NSA: June 2006 Archives

This revelation from Bill Keller as to who the White House supposedly asked to intervene on the lastest exposure of secret anti-terror programs.

Are you ready?

Jack Murtha.

Yeah, the one and only.

Keller insists that "not all of them urged us not to publish". Bryan at Hot Air deduces that Murtha was the odd man out.

If this is the case, Murtha has some big-time 'splainin to do. But don't count on the NYT to tell us - Keller doesn't mind publishing national security related secrets, but considers his conversation with Murtha to be confidential.

This wound up flying under the radar due to other news:

DETROIT -- The Bush administration argued in U.S. District Court in Detroit on Monday that it cannot defend itself against accusations that a domestic spying program is illegal and unconstitutional because details of the program would be revealed, rendering it ineffective and jeopardizing national security.

"The president has decided that the program is necessary to protect and defend the United States of America against a terrorist attack by the al-Qaida network, which has already killed thousands of Americans," Anthony Coppolino, a lawyer for the Department of Justice said in the nation's first court hearing on the spying program.

"Without evidence that goes to the heart of the matter, the president's claims cannot be addressed."

The domestic surveillance program -- in which the National Security Agency taps telephone calls between United States and other countries -- is being challenged by a host of lawyers, academicians, journalists, advocates for civil liberties and Nazih Hassan, a Lebanese immigrant who lives in Ypsilanti. They all asked U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to order a halt to the spying.

One of the major issues is the "standing" required to bring suit. The ACLU lawyer, Ann Beeson:

Beeson said her clients have had to discontinue making or receiving overseas calls out of fear the government is intercepting private conversations protected by the First and Fourth amendments and other federal laws.

The problem the left has in this case is that they lack a victim - so they have to cynically argue that their clients "fear" the government. None of them can claim any direct harm. I see their argument as backwards. Sue the government with zero evidence, and demand a fishing expedition to force the government to prove they didn't do it.

Under that kind of reasoning, I should be able to sign on to any class action suit against a drug company over side effects. When asked for proof that I used the medication in question, I should be able to respond, "Make the drug company prove I didn't use it." It would also work for discrimination suits as well.

The next hearing is on July 10.

Further reflection (9:20am EST): It also seems that if these people "fear" their calls being intercepted, perhaps the NYT, DNC, and the ACLU itself deserve the blame. After all, the non-stop dishonest branding of the program as something that it's not (illegal widespead domestic spying with Americans as primary targets) by the ACLU, the media, and the left has been intended to instill fear for political gain.