Paul Kapustka's Blog
« VONosphere Webisode #3 | Main | BitTorrent influenced Disney's iTunes move, exec says »
August 17, 2006
Illegal or necessary? Wiretapping is really a case of trust
Whether or not you agree with the judge who called the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping a violation of the Constitution, there is an easier question to answer: Do you trust this administration when it says it's telling the truth?
Sure, nobody wants terrorists to succeed, and if there are terrorists out there who don't know how to use encrypted systems like Skype to make calls, hell yes, let's tap their phones.
But let's do it the right, legal way. Get warrants. Have oversight. Is there really a need to keep Congress and the Courts -- the other legs of balance on the great power stool -- out of the loop?
I'm not a legal expert but I am smart enough to know that when someone says they don't have to play by the rules, that's one sign that they shouldn't be trusted. And for the Bush team, it's another sign on a long road of truthiness.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is quoted in the Times story as saying:
“We’re going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue,” he said, because it “has been effective in protecting America.”
Do you believe him, and by extension, the Bush adminstration scripting his words? I'd like to. In this case, I want to.
But where's the proof? Take their word for it?
While we still can in this country, make your opinion -- do you believe them, yes or no -- count this November.
BONUS LINK: Susan Crawford, as usual, has a very thorough analysis and explanation. And an opinion, too:
This may be too plain and workmanlike an opinion to survive the intellectual legerdemain of the best hired-gun appellate lawyer -- but it's right. It's a good day for the rule of law.
Posted by paul at August 17, 2006 10:48 PM