Lately I've regaled you with tales of my misspent youth in an attempt to divert attention away from the NSA imbroglio. No, that's not what I've done. I'm not a lawyer, so when people start telling me something is illegal or unconstitutional I don't head for the law library to research, I comb my vast store of memory to see if what they are telling me squares with my experience. And so I've written extensively (for me) on why I think the complaints can't be right - because they don't square with my experience.
But I now turn to some lawyers who have done the legal research and declare that I haven't lost my mind (yet). The men at Powerline tell me that there are controlling legal authorities for the NSA eavesdropping and they say that the president has the legal authority to order them, despite FISA:
"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power." -- direct quote from an 2002 decision by theForeign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.
But that isn't good enough for the New York Times, so Powerline cites a few more cases where the judges clearly and unambiguously ruled that a President has the authority to order foreign intellegence gathering without a warrant, including wiretapping. So when it comes to credibility, who am I going to believe? The reporters at the New York Times, or the plain text of judicial decisions?
