The New York Times is forced to admit that President Bush’s use of wiretaps to collect actionable intelligence in the war on terror as an incident to his Article II war powers, was, well: Constitutional:
A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, issued a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a specific court order, even when Americans’ private communications may be involved.
The decision marks the first time since the disclosure of the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program three years ago that an appellate court has addressed the constitutionality of the federal government’s wiretapping powers. In validating the government’s wide authority to collect foreign intelligence, it may offer legal credence to the Bush administration’s repeated assertions that the president has the power to act without specific court approval in ordering national security eavesdropping that may involve Americans.
I bet that hurt.
Still. It was a useful club while it lasted.
Imagine that.
“It was a useful club while it lasted.”
Doesn’t mean that it ISN’T still going on. They (the NSA) may just me more selective in whom they are letting to be in the know these days….
Can one appeal to the Supreme Court or does it stop there?
Anyone with half a brain didn’t need to see this ruling to know what they did was legal. It was just the deranged and deluded that had a problem with it.
Alas, it isn’t their worst, or even most pressing problem.
You know, I could care less if they listen in. I don’t know a single soul that I would call overseas (mail a few, sure) but if I did, listen away if you wish to be bored.
Staging, blog buddies, it’s staging. Notice the timing? Guess what “The One” will be able to do, now that it’s…you know…legal.
Me? Cynical….ah, yeppers!
“I don’t know a single soul that I would call overseas…”
heh. I’m on a conference call for retail operations twice a week. My mother was impressed when she listened in (while on the speaker phone). The call has people from UK, Malaysia, Australia, Thailand, and Houston and Dallas in the U.S. If they listen in on the same drivel for 30+ minutes, twice a week, rehashing the S.O.S. every freaking time, I’m sure some analyst at the NSA is doing what I am doing…. screaming at the phone (on mute) with “GET ON WITH IT YOU MORONS. FIX THE !$@%#&@ APPLICATION AND YOU WON’T HAVE THOSE ISSUES.” Twice a week. For 30+ plus minutes each time. Sheesh. At least I get paid to waste my time listening in…….
And to think, many moons ago when I was young and naive, I thought international teleconferencing would say “you have arrived”. Now I wonder WHERE I have arrived. It HAS to be some circle of Dante’s Inferno………
JoeC,
“It was a useful club while it lasted.”
I assumed that Lex meant the “club” was the way the NYT used that issue, among others, to beat GWB about the head and shoulders.
Skippy wants to take this decision to the Supreme Court to be overturned, and I want to take the head people at the N.Y. Times to court on charges relating to exposure of State secrets during wartime = treason, based on the decision we just got.
I have a lot of trouble understanding Skippy’s viewpoints.
Skippy can speak for himself, guys, but to be fair he might have been wondering if the other side has standing to appeal or if Congress wrote it so the FISA Intelligence court is the last resort in special cases like this–cause I’ve seen it argued both ways.
Where is a good JAG officer when you need one? All on the set of TVs’ “JAG” “advising?”
Sheesh. At least I get paid to waste my time listening in…….
My poor husband isn’t even compensated for the phone calls like you describe to Taiwan, China and the PI. All part of the salary job (at 9 pm)… Yeah, pay some poor slub to listen in!
I’m simply asking if that is the end of the legal line-there’s no advocacy in that question. If it is a court of appeals-it would seem that people that brought the lawsuit could appeal to the Supreme Court, but maybe they can’t.
Skippy: i don’t know the answer, but it would all depend on exactly how Congress established that particular court and what jurisdiction it gave it. it could be that the did (or not) allow for an appeal path to SCOTUS. either way, if the established path is contrary to your fancy, then the fault (praise) would lay with Congress.
They gotta change their stance on this before His Holiness gets sworn in so Husain, Obama can use this while he is in office. Makes perfect sense: double standard as usual!
Skippy:
Not a lawyer but, if they can come up with some grounds they can probably appeal BUT the Supreme Court decides which cases they will hear or not. Somehow I assume that, given the “gravity” of this issue and an opportunity to shed some judicial light into the darkness, they would take the case. Once they rule – game over until you rewrite the Constitution.
Legal experts weigh in and correct any mis-information this public school civic class education informed opinion has dispensed.
Now the way is cleared for the Obama Administration to do it.
The only party allowed to break the law and get away with it is the Democrats. Just understand, they do it for a higher cause. The Republicans do it simply because they are evil. Every Democrat is familiar with this self evident fact.