February 10, 2006
Vice-President Cheney Talks About the Future, Part 4
WASHINGTON D.C. -- 4. The Vice-President was unapologetic about the NSA warrantless surveillance program. And he was very clear on one factual point. Only calls where one end was outside of the United States were monitored. This, I believe, is the substantive fact that will make this a non-issue.
The fourth amendment bars "unreasonable searches and seizures". A different standard of reasonableness -- in the law and in people's minds -- applies to what crosses national borders than to what stays within the borders. A reasonable search of person who is crossing the border from Mexico or Canada would not be considered a reasonable search of someone traveling between Warwick and East Greenwich. The same distinction can be applied to electronic communication.
If the Democrats stick with their "the war in Iraq was a mistake" line, but aggressively push the idea that warrantless surveillance of parties outside of the United States should be forbidden, then they are arguing that the United States shouldn't be active in promoting the rights of average people trapped under totalitarian governments trying to go about normal lives, but should actively apply the protections of the American Constitution to non-citizens outside of the United who may be plotting terrorists acts.
Isn't this an example of the famed Democratic incoherence on foreign policy?
Scott McClellan has been using that line for several weeks now and thus far, it has not rendered it a non-issue. It seems to me that the Vice President is probably echoing an established talking point.
More importantly, whether or not it makes this is a non-issue from a policy stand point, it does not address many of the Constitutional/political concerns - how much power does the executive branch want to claim for itself, how much is Congress willing to challenge the executive branch, and why seek to do this without getting Congressional approval?
"If the Democrats stick with their 'the war in Iraq was a mistake' line, but aggressively push the idea that warrantless surveillance of parties outside of the United States should be forbidden, then they are arguing that the United States shouldn’t be active in promoting the rights of average people trapped under totalitarian governments trying to go about normal lives, but should actively apply the protections of the American Constitution to non-citizens outside of the United who may be plotting terrorists acts."
Andrew, the concerns expressed about this program have come from Republicans as well as Democrats. Furthermore, the above formulation seems to be somewhat of a distortion of the actual arguments and concerns being put forth. For many, they are saying that they can understand the need for this kind of a program, but believe that Congress should have been consulted and should be regularly informed of its progress. Is it not possible to entertain that asking the Constitutional questions is healthy for democracy?
Posted by: Suzanne at February 10, 2006 4:56 PM