| Friday, January 06, 2006 |
| On shaky ground |
Legal analysts from the Congressional Research Service say the administration (and its apologists') legal justification for the NSA's spying on American callers is mad shaky...
...two attorneys in the organization’s legislative law division, Elizabeth Bazan and Jennifer Elsea, say the justification that the Justice Department laid out in a Dec. 22 analysis for the House and Senate intelligence committees “does not seem to be as well-grounded as the tenor of that letter suggests.”
The National Security Agency’s activity “may present an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb,” Bazan and Elsea write in the 44-page memo.
Bush and his top advisers have defended the program, which allowed the highly secretive agency to eavesdrop without court approval on international calls and e-mails of people who were inside the United States and suspected of communicating with al-Qaida or its affiliates.
The Bush administration says it was legal under Article 2 of the Constitution, which grants presidential powers, and Congress’ September 2001 authorization to use military force to conduct the war on terror.
But the memo concludes: “It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has ... authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here under discussion.” Apparently the administration isn't the only one sporting a bogus legal theory, however. ThinkProgress calls out Michelle Malkin on her big, fat, legal stretch, and for a brief, shining moment, she relents...
Tags: politics, News, Bush, national security, NSA, government, spying |
posted by JReid @ 5:48 PM   |
|
|
|
|