Did you -read- the editorial? The part that quotes legal opinion? Some of which I quoted?

Sure the WSJ editorial page is conservative. Does that change the nature of the legal opionions they cite or are you just ready to hand-wave it all away and slap a label of "hypocricy" on it?

You might want to take a look at this. So yeah, it is one part hypocrisy, one misdirection and one CONSERVATIVE Opinion.

Sheesh. Hinderaker asks, quite politely I might add, for details on Stone's reasoning, not wishing to assume anything, and he gets a snark in response, a name calling, and, oh by the way, a curt response. Any wonder why Powerline doesn't do comments?

The Truong Dinh Hung case may indeed be pre-FISA, but it was cited by a FISA appeals court (as, again, the quote I used noted). They asserted that the President does have inherent authority to warrantless searches in cases of national security. So doesn't matter whether the Hung case was pre-FISA or not; the FISA judges considered it pertinent and on-point.

And yes, even warrantless searches of US citizens has been done, with not nearly the uproar from the Left. Aldrich Ames, anyone? (Oh darn; there's that Clinton angle again.)

Doug, Truong was NOT a U.S. Citizen, which is the main point. The second point and you seem to be missing the irony here...

the FISA judges considered it pertinent and on-point. Judges.... One resigned today in protest to Bush's trampling of the constitution and due process, how do you explain that... Oh I know, the Judge in Question was a Clinton Appointee...

A final point, if you and other conservatives want Bush to have blanket access to your email and phone conversations, send him your password. Me, I am an American Citizen living in Costa Rica, who dissagrees with Bush and has Muslim friends who are U.S. citizens who call and email me... Now I often wonder has someone been reading my emails or listening in on my conversations. As a law abiding citizen and someone who loves my country, I should NOT have to even think about that.

And please dont give me the line about "if I am innocent I have nothing to worry about!" I dont worry about the content of those conversations, I am outraged that my privacy may have been violated. I am shocked that YOU ARE NOT.

Dave, please read the whole comment. Aldrich Ames was a US citizen. Had the whole warrantless search thing happen to him. Aren't you glad he was caught?

I find it oh so coincidental that this judge's principles prompted him to quit years after this program started, and the day after it hit the press. Convenient.

The Times article was pretty clear that the wiretaps were prompted by phone numbers retrieved from a terrorist's cell phone and computer. That was the intelligence used for the wiretaps. I don't phone terrorists, and I assume you don't either. Therefore there's no need to wonder if your line's been listened in on. Hyperbole, dude.

I'm always a concerned when government appears to be encroaching on privacy. However, with all the oversight, Congressional notification, and, as I said, even voluntarily suspending the program specifically because of legality concerns, I really don't feel too upset over this. I am glad that they were listening in when someone planned to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge and thwarted it. Are you?

And if it does turn out that this was all legal, can I assume you'll be just as outraged over this national security leak, and call for the frog march of the leaker, and sugget that Time reporter Risen never write another article? Can we expect to see a special category of your blog labelled something like "NSA Wiretap Leak" where we can keep abreast of developments? In short, will you be consistent in your outrage?

You may also want to read a note from one of the guys who worked on the Truong case. Excerpt:

As you may have seen if you read the list of counsel in the Truong case, I was one of the government's lawyers. Although our months-long warrantless wiretap was conducted before FISA was passed, the case was decided afterwards. In a footnote, the Court, through Winter, J. (a liberal Democrat) plainly implies that the wiretap, which it unanimously held passed muster under Fourth Amendment standards, would do so as well under FISA's.

Please try to get past the idea that this note was sent to a conservative blog and judge it on its merits. This was in peacetime, no less.

Please note the paragraph stating that the Fourth Amendment, which deals with US citizens, can indeed be trumped by "exigent circumstances." This according to the Supreme Court (another legal opinion).

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Subscribe to this comment thread.

Comments: