Most likely, the decision will be overturned on procedural grounds--national security interests or inadqueate clearances will prevent a full investigation/prosecution.

What's interesting about this case is that our Constitutional rights weren't violated per se--the fourth ammendment is written vaguely enough that it doesn't appear to restrict the executive's wiretapping. However, when Congress specifically limits the executive's branch via the language of FISA, then the executive branch has clearly overstepped its bounds.

Personally, I think there may be merit in allowing the expedited intercept of suspect international calls in certain instances, for which sometimes the FISA constraints may be obstructive to the executive's sworn duty to protect and defend. But, while reasonable people can debate the advantages, disadvantages, and appropriate limits that the executive branch should have, having the executive branch unilaterally define those limits in defiance of Congress' definition is beyond reasonable. The argument that AUMF granted the right to institute this program is pure bunk, unless we assume that the AUMF grants a complete blanket of authorization to the president. Of course, then everything is on the table--suspension of habeus corpus, using the military for domestic policing activities...er...
...well...

On second thought, (with consideration of the Padilla case and the prospect of having our Army manning the border) perhaps the popular assumption is that congress granted the president a blank check via the AUMF. I don't like the way this thing was done one little bit, but is the authorization of the "terrist' tappin'" program a high crime or misdemeanor? Dunno. That's up the Senate.

As an aside, every time I hear the Grand Poobah declare that "this program is Constitutional", I feel like reaching through my radio and shaking said poobah. Doesn't he know that it's the job of the courts to decide what is and isn't Constitutional? Where does he get off deciding what's "legal"? Did he lose his copy of our Constitution that clearly defines the roles of the three branches of government, or did someone creatively apply a crayon to the relevant articles? In either case, could we email him directions to the National Archives?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the problem with skirting Constitutionality is that done once even in a genuine crises, that allows the agument that it was allowed in blank vs blankety and should be allowed in this case. When Hammarubi had the first written code of laws drawn up, punishment meted out for specific crimes were studied and the most frequent or the one seeming most apt was writtem into the code. Many of these are still in force today. Letting Bush get away with unrestrained wiretapping without a court order would rank at the top of Bush's crimes and that is high indeed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]