oldreliable67
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Messages
- 4,641
- Reaction score
- 1,102
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Note: The title of this thread is borrowed unabashedly from the NationalReviewOnline. NRO and Powerline are both reporting on the differing coverage of the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing yesterday on the NSA surveillance program.
The Washington Times reported it this way:
"A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).
The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.
"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute." "
Powerline wonders if Eric Lichtblau of the NYT attended a different hearing. The Times' story is headlined "Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program." and says:
"Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush's domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.
In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps."
As John at Powerline writes, these reports can't both be right. Lichtblau has a huge personal investment in the assertion that the NSA program is illegal, which begs the question, is his commitment to that proposition causing him to slant his reports on testimony before a Senate committee? Or, conversely, did the Washington Times go too far in characterizing the judge's approval of the NSA program?
Nationreviewonline obtained a transcript of the proceedings and concludes that "New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau appears to have asserted something in his wiretapping story today that just isn't supported by his own reporting, much less a transcript of the hearing." One of the key passages in the transcript is as follows:
"[Judge] KORNBLUM: I think — as a magistrate judge, not a district judge — that a president would be remiss in exercising his constitutional authority to say that, "I surrender all of my power to a statute." And, frankly, I doubt that Congress in a statute can take away the president's authority — not his inherent authority but his necessary and — I forget the constitutional — his necessary and proper authority."
NRO concludes that Lichtblau's assertion that "several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order." is false and that "the transcript indicates that the exact opposite is true."
The Washington Times reported it this way:
"A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).
The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.
"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute." "
Powerline wonders if Eric Lichtblau of the NYT attended a different hearing. The Times' story is headlined "Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program." and says:
"Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush's domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.
In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps."
As John at Powerline writes, these reports can't both be right. Lichtblau has a huge personal investment in the assertion that the NSA program is illegal, which begs the question, is his commitment to that proposition causing him to slant his reports on testimony before a Senate committee? Or, conversely, did the Washington Times go too far in characterizing the judge's approval of the NSA program?
Nationreviewonline obtained a transcript of the proceedings and concludes that "New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau appears to have asserted something in his wiretapping story today that just isn't supported by his own reporting, much less a transcript of the hearing." One of the key passages in the transcript is as follows:
"[Judge] KORNBLUM: I think — as a magistrate judge, not a district judge — that a president would be remiss in exercising his constitutional authority to say that, "I surrender all of my power to a statute." And, frankly, I doubt that Congress in a statute can take away the president's authority — not his inherent authority but his necessary and — I forget the constitutional — his necessary and proper authority."
NRO concludes that Lichtblau's assertion that "several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order." is false and that "the transcript indicates that the exact opposite is true."