Gentle readers have not come to expect this blogger to agree with the editorial stance of the Washington Post. Such agreement is even less expected where questions of national security versus civil liberty are concerned.
But today the WaPo criticizes the decision of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor finding for the ACLU and against the government on the constitutionality of the NSA's surveillance of phone calls between folks in the United States and those on foreign shores suspected of terrorist involvement. Remarkably, the consummate beltway insiders acknowledge that the President does have a constitutional position worthy of consideration, even though they disagree with it.
Still, they acknowledge the significance of the debate and scold Judge Taylor for her inflammatory rhetoric that dismisses it out of hand.
What the WaPo wanted was a more nuanced opinion on a difficult issue. Here SWNID disagrees. What we need is not a nuanced opinion from a judge but a carefully thought-out statute from Congress. The House and Senate need to define what the NSA is to do and how oversight is to be exercised. That's why they were elected. The courts don't need to find an answer to this question out of the tea leaves and goat entrails of legal opinion about the applicability of the Constitution. No one is that smart, least of all someone with a JD and the political connections to score a presidential appointment.
We've said this before. And just over two months ago, we were promised just this kind of legislation.
So when will it ever happen? Sooner than the next time SWNID agrees with the WaPo, we hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment