WSJ: Only Secret Illegal Surveillance Will Provide Accountability
I’d thought that one beneficial result of Barack Obama being elected president was that it might cause conservatives to think twice about their post-9/11 embrace of unlimited executive power. But instead The Wall Street Journal is still upset that the new, loophole-ridden FISA is too restrictive:
What Democrats have done, in essence, is to insert an unelected judiciary into the wartime chain of command. As Mr. Kelly notes, this is producing a “lack of accountability” and “the lack of transparency into the inner workings of the FISA process.” If some faceless FISA judge denies a surveillance request from Mr. Kelly and New Yorkers die as a result, that judge will answer to no one. Under current FISA rules, we won’t even know who that judge is.
To ease the Journal’s mind, part of the point of the last revision’s retroactive immunity for lawbreakers is that any restrictions currently on the books are purely make-believe. Everyone understands now that there will be no penalties for breakin the rules. Meanwhile, Tim Lee observes that “The whole point of the Fourth Amendment is that ‘unelected judges’ oversee the activities of law enforcement.” Indeed it is. This kind of thing is sort of integral to ideas like due process and the rule of law. If nothing is overseen by “unelected judges” then liberal democracy is out the window.
42 Responses to “WSJ: Only Secret Illegal Surveillance Will Provide Accountability”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 10th, 2008 at 11:42 am
I don’t think that will bother anyone on the WSJ editorial page.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:57 am
What Democrats have done, in essence, is to insert an unelected judiciary into the wartime chain of command.
Fitting right in there with all those unelected admirals, generals, colonels, FBI special agents, CIA station chiefs, police officers…
December 10th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
If they’re such fans of democratic process, why aren’t they complaining about the unelected generals in “the wartime chain of command”?
December 10th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Oops, Ajay beat me to the punch.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
If some faceless FISA judge denies a surveillance request from Mr. Kelly and New Yorkers die as a result, that judge will answer to no one.
Ah, the old “if it saves a single life, it’s worth it” canard.
What if a judge decides not to issue a regular search warrant and “someone dies as a result”? Why even bother having the 4th Amendment?
And what if some gun dealer lets someone buy a gun and someone dies as result, the gun dealer will “answer to no one.”
Sounds like the WSJ supports lawsuits against firearms makers and dealers.
Skoal !!!!
December 10th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
It’d be great if the WSJ would apply the same “if it saves a single life, it’s worth it” standard to, say, environmental regulation.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
What Democrats have done, in essence, is to insert an unelected judiciary into the wartime chain of command.
Yeah, who needs those quaint, obsolete notions like the rule of law and constitutional government. What naive fools those guys were in Philadelphia back in 1787. Why, maybe they could be called objectively pro-terrorist.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Wait, aren’t the FISA judges faceless because the pro-spying folks wanted it that way? Would they rather have some elected judges decide the warrants on the teevee? Me so confused.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
There is a secret competition, with a substantial cash prize, to the most comically unhinged reasoning in a nationally-prominent media source. The WSJ piece is their entry, and I wish them the best because it sounds like they could use the cash.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
The whole point of the WSJ editorial is to make liberal heads explode. It doens’t have to make sense. In fact, making sense is counterproductive.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
n><s
December 10th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Don’t forget, Matt, they’re not only ‘unelected’ but ‘faceless’. Boogadah!
December 10th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Well, of course they’re unelected. They’re faceless, after all! I hate to say it, but in our shallow, appearance-fixated culture, no one without a face could ever get elected.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
but in our shallow, appearance-fixated culture, no one without a face could ever get elected.
I refute you thus: Henry Waxman! Hah!
December 10th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Makes you want to know if they’d like a huge revision of the Constitution to eliminate the judiciary branch or would like it better if all judges were elected. While elections in New York for judge don’t give me a lot of confidence in the role of the electorate in bettering the judiciary, I’d dare them to have got Clarence Thomas elected dogcatcher.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
If some faceless FISA judge …
That would be a tough oral argument.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Click all the way back to the WSJ article. This is mainly about a fight between the NYPD Commissioner and the USAG.
“If we were to adopt the NYPD approach and routinely submit cases lacking probable cause,” Mr. Mukasey continued, “the Court would rightly doubt our credibility and our judgment. . . . The less the FISA Court comes to trust the validity of the applications, the more inclined the judges will be to impose on all applications the kind of scrutiny that doubtful applications merit.”
December 10th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
How will the Republic survive if unelected, faceless men are allowed to own, publish and edit our media organs of national circulation?
All Power To The Asses!!!1!
December 10th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
IF.
That’s one mighty big IF, considering that FISA courts approved of surveillance warrants something like 99.99% of the time.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Oh, don’t worry WSJ: I am certain there is a right-wing hateblogger like Malkin who will be more than happy to round up a lynch mob to attack the judge and his wife and children.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Indeed, the WSJ editorial board is just one big exercise in nationwide trolling.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
The Republic can survive without the WSJ, but not without the Constitution.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I am constantly amazed by the number of Very Serious People who think the Constitution is a nuisance which should be brushed aside whenever it becomes inconvenient.
Without the Constitution, we are nothing.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Why do they hate our freedoms so?
December 10th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Without the Constitution, we are nothing.
Without the Constitution, ______________ could make more money.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Douglas Watts says “Skoal”. That sounds mightily like some Nordic Asa exclamation. No can do. Liberal social democrats from Scandinavia do not want to get mixed up in some american jihad thing.
Given that all around here are Godless Commies the proper wording obviously is:
Na zdarovje!
Skål!
December 10th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I reckon they’ll change their tune when excerpts of legally wiretapped conversations between Republican politicians and the WSJ editorial board start being used by Obama’s DOJ to announce indictments. But probably not until then.
December 10th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I refute you thus: Henry Waxman! Hah!
I always found it weird that the ostensible ‘beautiful people’ capital of the world would elect Waxman.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:02 am
The WSJ objects that “What Democrats have done, in essence, is to insert an unelected [x] into the wartime chain of command”
So the WSJ thinks there should be no unelected persons in the chain of command ? Damn I forgot to vote for my choice of secretary of defence, generals, lieutenant generals, major generals, brigadier generals, colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors, captains, lieutenants, sargeants corporals, admirals, rear admirals and commanders last November (and also probably forgot the titles of many other unelected officials in the chain of command).
Also judges are not in the chain of command as they are not supposed to obey the President.
I mean really, the suggestion that unelected officials shouldn’t be in the chain of command fails the Turing squared test — it couldn’t have been written by an entity with human intelligence, but it couldn’t have been written by a properly programmed computer either.
It’s clear what they mean. They think that in “wartime” the President should be a dictator. That the chain of command should be undisturbed by outsiders and should reach into your telephone. However, they can’t say that so they talk about judges in the chain of command.
December 11th, 2008 at 10:29 am
I’m sure President Obama won’t give the Medal of Freedom to guys like that!
They worry that New Yorkers will die if the law is obeyed. Then why aren’t the people of Lower Manhattan more worried? A very blue area, last time I checked.
January 18th, 2009 at 6:08 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
laptop battery
March 4th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
I did not get your point on this.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:12 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 am
tramadol
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 am
i’ll reed it againn
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:46 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Not that I’m totally impressed, but this is more than I expected when I stumpled upon a link on Digg telling that the info is quite decent. Thanks.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:19 am
thanks !! very helpful post! viagra
April 15th, 2009 at 7:57 am
The topic is quite trendy in the net right now. What do you pay the most attention to when choosing what to write about?