The president claims that congressional authorization for military action against Al Qaeda, together with his inherent constitutional powers, make such action lawful. There is some plausibility to that claim but until tested in the courts it is impossible to give a definitive opinion about it…
…it is likely that at the first, broadest stages of the scan no human being is involved — only computers. Finally, it is also possible that the disclosure of any details about the search and scan strategies and the algorithms used to sift through them would immediately allow countermeasures by our enemies to evade or defeat them.
If such impersonal surveillance on the orders of the president for genuine national security purposes without court or other explicit authorization does violate some constitutional norm, then we are faced with a genuine dilemma and not an occasion for finger-pointing and political posturing.
If the situation is as I hypothesize and leads to important information that saves lives and property, would any reasonable citizen want it stopped? But if it violates the Constitution can we accept the proposition that such violations must be tolerated?
For those interested in American history (and interesting parallels between the nineteenth-century frontier and our current projects in the Middle East), here’s a very interesting book review, of an old and obscure book, over at Albion’s Seedlings.
I should note, for those who are still arguing about whether or not the president broke the law when he intercepted enemy communications, they should go read that notorious neocon (note: I’m being sarcastic) Cass Sunstein’s take on it.