I see a lot of "good" in the "fighting" about this...
but, I read on another thread that Peter Hoekstra feels that the NSA program is already dead...that what has already been revealed has effectively made it useless.
Therefore, all of this argueing and posturing, will be more for the "future" and the definition of Presidential powers as written in the Constitution, or it should be..IMHO.
Yikes....I just heard Fred Barnes, on the Beltway Boys say that he likes David Gregory...and even laughed and acted like Gregory did a good job ...
NOW, they are discussing the Peggy Noonan column...Mort disputing Peggy's theory that this would be a good time to replace Cheney...Fred saying that this would be the WORST thing for Bush to do...and that personally, he feels that Cheney is the best Vice President this country has had for years and years...
I never bought the argument that disclosure of a shift in legal policy caused a shift in methods of hiding communications.
BUT, I would buy that disclosure of the program put political pressure on the President to the extent he unilaterally decided to stop it. Might as well blame the leaker for the stopage. OTOH, if the program is effective and legal, it would be irresponsible to stop it. Since the administration is dug in on the "it's legal" point, the only way it can stop, and safe face, is to assert "no longer effective."
Therefore, all of this arguing and posturing, will be more for the "future" and the definition of Presidential powers as written in the Constitution, or it should be..IMHO.
The Constitution is brief, so the legal parameters are fleshed out in case-by-case decisions. See the old cases on habeas, now coming out of the woodwork for use in the war against terrorists. There's a whole body of case law waiting to be written for this new kind of war.