Surveillance controversy...
Well Len.. this is just my opinion. I think they are legal arguments to be made on the part of all three branches of government with regard to the legality of electronic monitoring.
Congress has a role in establishing the law, the judicial branch needs to enforce it, while the executive branch has a responsibility for national defense.
Given that the electronic monitoring is reportedly being performed by NSA (funded under DOD budgets), it's an intelligence and national defense issue. Thus, it's the perogative of the President to use the military means provided to him by the congressional purse strings, to wage the defense of the nation, especially during a state of war from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Congress has no right to try and tell the Executive how to conduct the war. They can, however, affect the purse-strings and apply other forms of leverage to insure their concerns are addressed. Likewise, the Executive can't tell the Congress how much money to allocate. He merely presents a proposed budget that the Congress tears apart and revises to suit their own interests.
So bottom line.. when the Executive is conducting international surveillance that winds up involving a US citizen, it depends upon what they choose to do with that information. If they limit their targeting to the non-US citizen participant in the conversation outside of the US, then it falls within the DOD's jurisdiction to fight terrorist networks.
But when it deals with a US citizen in the US, I think there has to be a very compelling reason not to inform the FISA court (the constitutionality of which is just as controversial) to apply for a classified warrant to maintain the surveillance.
Personally, I just believe that someone is just making their own decisions to conduct surveillance on US citizens without passing that decision through internal legal channels for judicial review. NSA and most DOD agencies have a JAG section, or some form of legal advisory capability to ensure that decisions meet legal qualifications.
So that's why I'm not particularly worried. If someone did something illegal, it will be dealt with in-house, if only to prevent further mention of classified activities in the press.
The people who work in the intelligence field are quite patriotic overall. They are dedicated and pragmatic individuals who constantly have to fight internal bureaucracies in order to accomplish their missions. It's possible that some people will push the envelope in their interpretation of what they are authorized and forbidden, to do.
Hawk |
