Comments on: NSA wiretaps: Why was the existing secret warrant system circumvented? http://www.randomfate.net/MT/2005/12/19/nsa-wiretaps-why-was-the-existing-secret-warrant-system-circumvented/ One more roll of the dice... Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:00:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Random Fate http://www.randomfate.net/MT/2005/12/19/nsa-wiretaps-why-was-the-existing-secret-warrant-system-circumvented/#comment-4011 Random Fate Tue, 20 Dec 2005 06:12:39 +0000 http://www.randomfate.net/MT/?p=1762#comment-4011 [...] I’ve been trying to reconcile the recent revelation regarding the authorization given by the President of the United States for the National Security Agency (aka the NSA) to monitor communications by US citizens without warrants, even those authorized by the FISA courts, which are almost notorious in their refusal to deny permissions for wiretaps. [...] [...] I’ve been trying to reconcile the recent revelation regarding the authorization given by the President of the United States for the National Security Agency (aka the NSA) to monitor communications by US citizens without warrants, even those authorized by the FISA courts, which are almost notorious in their refusal to deny permissions for wiretaps. [...]

]]> By: William Jouris http://www.randomfate.net/MT/2005/12/19/nsa-wiretaps-why-was-the-existing-secret-warrant-system-circumvented/#comment-4009 William Jouris Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:44:58 +0000 http://www.randomfate.net/MT/?p=1762#comment-4009 This appears to be justifiable only this way: The President can ignore any law that he finds inconvenient (or maybe just dislikes) any time that he believes that he is waging a war. Even if it was not subject to a Congressional Declaration of War. In short, the President is above the law. On the other hand, if one believes that nobody is above the law, two things should happen immediately: - The Congress should determine who gave the president legal advice on this. And if anyone told him what he was doing was legal, they should be disbarred. - If the President does not have such a legal opinion, he should be indicted. (And probably impeached.) If he does have such an opinion, and actually believed it, he is merely a fool -- which is unfortunate, but perhaps not legally culpable. Note that I speak as a life-long Republican. And _I_ think I'm a conservative. This is not a partisan matter; this is a matter of the rule of law in this country. This appears to be justifiable only this way: The President can ignore any law that he finds inconvenient (or maybe just dislikes) any time that he believes that he is waging a war. Even if it was not subject to a Congressional Declaration of War. In short, the President is above the law.

On the other hand, if one believes that nobody is above the law, two things should happen immediately:
- The Congress should determine who gave the president legal advice on this. And if anyone told him what he was doing was legal, they should be disbarred.
- If the President does not have such a legal opinion, he should be indicted. (And probably impeached.) If he does have such an opinion, and actually believed it, he is merely a fool — which is unfortunate, but perhaps not legally culpable.

Note that I speak as a life-long Republican. And _I_ think I’m a conservative. This is not a partisan matter; this is a matter of the rule of law in this country.

]]>