Posted by
richstacy on Monday, August 21, 2006 5:35:36 PM
Judge Taylor is wrong! It is inconceivable to me that any American citizen who values the safety of his or her family could oppose this surveillance program. This is not a law enforcement program to which the Fourth Amendment applies, it is an intelligence gathering program in time of war, governed by the inherent war powers of the executive.
Opposing sides in war have ALWAYS intercepted the communications of the enemy and it would constitute gross dereliction of duty to fail to do so now. It is no different from Grant intercepting the couriers of Robert E. Lee, or FDR intercepting the coded radio transmissions of the Nazis.
I'll tell you quite honestly, If my family died in another 9/11 or worse because some president -- any president -- failed to do what the Bush administration is doing, there would be no containing my outrage. And I daresay, that virtually all of the those gloating over this shortsighted district court decision would be screaming to high heaven for the heads of those who failed to act if their wives, and children died because of such failure to mind the national security interest, and failure to protect American citizens.
Judge Taylor's decision represents the opinion of one liberal Carter appointed federal district judge; nothing more. It doesn't mean a thing. It has already been stayed, and has no effect at all. The only surprise is that it took the ACLU this long to judge shop and find a liberal judge to rule this way. I would have thought that it would have happened months ago. The matter will shortly be determined on appeal. IN THE END, ONLY THE DECISION OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WILL MATTER HERE.
I predict the decision will be 4 to 4 with Justice Kennedy holding the swing vote. What he will do, I haven't a clue, though I suspect he will vote to uphold the program.
It is certainly NOT correct that this surveillance could have been done with a court order - that is ludicrous. In most cases, there is mere suspicion if that, not probable cause. Therefore there could be no court order, and no warrant could issue. Anyone who has ever spent weeks obtaining Title III warrants knows this, and knows the distinction between criminal law on the one hand, and national security on the other.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be listening to al Qaeda transmissions -- national security and our safety demands it -- just as it demanded we listen to coded German messages during WWII without a warrant. It would be dereliction of duty for any president to fail to do it. You can't connect the dots if you don't collect the dots.
I submit that such electronic eavesdropping is vastly less intrusive than the mindless and irrational probing of granny's preparation H by TSA.
If the Supremes toss it, which is possible, someday thousands of Americans will die as a result. If so, thank your friendly local chapter of the ACLU.
In the meantime, I expect the United States government to keep me and my family safe and to continue to monitor the electronic traffic of the people who are sworn to murder us in our sleep.