ITEM!
Raju on fashion??
I've always enjoyed Raju's scathing critiques of the clothing choices of his friends. Clearly, this is something that needs to be moved to the blog.
ITEM!
I am the Public Editor!
Since this is a blog, I'm going to talk about the media now. The New York Times' coverage of the Bush administration's decision to move the NSA wiretapping program "under" FISA has been appalling. It is totally unclear, based on the facts that have been made public, exactly what the relationship between FISA and the wiretapping program will be. The Times suggests that the Bush administration decided to let FISA resume its role as the only body legally empowered to issue secret warrants. But for all that is now known, it is just as likely that FISA has simply taken it upon itself to rule that this wiretapping program is legal (a move of disputable constitutionality). If the latter is in fact the case, the Bush administration did not "Retreat Under Pressure," as the Times headline announces. Instead, it found a way to work around the Congress and avoid a series of lawsuits, while continuing its wiretapping program. That would not be a retreat but a victory. Again, it is unclear exactly what has changed with the NSA program--but the Times' coverage makes dangerous and possibly misleading assumptions.
When they issue retractions, remember--you heard it here first!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Josh:
ReplyDeleteDon't worry too much on this one. The Times just didn't give you all the facts. FISA is not an actual governing body that makes the determinations itself. Rather, it is a law from the late '70s that created the procedure for acquiring warrents for foreign surveillance purposes. Under the law, a panel of Federal Judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the US must make case-by-case determinations on the warrent applications. So there is no way to make a blanket acceptance of the program. The panal of judges is made up of seven i think, at least four of whom cannot live near DC. (SOmething like that, anyway).
I guess they could all just decide to OK every one, but this is essentially the same group of people looking at every-day police warrents as well, so you have to afford them some benefit of the doubt that they will act in accordance with the law.
Bushy had previously argued that he did not need to follow FISA, but has now given up that debate. He did have an interesting argument, which I wont bore you all with, unless you want to hear it. Regardless, he stopped making it (in my oppinion) not because it was a loser legally (questionable), but rather because it was a loser politically (which it was).
So allowing FISA to govern these decisions once again, really is a "victory" for Congress, and not a back door method of doing what W has been doing all along. (Note: FISA does, however, give a two week grace period after which they can retro-actively granty warrents). There is definitely a pattern to be seen here where the Court and Congress are beginning to curb Bush's executive power, one abuse at a time. They're just embarassingly slow about it.
It's not that I don't know what FISA is, it's that no one knows what the relationship between FISA and the NSA wiretapping program now is. You state:
ReplyDelete"Under the law, a panel of Federal Judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the US must make case-by-case determinations on the warrent applications. So there is no way to make a blanket acceptance of the program."
That is not established fact. Because the exact nature of the deal that was made is classified, it is entirely possible that that is exactly what happened: FISA ruled on the program's legality, and hence it will continue "under FISA," but without any of the case-by-case oversight you (and the NYT) assume will occur. The fact that FISA was never set up to make rulings on such programs is no reason to assume that they did NOT make such a ruling. Until the exact nature of the FISA-NSA program relationship is known, we can hope that this is another failure of Bush administration policy, but can't know it for sure. And, certainly, the paper of record should not trumpet the fact that it is without better information.
http://www.slate.com/id/2157857/?nav=tap3
ReplyDeleteA week later Slate catches on.
(Pats self on back)
I'll see what I can do in the form of a weekly fashion column.
ReplyDelete