![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Via Boing Boing: Great bit on the recent wiretapping revelations and the (il)legality thereof:
There is no room for doubt or question about whether the President has the prerogative to order surveillance without asking the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] -- even if the FISC is a toothless organization that never turns down requests, it is a federal crime, punishable by up to five years imprisonment, to conduct electronic surveillance against US citizens without court authorization.
The FISC may be worthless at defending civil liberties, but in its arrogant disregard for even the fig leaf of the FISC, the administration has actually crossed the line into a crystal clear felony. The government could have legally conducted such wiretaps at any time, but the President chose not to do it legally.
Ours is a government of laws, not of men. That means if the President disagrees with a law or feels that it is insufficient, he still must obey it. Ignoring the law is illegal, even for the President. The President may ask Congress to change the law, but meanwhile he must follow it.
There is no room for doubt or question about whether the President has the prerogative to order surveillance without asking the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] -- even if the FISC is a toothless organization that never turns down requests, it is a federal crime, punishable by up to five years imprisonment, to conduct electronic surveillance against US citizens without court authorization.
The FISC may be worthless at defending civil liberties, but in its arrogant disregard for even the fig leaf of the FISC, the administration has actually crossed the line into a crystal clear felony. The government could have legally conducted such wiretaps at any time, but the President chose not to do it legally.
Ours is a government of laws, not of men. That means if the President disagrees with a law or feels that it is insufficient, he still must obey it. Ignoring the law is illegal, even for the President. The President may ask Congress to change the law, but meanwhile he must follow it.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I hate politics. I hate it.
From:
It's more than you think
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007289.php
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007286.php
From:
Re: It's more than you think
Imagine language-processing applications scouring e-mails and phone calls for "terror" keywords.
From:
no subject
Remember, anything you say or publish in a public setting (a VERY delicate term) you have no right to privacy in. On the metro and talking on a cell phone? The government can listen in on you. In a phone booth, however, a warrent is needed. Where's the distinction? Its all about a reasonable expectation of privacy, it one exists then a warrent is needed. If the administration can show that there is no REP, then there is no Constitutional violation. That will be really hard to do if the wiretaps were as intrusive as they seem to be.
War powers only go so far. Actions are not measured by intent, only by results; a lesson this administration should have learned by now.
Perhaps we can return virtue to the Oval Office in 2008, God knows it hasn't been there in twenty years.