CRS: Bush's Domestic Spying Probably Illegal
No surprises here.
Wish I had the time/expertise to go through the arguments in detail.
No surprises here.
Wish I had the time/expertise to go through the arguments in detail.
posted by Winston Smith at
12:00 PM
11 Comments:
It takes awhile to learn to read the headlines in liberal media like the WaPo. The headline "Report Rebuts Bush on Spying" reads like some great cosmic truth has been definitively established. A quick online definition of "rebut" is "overthrow by
argument, evidence, or proof - refute ยท Prove to be false or incorrect
The Congressional report does no such thing. It disagrees with the executive branch's interpretation of the constitution.
The battle between the executive and the legislature over who is constitutionally empowered to run national security is a long-standing one. (See FDR vs. Congress over the Neutrality Acts.) The Congressional report's conclusions are entirely predictable.
But the WaPo obscures that fact. You are on your own to cast your net more widely to discover all sides of the argument. Fortunately, you have me and National Review to help.
Now, National Review is a proudly partisan opinion journal. But so is the Washington Post, the only difference being that NR openly admits it, and does not pass off opinion as "news."
Tom,
I know this is a hard time for guys on your side of the fence, but panicking won't help. A few points:
1. We're onto the "liberal media" myth. That dog won't hunt anymore. See, e.g., the NYT holding off on the NSA story until after the election.
2. Nobody is going to buy the equivalence between the _National Review_ and the WaPo. You don't even believe that. What's _The Nation_ equivalent to? _Mein Kampf_?
3. Part of the problem may be your misunderstanding of the term 'rebut'. 'Rebut' is ambiguous as between 'contradict' and 'prove wrong'. The former is the more common meaning, though. Thus on the ordinary interpretation of the WaPo headline, it just says that the CRS has concluded that the spying was illegal, not that it has proven this.
I'm glad they held the story. By "liberal," I do not mean "traitorous."
The point is that legality of the NSA program has not been remotely established, something the WaPo does not make clear, either through bias or incompetence. (I believe it's the former. If you sincerely believe by this late date that liberal media bias is a fiction, nothing will change your mind.)
I imagine if push comes to shove, which it probably won't, a divided Supreme Court will decide. But I forsee no firm foundation from which to issue moral or legal (which is to say political/partisan) condemnations. It's one of those things.
I think this pretty much sums it up:
http://www.fuckthenewyorktimes.com/
No sane person could argue with that.
Nor any person without adequate counterarguments. But in case you feel qualified, how's about you argue with this:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/01/analysis-of-legality-of-secret-nsa.html
It's safe to say these people understand the law in detail.
Tom,
Again, I have to disagree most stringently. The Post article made it PERFECTLY clear that this was a preliminary, provisional conslusion. They went out of their way to make this clear, stating it as clearly as it could be stated.
Upon further review, I withdraw my objection.
Sorry.
Yo, good job.
I was gettin' pretty worried there...
(um, and I meant 'conclusion', of course...though I kind of like 'conslusion' for some reason...)
Actually, out of respect for your home, and in the spirit of comity (and since I was just making us both angry), I ended up taking what is an ancillary point somewhere else.
My primary point, that this will (or might not) be decided by the Supreme Court, and its decision will hinge on its makeup and not on the divination of some cosmic truth, stands.
Absent a constitutional amendment, this issue will remain in the ether, rising and falling with political sentiments.
Dude, THE POST STORY EXPLICITY IDENTIFIES THE RULING AS PROVISIONAL. In the first or second paragraph, if memory serves.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home