I don’t think this is a factor. I read that the government has 72 hours to obtain the warrant through a secret court, and during that time they can continue monitoring. So what’s the problem?

And that’s what I don’t understand. The Bush Administration already has wide powers to spy on Americans when justified. They just need approval from a secret court, which apparently almost always approves. So why the need to go around that minimal oversight?

If Republicans cannot agree on the right to privacy – keeping the government off our backs without basic constitutional protection – what does it mean to be a Republican, anymore? Intrusive government is now OK, so long as a Republican president is doing the intruding?

I realize that some rights have to be restricted to provide better safety. But allowing the Executive Branch to spy on Americans with no judicial oversight??? That’s a recipe for disaster.

The article you cite explains the legalities quite nicely:

The agency, for example, can target phone calls from someone in New York to someone in Afghanistan.

Warrants are still required for eavesdropping on entirely domestic-to-domestic communications, those officials say, meaning that calls from that New Yorker to someone in California could not be monitored without first going to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court.

There’s no law that says when you’re (legally) tapping a phone in Pakistan, you have to stop listening if it’s used to talk to someone in the U.S. if you don’t like the law — work to get it changed.

For historical reasons, the legality of the tap goes with the location of the phones — and if the Feds could legally tap one of the phones (say, because it’s in Pakistan) that’s enough to make the call fair game. Or at least that’s how I understand it.

The law is built of such technicalities.

Some anonymous sources with concerns, and one (with unspecified legal credentials) who passed his concerns on to the appropraite legislative leadership are evidence of the system working exactly as it is supposed to, not of some nefarious plot. That legislators (in consultation with their legal advisors) found no problem is a good sign.

Of course, some of this could be wrong — legal experts will be discussing this at length over the next week or two, thanks to the NYT. We’ll all know more soon.

Still, I understand the concerns, on both sides…

I worry about the erosion of our freedoms too but we live in a world where most others in the world would dance at our funerals and the powers that be have the responsibility to protect our country…and I think that should be done by any means necessary. We owe it to our children!

D L

Of course, there is that clause that says Republican presidents can do whatever they want as long as they make a point of periodically giving national addresses about the imminent danger posed by homosexuals to the fabric of society. Joe’s right, though: if Clinton were doing this, you guys would be through the roof.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=3
Some officials familiar with it say they consider warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States to be unlawful and possibly unconstitutional, amounting to an improper search. One government official involved in the operation said he privately complained to a Congressional official about his doubts about the program’s legality. But nothing came of his inquiry. “People just looked the other way because they didn’t want to know what was going on,” he said.

Give us a hint. Cite a law, any law, that you believe was violated here.

Gak. I thought the Judiciary Committee was busy for all of January with another issue — one that actually relates to the Judiciary.

What are you talking about? I read your link, and nowhere in the article does Bush or his Administration try to defend this based on the constitution. They just do what all governments the world over do when caught acting illegally: claim it was for our own good.

It is incredible how Bush believes the law no longer applies to him as he prosecutes the war on terror. It’s as if 9/11 rendered out constitution meaningless. Laws and international treaties are just “recommendations.” In the end, Bush knows best. We’ll just have to trust him! Just like you, dmac, would trust a president Dean or Clinton. Right?

We need to know asap who knew about this in Congress, who were the targets of this illegal spying, and why the Bush Administration decided not to obtain proper warrants. And by the way, they have 72 hours to obtain the warrant, and they don’t need to wait until the warrant is issued before beginning their surveillance. And few are ever refused. So what is going on here??? Very, very strange.