Semper Fi:
As we can see from earlier president’s actions, what this administration has done IS legal (in regards to wiretapping and consistent with FISA). In forming an opinion you need to look back in time, and not just through the lense of the New York Times.
I agree. As I noted above, I think it makes sense to allow the legal system to evaluate this one. I’m not convinced that what has been done is legal – that FISA allows its own processes to just be ignored. But I’ll wait for the judgment of the courts on that. I’ve seen very few published arguments, or accounts of arguments, that weren’t presented by folks with an obvious agenda in this case. That’s why I discount anything that comes from the administration or the AG’s office – they have a vested interest in an interpretation that concludes what they did was legal. At the same time, their political opponents have a vested interest in an interpretation that concludes otherwise.
The courts seem to be the closest thing we have to an objective arbiter in cases such as these – certainly the media aren’t, and the blogosphere and message boards aren’t, either. The cumulation of a hundred different partisan “spins” isn’t objectivity. I know that there are some (many?) who distrust the courts – but I frankly can’t accept the premise that “I’m always right, and that if the courts decide differently than I wanted, that must be because they’re corrupt – because I’m always right.”
And yet I guarantee you – when these various issues are determined by the courts (the Plame matter, the FISA questions, other things…), and regardless of
how they are determined, there will be those who condemn the courts because they don’t agree with the outcome. Most of the time, those doing the condemning will have little or no legal training or knowledge, and will demonstrate little or no understanding of logic. But regardless of whether the “right” or the “left” is “victorious” in each of these cases, there will be those who see the outcome as evidence that the courts are hopeless, and who refuse to consider that their own positions might be wrong.
