Terrorists and Telephones

When the Framers debated the war power, they made plain that the language of Article 1, Section 8, which authorizes Congress “to declare war” was intended to prevent the President from initiating offensive military action without prior congressional approval. At the same time, according to the notes of the Constitutional Convention, they intended to leave “to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.”

To repel sudden attacks, the Executive needs to detect sudden attacks. That means he needs to spy on those who might attack us. With modern technology, that means he might, say, point radars off our shores to track incoming planes—a practice no one seriously questions. But according to Judge Taylor’s logic, the President cannot constitutionally eavesdrop on telephone calls placed into the U.S. from suspicious, incoming planes unless he gets permission from a judge first.

The truth is, Democratic Presidents long before Bush conducted warrantless electronic surveillance for national security reasons—and every time the issue was reviewed by a federal appellate court, the court ruled for the President.

Before World War II, President Roosevelt ordered his attorney general to tell federal investigators that “they are at liberty to secure information by listening devices directed to the conversation or other communications of persons suspected of subversive activities.” After World War II, Truman reauthorized the program.

In the 1973 case of U.S. v. Brown, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit concluded “that the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence.”

In the 1980 case of U.S. v. Truong, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed the Carter Administration’s argument that “the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs.”

In 2002, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review said: “The Truong court, as did all other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information…. We take it for granted that the President does have that authority.” (Thanks to Human Events on line [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16698]

Which is the greater danger to the country? That Islamic terrorists will attack the country as they have already done and repeatedly attempted to do, or that Islamic terrorist or their partners in this country will have their right of privacy violated by a warrantless wiretap?

What will be the practical effect on the efficacy of spying programs on terrorists, if they must be conducted in court, before Judges who are political employees, with terrorists defended by the ACLU?

Look at the difference in the attitude of the Democrats between when Carter or Clinton was in office and now, when Republican is in office.

Defending the country against the real threat of terrorism is far more important that either politics or one's right to plan terrorist acts in privacy, without interference from the state.

Respectfully,

Bob Clasen