Re: Did wiretap laws put soldiers at risk?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: h_bray () globe com
Date: October 15, 2007 1:18:59 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:  Did wiretap laws put soldiers at risk?

Good observations made so far.  It seems to me that there would have  
been
sufficient grounds to wiretap first and tidy up the legalities later.

However, it's not unimaginable that there were some very twitchy  
lawyers on
duty that day, and they refused to make any moves until they were
absolutely certain of their legal footing.  Even if the current law gave
them enough leeway, previous wiretaps have been hugely  
controversial.  So
it's easy to imagine some bureaucrat who's totally unwilling to move  
until
he's got a piece of paper signed by the AG and saying he's absolutely,
positively on the right side of the law.

In any case, the story can be cleared up if then-AG Gonzales will be a
little more forthcoming.  Did he indeed sign off on the wiretap?  And  
was
there a 10-hour-long dispute among lawyers before he did so?  I trust
somebody will ask him, and that the question will come up during the
congressional debate.

This story, based as it is on anonymous sources, may well be hooey.  But
remember previous sagas about the lawyering of the war--like our  
refusal to
take a shot at Mullah Omar in Afghanistan because it might violate the
anti-assassination rule.  Somehow, I can believe that something like  
this
just might have occurred.


Hiawatha Bray



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com