- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The President is required to get a warrant to spy on American citizens when they are on American soil. Period. The FISA law was enacted precisely to prevent acts such as the administration’s warrantless wiretapping. If you have any doubt, read the law. It’s all there in black and white.
And who exactly is “the enemy?” And how do you know that those whose conversations were wiretapped were, in fact, “the enemy?” And if “the enemy” is so abundant among us, why is it that the administration has yet to achieve a conviction in a major terrorist case? And if the administration wants to wiretap those it suspects of being terrorists, what prevents them from getting a warrant to do so? Your argument is that everything is permitted as long as it is directed at “the enemy,” which is defined as anyone labeled as such by the executive branch?
The “someone” who brought up the analogy to the Saturday Night massacre was Arlen Specter. The two events are analogous because in both instances, a President pressured or fired senior Justice Department officials to remove obstacles to illegality. Nixon fired Ruckelshaus and Richardson so a pliant Robert Bork could fire Cox. Bush and Cheney directed Gonzales and Card to pressure Ashcroft to certify their illegal evasion of FISA laws. Comey, to his credit, refused the certification and resigned instead. Ashcroft, to his credit, refused to do it as well. They are both gone now, replaced with the incompetent and dishonest (but loyal) Gonzales.
Which brings up a related subject: say what you will about Janet Reno, but she appointed a Special Prosecutor from the opposing party and then expanded his mission when Starr investigated Clinton. It would be unimaginable for this administration (or this Justice Department) to hire a Democratic special prosecutor to investigate the copious wrongdoing and illegality of this administration.
