Posted on 10/28/2007 11:24:36 AM PDT by ventanax5
For one who recently returned from Europe, where a colleague and I interviewed an array of domestic security officials in key European democracies, it is a bit of an out-of-body experience to examine the various bills now pending on Capitol Hill that aim to govern how the U.S. government conducts foreign electronic surveillance. While the exact mechanisms for intercepts and wiretaps vary from nation to nation, the overwhelming standard for such collection in Europe is simple: Does it make sense to target someone for surveillance, and is it, on its face, reasonable to do? Overwhelmingly, the judgment about whether it is reasonable is left in the hands of either the executive or an investigating magistrate. Any oversight is minimal.
Now, this may not be a path Americans would particularly want our own government to follow. But it is a useful reminder that there is more than one way for a democracy to address the issue of electronic surveillance and civil liberties.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
“Who shall guard the guardians?”
“We take for granted the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
Jimmy Carter’s Attorney General, Griffin Bell, asserted asserted the same when FISA was passed during the Carter Administration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.