News flash - we are still a representative democracy, despite the evident unwillingness of our opposition party to bestir itself. If this secret program was so outrageous, the Senate and House Democrats who had been briefed on it should have spoken up. Instead, we get profiles in courage as, per the Times, Reid, Rockefeller, and others are unavailable for comment.Ezra Klein:
[T]he issue here isn't the espionage, it's the secrecy. Of course law enforcement agencies will need to gather intelligence on domestic elements. They do it to drug dealers, mob bosses, militia men, and gang lords. It's neither new nor controversial. And of course these activities will be turned on potential terrorist groups, and even ratcheted up post-9/11. And of course timeliness is an issue and the President will need to authorize wiretaps before a judge can be summoned to rule on the case.. . .Huh? Does that sound like "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is," to you? Like, "Why does Bush need secrecy?
Everything Bush is doing is legal, but nothing in the way he's doing it is.. . .
The law strikes a balance between broad executive powers and substantive oversight -- the president has full authority to assault the evildoers, but cannot deploy the law on behalf of his own political interests.
doesn't he trust the system not to leak this stuff?" Klein's other post follows the current trend among lefties toward using more obscenities to prove their postmodern bona fides. Find the link yourself.
Captain Ed is focusing on why the Times held off on publishing this story for a year: to bump the sales of a new book by the main author of the story. Nope. No lack of patriotism here! Move on.