A Stitch in Haste

To review: The White House had agreed in January to cease its NSA "Terrorist Surveillance Program," which authorized warrantless wiretapping of American citizens on American soil, despite the nearly universal consensus that the program clearly violated the plain text of FISA, and arguably the Fourth Amendment.

Now it appears that by "cease," they really meant "pause" --

But on Tuesday, the senior officials, including Michael McConnell, the new director of national intelligence, said they believed that the president still had the authority under Article II of the Constitution to once again order the N.S.A. to conduct surveillance inside the country without warrants.

During a hearing Tuesday of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. McConnell was asked by Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, whether he could promise that the administration would no longer sidestep the court when seeking warrants.

"Sir, the president's authority under Article II is in the Constitution," Mr. McConnell said. "So if the president chose to exercise Article II authority, that would be the president's call."

I of course don't recall seeing the term "warrant" anywhere in Article II. Where does that word appear again? And what if Congress simply defunded the program? So much for "Article II authority."

The exchange came as the administration is seeking new legislation to update the surveillance act to expand the government's surveillance powers, in part to deal with vast changes in communications technology since 1978, when the measure was enacted.

Of course, FISA has already been amended eight times since 1978 -- including via the PATRIOT Act. It is not a "Carter-era law," it is a "Bush-era law."

The White House says that the outmoded rules embedded in the law mean that the government cannot eavesdrop on some telephone calls, e-mail and other communications that do not involve Americans or impinge on the privacy rights of people inside the United States.

Okay fine -- but if the proposed changes are so innocuous, then why stonewall Congress? As the anti-rights crowd might say, "If you're not doing anything wrong, then why not let us look inside?"

Two more hasty stitches:

--Are these the maneuverings and prevarications of "wise men," or of typical politicians and bureaucrats?

--Speaking of typical politicians, will any of the current presidential candidates step forward to declare unequivocally that he or she would, upon taking office, immediately and unconditionally abolish the Terrorist Surveillance Program and cease any and all warrantless spying on American citizens on American soil and strictly abide by the plain text FISA and the Fourth Amendment?