From Real Clear Politics:
To me, the bottom line of the NSA spying case is this: Congress should investigate whether President Bush has authority to conduct anti-terrorist data mining. And, if he doesn't, Congress should give it to him-with legislative oversight.
Kondrake's common sense is compelling. But my friend Chad Shuldte, at CCK, doesn't think so.
It's pretty pathetic when those who defend the President's practice of spying on Americans without a warrant start using the "it's not as bad as J. Edgar Hoover" exuse. It's wrong and it's against the law. End of story.
That last was addressed to me, though Chad doesn't seem to be talking to me anymore. Was it something I said? My point was that Bush's transgressions, if such they are, are mild by historical standards, and that its absurd to think that the President will be impeached for trying too hard to stop terrorists. Maybe he should be. He won't be. Unless Michael Chertoff turns out to be wrong. Kondrake writes:
"I think it's important to point out," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told me in an interview, "that there's no evidence that this is a program designed to achieve political ends or do something nefarious."
He was talking about the National Security Agency's warrantless "domestic spying" program, and I couldn't agree with him more. Despite the alarms sounded by the American Civil Liberties Union, former Vice President Al Gore and various Members domestic dissidents or innocent bystanders, Chertoff said. It's designed to find and stop terrorists.
I doubt very much whether it was wrong to listen in when persons in the U.S. are talking to known terrorist abroad. If it is against the law, Kondrake is right: the law should be changed.
But I urge Democrats to listen to Chad. Make this the central issue in the next election. Introduce articles of impeachment. I'm behind you! And for heaven's sake don't worry about this kind of thing:
What about the assertion in The New York Times on Tuesday that virtually all of the thousands of NSA leads sent to the FBI in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks led to dead ends or innocent persons? . . .
Buried at the bottom of the Times story were a number of cases where actual terrorist operations had been disrupted, apparently as a result of NSA eavesdropping, including efforts to smuggle a missile launcher into the United States, to cut Brooklyn Bridge cables with a blowtorch and an attempt to blow up a fertilizer bomb in London.
That will only confuse you. No doubt the voters will see the wisdom of your case.
Recent Comments