NSA wiretapping program
Stanford Daily
“Even by Beltway standards, it is a very bizarre debate,” [Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Or.)] continued. “Congress is talking about reforming a program that it knows nothing about.”
Wyden, Class of ’71, took a more moderate approach in his 20 minute speech than some of his Democratic congressional colleagues have in recent weeks. Avoiding acerbic rhetoric, he said that national security and civil liberties are not mutually exclusive.
“It’s possible to fight terrorism ferociously without sacrificing our civil liberties,” he said, drawing the analogy of a teeter-totter that adjusts depending on the threat level. “The President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief needs flexibility to deal with serious threats at a time we are at war.”
…
The Wyden comments were made in a speech that followed a panel discussion about the program. On a panel moderated by Stanford Law Prof. Pam Karlan, University of Missouri Law Prof. Kris Kobach — a former Justice Department attorney — defended the program when it was assailed by law student Laura Donohue and Law Prof. Alan Morrison.
Kobach, who led government efforts to tighten border security in the aftermath of Sept. 11, said that it was “prudent” to rely on broad, inherent executive war fighting powers under Article Two of the Constitution, instead of “broadcasting what we are going to do on a billboard to al Qaeda.”
“The case law is very strong,” he said. “The administration’s position is very unlikely to be knocked down in the court.”
Kobach complained that the burdens to get court approval for surveillance could prevent the government from using important discoveries made on the battlefield. One example he gave to justify the program was the capture of senior al Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s laptop. Hundreds of non-labeled phone numbers were found in files. To receive permission for surveillance from the court under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), he said that the government must provide the name or a description of who is being monitored. In this case, the government only knew that the numbers were connected to a mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks but nothing else.
“FISA was written in 1978 before anyone conceived of laptops or e-mails,” he said. “The constitutional infirmity of FISA was suspected even as members of Congress were writing it.”
“Even by Beltway standards, it is a very bizarre debate,” [Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Or.)] continued. “Congress is talking about reforming a program that it knows nothing about.”
Wyden, Class of ’71, took a more moderate approach in his 20 minute speech than some of his Democratic congressional colleagues have in recent weeks. Avoiding acerbic rhetoric, he said that national security and civil liberties are not mutually exclusive.
“It’s possible to fight terrorism ferociously without sacrificing our civil liberties,” he said, drawing the analogy of a teeter-totter that adjusts depending on the threat level. “The President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief needs flexibility to deal with serious threats at a time we are at war.”
…
The Wyden comments were made in a speech that followed a panel discussion about the program. On a panel moderated by Stanford Law Prof. Pam Karlan, University of Missouri Law Prof. Kris Kobach — a former Justice Department attorney — defended the program when it was assailed by law student Laura Donohue and Law Prof. Alan Morrison.
Kobach, who led government efforts to tighten border security in the aftermath of Sept. 11, said that it was “prudent” to rely on broad, inherent executive war fighting powers under Article Two of the Constitution, instead of “broadcasting what we are going to do on a billboard to al Qaeda.”
“The case law is very strong,” he said. “The administration’s position is very unlikely to be knocked down in the court.”
Kobach complained that the burdens to get court approval for surveillance could prevent the government from using important discoveries made on the battlefield. One example he gave to justify the program was the capture of senior al Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s laptop. Hundreds of non-labeled phone numbers were found in files. To receive permission for surveillance from the court under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), he said that the government must provide the name or a description of who is being monitored. In this case, the government only knew that the numbers were connected to a mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks but nothing else.
“FISA was written in 1978 before anyone conceived of laptops or e-mails,” he said. “The constitutional infirmity of FISA was suspected even as members of Congress were writing it.”
Labels: None
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home