[IP] more on Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts >:o >:o]
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts >:o
>:o
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, December 17, 2005 11:45 am
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a lot of things, of course, that bother me about this
incident. I think what bothers me most, about this and about many parts
of the Patriot Act, is the sense that the executive branch is trying to
avoid any oversight or public comment whatsoever. What they want, by
definition, is right and must be done.
Please note that although I'm currently speaking about the Bush
administration, prior administrations are not without fault. The Patriot
Act was not created de novo on 9/12; rather, most of its
provisions came from a long wish list that the Justice Department, the
FBI, and more had been compiling for a long time. Most of the
controversial provisions do not grant law enforcement new powers, though;
rather, they grant law enforcement new powers *without a warrant*. Why
is asking a judge an undue burden?
Yesterday's NY Times gave part of the administration's answer: sometimes,
it's just too urgent a situation. Guess what? The law makes
provisions for such situations. Part of FISA, 50 USC 1805(f) permits
emergency wiretaps as long as a judge is notified and a court order
requested within 72 hours. A similar provision exists in the regular
wiretap law. But we can't see the administration's analysis; it's
classified. A legal analysis, classified? I suppose I shouldn't be
surprised, given that we've heard claims that secret laws and
regulations are permissible.
Probably, the best summary is the news analysis in today's Times, which
starts "A single, fiercely debated legal principle lies behind nearly
every major initiative in the Bush administration's war on terror,
scholars say: the sweeping assertion of the powers of the presidency."
An administration that tries to appoint judges who adhere to the
original intent of the framers of the Constitution should pay more
attention to history. In particular, it's instructive to read
British history from, say, 1215 -- the year of the Magna Carta -- until
the drafting of the Bill of Rights. The
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/