Righties have been spamming me with this, so I’ll respond to it once and get it over with. The most recent email:

President Roosevelt, in a signed May 21, 1940 memorandum to his attorney general, FDR wrote:

I have agreed with the broad purpose of the Supreme Court decision relating to wire-tapping in investigations. The Court is undoubtedly sound both in regard to the use of evidence secured over tapped wires in the prosecution of citizens in criminal cases; and is also right in its opinion that under ordinary circumstances wire-tapping by Government agents should not be carried on for the excellent reason that it is almost bound to lead to abuse of civil rights.

However, I am convinced that the Supreme Court never intended any dictum in the particular case which it decided to apply to grave matters involving the defense of the nation.

It is, of course, well known that certain other nations have been engaged in the organization of propaganda of so-called “fifth columns” in other countries and in preparation for sabotage, as well as in actual sabotage.

It is too late to do anything about it after sabotage, assassinations and “fifth column” activities are completed.

You are, therefore, authorized and directed in such cases as you may approve, after investigation of the need in each case, to authorize the necessary investigating agents that they are at liberty to secure information by listening devices direct to the conversation or other communications of persons suspected of subversive activities against the Government of the United States, including suspected spies. You are requested furthermore to limit these investigations so conducted to a minimum and to limit them insofar as possible to aliens.

The left loves to whine and rant and bitch about what the administration is doing. Instead, please be responsible and use the truth to make your arguments. It would be nice to read.

Douglas Charles, History News Network, provides some historical background (emphasis added):

In 1934 Congress passed the Federal Communication Act which outlawed the interception and divulgence of wire or radio communications. The law was later upheld by two companion Supreme Court rulings, Nardone v. US, in 1937 and 1939. But with the crisis of World War II mounting, in May of 1940 President Roosevelt secretly authorized the use of wiretaps in national defense cases if approved by the attorney general. Roosevelt further directed that the use of wiretaps be kept to a “minimum” and limited “insofar as possible” to foreign nationals. (Because this authorization was not justified using any congressional mandate, war declaration, or constitutional powers, resting instead on a White House interpretation of the Supreme Court’s intent not to restrict wiretaps in “grave matters involving the defense of the nation,” the Bush administration apparently chose not to cite this to bolster their NSA program.)

First off, the argument that because FDR did something I, as a liberal, must accept it is, um wobbly. FDR imprisoned thousands of Japanese Americans; I hardly think that should have been a precedent. In this case I am not certain that FDR was entirely in the right, and I need more information to make that determination.

However, righties conveniently overlook the fact that this memo was addressed to the Attorney General, who was charged with approving the targets of wiretapping. We learned today, however, that the Justice Department has been completely shut out of the NSA program; the DoJ is not being allowed to even conduct an inquiry into what the NSA is up to. This is significant.

Of course, the NSA has reason to believe the DoJ would not approve.

Second, wiretapping is not the issue. Of course the feds should conduct surveillance, including wiretaps, of persons suspected of terrorist activity. If you’re not a regular here, be advised that I was in lower Manhattan on 9/11. I have a keen appreciation of what terrorism is, and I don’t want to see any more of it. And my understanding is that the feds have the authority to wiretap foreign nationals without a warrant.

The REAL issue is presidential authority under the constitution. As Douglas Charles points out, FDR did not use the same constitutional justification for his wiretapping power that Bush uses. This is a critical point. Another critical point is that Congress has enacted considerable legislation on wiretapping since Roosevelt’s time. Professor Charles continues,

During the mid-1970s, the widespread abuses of power by the FBI, CIA, and NSA were revealed. Two eerily relevant examples for us today, moreover, are the illegal NSA programs codenamed MINARET and SHAMROCK. Through Operation MINARET the NSA eavesdropped on the international telephone calls of some 1,600 Americans; and in Operation SHAMROCK the NSA won the cooperation of American cable companies who, for 28 years, provided the secret agency with copies of Americans’ private messages. Finally, after it was learned that President Richard Nixon liberally interpreted the crime-control law’s language to establish wiretaps on war critics, Congress responded with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The new law created a controversial secret court from which the government would have to obtain warrants to establish foreign intelligence and counter-intelligence wiretaps. No longer would the president have the sole power to eavesdrop on communications without any oversight or accountability. Obtaining a warrant from this court, however, was not problematic, especially after the advent of the Patriot Act which lessened the standard for foreign intelligence wiretap warrants to demonstrating only a “significant” link to terrorists or foreign countries.

In RightieWorld, for some reason, the past 60 years of U.S. federal history are irrelevant.

Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, a constitutional law scholar, said on Countdown tonight that he was certain this phone database program violates federal law. He said he’s been looking all day and could find not a shred of legal authority that would permit the NSA to conduct a program like this without congressional or judicial oversight of any kind. I believe FDR’s program would also violate federal law as it exists today. Now, FDR would be required to get warrants from the FISA court to conduct wiretaps on American citizens. FISA law hadn’t yet been written in FDR’s day.

Once again, the real issue is not that Bush has the NSA conducting wiretaps and other surveillance. The real issue is that Bush has assumed unprecedented power to decide for himself what laws apply to him and which don’t. He has, in effect, declared himself to be above the law.

And the FDR example is utterly irrelevant. Once again, wiretapping is not the issue. The issue is that Bush has given himself permission to break the law.

Glenn Greenwald, an attorney with background in cases involving civil liberties, has written several posts explaining why the NSA spy program is illegal, and why Bush’s claims of “inherent authority” and congressional authorization under AUMF are bogus. You can find links to these arguments in this post. He discusses legal issues governing the surveillance program described in today’s USA Today article here. Follow these links for more information on why the NSA program is in violation of current federal law and the Constitution.

Please do not leave comments arguing with me about legality of NSA until you have read Glenn’s arguments. I don’t have time to reinvent the wheel more than twice a day.

And no forgiveness.

Oliver Burkeman reports for The Guardian,

Hillary Clinton’s political shift to the right reached new territory this week as she warmly praised George Bush at a speech in Washington and defended her decision to let Rupert Murdoch sponsor a fundraising event on her behalf.

On the day that a New York Times poll found Mr Bush’s approval ratings at an all-time low of 31%, the leading contender for the Democratic party’s 2008 presidential nomination praised the US president’s “charm and charisma”.

The Senator doesn’t need a fundraising event; she needs an intervention.

Update: Bob Herbert thinks the whole Dem party needs an intervention.

Leslie Cauley writes in USA Today:

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

Sure they are.

“It’s the largest database ever assembled in the world,” said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA’s activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency’s goal is “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

Cauley reminds us that

In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. “In other words,” Bush explained, “one end of the communication must be outside the United States.”

As a result, domestic call records — those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders — were believed to be private.

In a related note, the Associated Press reports —

The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the necessary security clearance to probe the matter.

The inquiry headed by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax to Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., on Wednesday saying they were closing their inquiry because without clearance their lawyers cannot examine Justice lawyers’ role in the program.

Jane H. asks, “Can we call it a dictatorship yet?”

Pretty close, I’d say.

Later in the day there will be more reaction from the Kool-Aiders, but so far we’ve got the NSA story must be a lie. This is coupled with “I bet a little research into the political leanings of the people who are making these claims will ferret out a motive.” Protecting the Fourth Amendment has become subversive.

Stephen Spruiell at NRO assures us that “this is not an eavesdropping program,” so what are we worried about? And cleverly anticipating objections from us liberals, Spruiell adds, “Data mining programs like this one might or might not be effective tools in the war on jihadists, but one thing we know for sure is that the left will not be joining us in a rational debate.” Be advised that any objection we lefties raise will be, by definition, irrational. On the other hand, it is perfectly rational to accept whatever the government tells us without question. They wouldn’t lie to us, right? Those righties are always so logical.

Another excuse — “this data is already available. The NSA could previously get it from the phone companies. The new program just cuts out the constant step of asking for updates.” Oh, and warrants. (We don’t need no steenking warrants!)

As for the other story on the NSA refusing clearance for the Justice Department — well, obviously the NSA must be free of legal oversight. If the Justice guys find violations of the Constitution, they’re just going to blab about it. I mean, duh.

What we’re observing is a textbook example of how people who have a choice allow themselves to become subject to dictatorship. We’re like one big social science demonstration of How Good Democracies Go Bad. I hope other nations are taking notes.

Update: Here’s a heartwarming story about a rightie who calls the leak of the phone call database “treasonous” and is rewarded with a biscuit and pat on the head by Laura Ingraham herself.

Noting that Qwest has so far refused to take part in the NSA program (unlike AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth), rightie blogger Sister Toldjah asks, “Thanks to this whistleblown leaked story, if you’re a terrorist and you don’t want to worry about your call being datamined, what telecommunications company are you going to turn to? Hmmmm … I wonder.” The Sister totalitarian toady links to other rightie blogs, so I don’t have to.

Update update: Glenn Greenwald discusses the legal issues.

Update update update: Jack Cafferty rocks.