I donÂ’t blame these guys for seeking to pass a law setting out specific guidelines for surveillance of foreign communications that involve an Americans. I just find the idea to be a flawed, especially because of the conclusion that some will draw from it.

The Bush administration could continue its policy of spying on targeted Americans without obtaining warrants, but only if it justifies the action to a small group of lawmakers, under legislation introduced yesterday by key Republican senators.

The four senators hope to settle the debate over National Security Agency eavesdropping on international communications involving Americans when one of the parties is suspected of terrorist ties. President Bush prompted a months-long uproar when he said that constitutional powers absolve him of the need to seek warrants in such cases, even though the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires warrants for domestic wiretaps.

The program, begun in 2001, was first publicized late last year.

The bill would allow the NSA to eavesdrop, without a warrant, for up to 45 days per case, at which point the Justice Department would have three options. It could drop the surveillance, seek a warrant from FISA's court, or convince a handful of House and Senate members that although there is insufficient evidence for a warrant, continued surveillance "is necessary to protect the United States," according to a summary the four sponsors provided yesterday.

They are Mike DeWine (Ohio), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine).

I think the motive is good – these Senators want to settle the issue once and for all. Unfortunately, this bill does not accomplish that end – in fact, it muddies the waters even further.

First, as IÂ’ve already pointed out, Congress lacks the authority to prevent such surveillance, as the Constitution grants the President the inherent power to conduct it to protect national security. Nothing Congress does can limit that power, any more than the President can issue an executive order limiting the power of Congress to consider certain legislation.

Second, the legislation could be interpreted by partisans opposed to the President (or the security of the United States) to be a concession that the current program is illegal. IÂ’ve already seen gleeful Leftists make exactly that assertion, despite the fact that this is clearly not the intent of the bill. Simply put, you do not give your enemies (and the enemies of the United States) ammunition to attack programs essential to protecting the national security of the United States.

No, this piece of legislation needs to be withdrawn immediately, for the good of national security and the preservation of presidential power under the Constitution.

Posted by: Greg at 10:07 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 455 words, total size 4 kb.