Several people who disagree with the Government’s eavesdropping on suspected terrorist suspects have taken the case to the New York Times. So far the NYT hasn’t made a case that any laws have been broken. What right did the disclosers have to compromise vital national operations? Did they even consult with their agencies lawyers to get a reading? The Clinton era associate attorney general backs President Bush’s NSA actions. Seems to me the best case these disgruntled folks can come up with is they have an opinion this sort of stuff should be against the law (an opinion that a good portion of Americans disagree with).
There really isn’t a gray area when it comes to the President’s ability to monitor enemy communications in wartime, but even if there was, in a democracy, the benefit of the doubt should go to the elected official, not anonymous cranks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment