a fools choice. Bush looked at the problem, looked at the law and said here is how I view it. YOU personally disagree. FINE. That is YOUR opinion NOT the Law. The Law really is not structured on how to deal with terrorism.

People have got to get over their knee jerk Bush hate and deal with the reality that new law has to be made to deal with the problem. Law is NOT carved in stone, it evolves. Pity the knee jerk Bush haters would rather use this as another excuse to attack Bush rather then help develop the legal structures to deal with this emerging problem. Such a pity so many wish to cling to their 9-10 mindset in a post 9-11 world.