Google

WWW ISOU




Like ISOU? Make a Donation!


Connect
View David Anderson's profile on LinkedIn
Categories
Recent Entries
 

« Two Posts of Note from Crooks and Liars | Main | I love Kate! »

January 26, 2006
Why Change the Law, when you can just ignore it?

From WAPO:

The Bush administration rejected a 2002 Senate proposal that would have made it easier for FBI agents to obtain surveillance warrants in terrorism cases, concluding that the system was working well and that it would likely be unconstitutional to lower the legal standard.

The proposed legislation by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) would have allowed the FBI to obtain surveillance warrants for non-U.S. citizens if they had a "reasonable suspicion" they were connected to terrorism -- a lower standard than the "probable cause" requirement in the statute that governs the warrants.

The administration has contended that it launched a secret program of warrantless domestic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency in part because of the time it takes to obtain such secret warrants from federal judges under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The wiretapping program, ordered by President Bush in 2001, is used when intelligence agents have a "reasonable basis to believe" that a target is tied to al Qaeda or related groups, according to recent statements by administration officials. It can be used on U.S. citizens as well as foreign nationals, without court oversight.

Democrats and national security law experts who oppose the NSA program say the Justice Department's opposition to the DeWine legislation seriously undermines arguments by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and others, who have said the NSA spying is constitutional and that surveillance warrants are often too cumbersome to obtain.

"It's entirely inconsistent with their current position," said Philip B. Heymann, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration who teaches law at Harvard University. "The only reason to do what they've been doing is because they wanted a lower standard than 'probable cause.' A member of Congress offered that to them, but they turned it down."

Cole has more, including some counter arguments.

Like John, I am not a lawer, so I feel ill equipted to discuss this with anything more than a general comment. I am sick and tired of this government "interpreting," the law in any way they like. There is enough questioning of this spying on both sides of the aisle for me to be uncomfortable with it. At minimum, there needs to be thorough bi-partisan hearings before the American Public on this issue.

Hat Tip Crooks and Liars

Posted by David A at January 26, 2006 11:32 AM
Filed Under Domestic Spying | 381 Words
Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.grupo-utopia.com/blog/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1373

Comments
Post a comment

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.)


Remember me?

Subscribe to this comment thread.


 
Finalist For the Third Straight Year!
2006finalist170bn0.gif

Second Place! - Latin America, Caribbean and South America!



2005 Weblog Awards Finalist!
wa_finalist150.jpg


2004 Weblog Awards Finalist!
200wde_2004WeblogAwds_Fnl1.jpg


Get the Best for your Ad Dollar


Get the Best Bang for your Buck!


advertise_liberally.gif


Navigation
scan00038fz.jpg
Search
Technorati search
Meta
Movable Type 3.2
Logo by Zencomix
Template by Rogue
Stats