Acidus wrote:

Who is listening-in on your phone calls? Probably nobody. Right now, there is huge interest in phone tapping in the United States because the Bush Administration (through the National Security Agency) was caught listening in without appropriate court orders. What I have noticed is that, for all the talking and writing on this subject, there seems to be very little real information being presented. So this column is my attempt to share what I've learned about the topic. It might surprise you.

Gold star

Is a Gold star assigned by... typing gold star?

k wrote:
[ Whatever. Cringley has never impressed me overmuch, and he hasn't changed my mind with this. He equivocates on the legality issue by arguing that these warrantless taps would have been disapproved by the FISA process, so Bush did it anyway.

I'm as fond of life as the next guy and I don't want it vaporized by a terrorist, but I'm completely unwilling to accept that this permanent war we've gotten ourselves into gives the Executive free reign to do whatever occurs to him. -k]

I make no guess as to why Bush decided that FISA was unnecessary.

Cringley's position that Bush believed that the wiretaps would not have been approved is interesting to me in that its one of the more probable theories for his actions I heard. However I didn't walk away from this article with the impression that Cringley believes "the Executive free reign to do whatever occurs to him."

I don't think equivocating is wrong either. I'm trying to find the article now (stupid Memestreams search engine...) and it has been a month or so but as I remember the legality of this boils down to things in the meaning of words in FICA like "nation" and "foreign power" and the 4th Ammendment vs. Article II. While lawyers I've talked with both right and left differ on their personal opinion, all have agreed it will be an interesting case. In those waters I have no problem with someone not deciding legality of Bush's actions.

Acidus wrote:

I make no guess as to why Bush decided that FISA was unnecessary.

Cringley's position that Bush believed that the wiretaps would not have been approved is interesting to me in that its one of the more probable theories for his actions I heard. However I didn't walk away from this article with the impression that Cringley believes "the Executive free reign to do whatever occurs to him."

I don't think equivocating is wrong either. I'm trying to find the article now (stupid Memestreams search engine...) and it has been a month or so but as I remember the legality of this boils down to things in the meaning of words in FICA like "nation" and "foreign power" and the 4th Ammendment vs. Article II. While lawyers I've talked with both right and left differ on their personal opinion, all have agreed it will be an interesting case. In those waters I have no problem with someone not deciding legality of Bush's actions.

True, Cringley certainly wasn't coming out on either side... the second sentence I wrote was my own editorializing.

I guess I had already come to the conclusion that the president at least *believed* FISA would reject the taps or he really would have had no reason to do what he did. I'm not such a hater that I think Bush does things *just* because he feels he can get away with it. As to the specific reason for FISA's likely disapproval, I haven't the expertise to speculate. Anyway, that's why I didn't see the observation as especially astute. The historical information on previous government intercept programs is likewise the subject of much debate, but ultimately, I think, the past cases offer greater support to the notion that the president acted incorrectly.

Now, I can't make a legal argument since I'm not a lawyer. Still, from what I've seen, opinions on this issue aren't the perfectly partisan divide we've come to expect, with a number of prominent conservatives expressing concerns. Possibly they're just looking for ways to seem moderate in the waning years of Bush's presidency, but I'm taking it all as an indication that there are very serious doubts about the validity of the president's actions. I guess we'll see. At least, I hope so. -k]

what bothers me about the Cringley piece is the naivety

But does it really matter? I didn't know whether to be outraged or bored
...
It looks like the difference between using a rifle or a shotgun

surely the point of judicial overview is not only to stop the shotgun/trawler approach but also to stop a Stasi style file on every citizen particularly opposition politicians, journalists and thinkers. Its an infringement of free speech not just the 4th amendment and bare in mind the power to do this, if legal, will apply to all future Presidents so it isn't about your view of Bush its about whether the executive should have such power without judicial review. I thought u Americans believed in the separation of powers!

adam wrote:

I thought u Americans believed in the separation of powers!

So did I, adam. So did I.