Powerline takes on the New York Times

Heh.

This is good stuff. The lawyers at Powerline take issue with the NYT's misleading article about "warrantless searches" by the President.

Check back to see if Reporter Eric Lichtblau responds to the latest question they posed:

Here's my problem with your coverage: as a legal matter, there isn't any debate. The authorities are all on one side; they agree that warrantless surveillance for national security purposes is legal. I think your articles misleadingly suggest that there is real uncertainty on this point, when there isn't. Thus, for example, you write:

Some officials familiar with it say they consider warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States to be unlawful and possibly unconstitutional, amounting to an improper search. One government official involved in the operation said he privately complained to a Congressional official about his doubts about the program's legality. But nothing came of his inquiry. "People just looked the other way because they didn't want to know what was going on," he said.

I don't think you should be quoting anonymous "officials" making incorrect assertions about legal issues, while not pointing out that their assertions are wrong. (I would also note that the NSA intercepts are not "inside the United States.") And I don't think that a partial sentence from one of the controlling decisions, buried at the end of a long article and not repeated in subsequent articles, removes the incorrect impression you convey that the NSA program is, in all likelihood, illegal. Also, with all due respect, I think your treatment of the 2002 FISA case is itself misleading. While you do quote part of the key sentence, you go on to suggest that the court left the issue in a state of ambiguity by writing:

But the same court suggested that national security interests should not be grounds "to jettison the Fourth Amendment requirements" protecting the rights of Americans against undue searches. The dividing line, the court acknowledged, "is a very difficult one to administer."

Those quotes had nothing to do with the court's recognition of the President's inherent power to surveil without a warrant to obtain foreign intelligence information, and did not in any way qualify the court's clear holding on that issue. You plucked them from another part of the opinion. The "dividing line" the court referred to was the "primary purpose" test that was established by the Truong decision and changed by Congress in the Patriot Act. The court noted that the "primary purpose" test was difficult to administer, which it saw as an argument in favor of the constitutionality of its revision by Congress. Contrary to the implication of your paragraph, this had nothing to do with the President's power to conduct warrantless surveillance.

In my opinion, you should not convey the impression to your readers that the NSA surveillance is likely illegal unless there is, at a minimum, a respectable argument, supported by legal authority, to that effect. Do you think there is such an argument? If so, what is it, and what is the authority?

Thanks again for responding.

Maybe Mr. Lichtblau will respond.
But...let's be honest. What is there to say?

Speaking of Lawyers, Ann Coulter (of course) weighs in on the current "non-story" with her characteristic snark...

Which brings me to this week's scandal about No Such Agency spying on "Americans." I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.

[nice to know we're not the only ones. -dp]

But if we must engage in a national debate on half-measures: After 9/11, any president who was not spying on people calling phone numbers associated with terrorists should be impeached for being an inept commander in chief.

Go read the rest if you have a few minutes.