This spying is absolutely necessary and we must use every weapon we can against the terrorists who would harm us.
That said, the potential for abuse of the type liberals are worried about does exist -- not so much under this administration, but perhaps under the next one. Soem monitoring and oversight, perhaps an explicit laying out of the circumstances in which this power can and cannot be used, may be appropriate, to allow this necessary function to go forward while at the same time rieining in the potential for abuse.
What I don't understand is why anyone would want to take the authority away from the President to protect us all and give that ultimate authority to some judge who says yes or no.
It used to be that we didn't trust government very much around here. I still don't.
Liberals and Democrats fancy themselves the defense attorneys for Osama bin Laden and/or Saddam Hussein.
Unbelievable, aint it?
I can see it now...
Judge: "Do you mean to tell me that you initiated surveillance of this man based on an intercepted telephone conversation with a known Al Qaeda agent overseas without a warrant?"
Agent: "Yes, but..." (The agent was about to say that the man had one hundred and fifty pounds of homemade explosives in his possession when he was arrested.)
Judge: "No buts! The evidence against this man is inadmissable. This case is dismissed. Next time, obtain the proper warrants for surveillance before seizing evidence."
Makes one wonder who it is they are protecting? 'a Q' must have some high dollar donors on their speed dial.
I haven't seen anyone dispute that, the question is how are we deciding what sort of intercepts meet those criteria, and how do we go looking for them in the first place.
Apparently nobody outside the NSA and the White House - including elected officials who under our laws are charged with oversight of such operations - actually knows WHAT the parameters of the current interceptions policy are, and that's one of the reasons that some Republicans in Congress are concerned about this, they are starting to suspect that they have been systematically misled by the Administration as to what's actually been going on.
This Administration is been making very sweeping claims about the extent of Presidential prerogatives to operate independent of Congressional and judicial oversight and control, and ultimately such claims are sustainable only to the extent that such powers are not abused. Even one major example of clear misconduct (for example, using such powers for partisan political purposes) would likely focus intense congressional scrutiny on such programs, and IMO history strongly suggests that in the case of any administration - Democratic or Republican - as politically aggressive as this one such abuses are almost certain to occur.
And once that happens the Administration's policy of claiming sweeping powers to conduct surveillance without Congressional oversight probably ends up making us less secure.
The bottom line is...who are liberals really looking out for?
Themselves, this is not about wiretaps or security, this is a fight between two branches of our government that believe they should be running different branches of our government.
The senators say they should, the President says he should - the law covers congress, the Constitution covers the President.
Sadly our congress does not recall that it is their job to pass Constitutional laws,
CNN thinks it's abuse. They were shrieking this am....'Five thousand Americans spied on!' No mention of attacks thwarted and lives saved. Oh well.
"Just who are they looking out for?" should be our GOP national matra, on ads in debates on websites.
This goes to heart of this issue, in a way that people can understand.
Does anyone have the NYT's traitorous story breaking this tactic used against the enemy? I have not read it yet.