Democrat paranoia watch

NY Times:

Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches of American citizens and the collection of their business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said.

Administration officials acknowledged they had heard such concerns from Democrats in Congress recently, and that there was a continuing debate over the meaning of the legislative language. But they said the Democrats were simply raising theoretical questions based on a harsh interpretation of the legislation.

They also emphasized that there would be strict rules in place to minimize the extent to which Americans would be caught up in the surveillance.

...

It is possible that some of the changes were the unintended consequences of the rushed legislative process just before this month’s Congressional recess, rather than a purposeful effort by the administration to enhance its ability to spy on Americans.

“We did not cover ourselves in glory,” said one Democratic aide, referring to how the bill was compiled.

Democratic leaders have said they plan to push for a revision of the legislation as soon as September. “It was a legislative over-reach, limited in time,” said one Congressional Democratic aide. “But Democrats feel like they can regroup.”

Some civil rights advocates said they suspected that the administration made the language of the bill intentionally vague to allow it even broader discretion over wiretapping decisions. Whether intentional or not, the end result — according to top Democratic aides and other experts on national security law — is that the legislation may grant the government the right to collect a vast array of information on American citizens inside the United States without warrants, as long as the administration asserts that the spying concerns the monitoring of a person believed to be overseas.

...

Anyone communicating with al Qaeda should be under surveillance. Why is this point even arguable? There is not, nor should there be, any privacy right to make war against the US. If you are communicating with the enemy in a time of war you should have no expectation of privacy.

Much of this article seems to revolve around the paranoia of some Democrats and the terrorist rights groups they hang out with. The problem with these people is that they think they are so important that someone in the administration would really care about their private conversations. The fact is they have better things to do, such as monitor calls Al Qaeda is making and figuring out where and when their next attack will be. They don't have time to waste on the left's paranoid remarks about the administration or their insults to our intelligence.

FISA should be repealed. It is an unconstitutional infringement on the right of the executive conduct surveillance of our enemies in a time of war. Warrants are needed to protect defendants not the enemy. The Democrats' problem is their focus on a lawfare solution to a group that has declared war against us. Warfare is very different and confusing the two only aids the enemy.