noteworthy wrote:
Yes, though "apologists" is rather loaded language. I'm not particularly interested in an argument, but what part of Bin Laden determined to strike in US requires further explanation?

Simply put, the part where that justifies law breaking by the executive branch. In particular, many of the legal arguments for the power of the executive to do things like engage in warrantless surveillance are directly tied to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force which obviously did not exist at this time. I don't agree with those arguments anyway, but they are now completely irrelevant, and the executive is left with not even their own arguments for why these programs were legal.

This is not about whether or not the NSA should be survielling Al'Queda. Obviously they should be and obviously the law ought to allow them to. No one has ever, ever argued to the contrary.

This is about whether or not there are checks and balances in our system of government wherein the actions of the executive are reviewed or authorized by the judicial and or the legislature. Prior to this revelation the sentence beforehand included the minor caveat "during the war on terrorism." Now that caveat has been removed. We are now talking about whether or not the NSA needs court authorization to spy on Americans AT PEACE TIME.

RE: Pre-9/11 wiretap bid is alleged - Los Angeles Times