Zarq linked to a Bush-bashing surveillance related article by Bruce Schneier who writes a blog which is titled, "A weblog covering security and security technology." You would think then that this person would be somewhat of an expert in the matter at hand.

Like most articles I've read against Bush's assumed powers, there's a lot of platitudes about violating the constitution, scare tactics about law-abiding citizens being targted, etc. but little in the way of legal argument. In fact, it is the total lack of scholarship and hyerbole that undermines the seriousness of the piece.

First of all, Schneier claimes that, "The New York Times exposed the most significant violation of federal surveillance law in the post-Watergate era. President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to engage in domestic spying, wiretapping thousands of Americans and bypassing the legal procedures regulating this activity."

Actually what the article claimed was that 500 people are monitored at any given time but that the number "may have reached into the thousands" as names are dropped and added to the list. Notice that Schneier confidently proclaims "thousands of Americans", while the Times spoke about "Americans and others inside the United States" without clarifying what percentage of those persons were actually citizens, resident aliens, etc.

Secondly, Schneier adds the following:

Yoo then says: "The terrorist incidents of September 11, 2001, were surely far graver a threat to the national security of the United States than the 1998 attacks. ... The President's power to respond militarily to the later attacks must be correspondingly broader."

This is novel reasoning. It's as if the police would have greater powers when investigating a murder than a burglary.

My first thought was that I would think the police DO have greater powers when investigating a murder - that just seems like common sense to me. I couldn't find anything easily about policing powers within the U.S., perhaps because our policing structure is so complicated. I did find the following from Canada's Department of Justice:

Law enforcement and national security agencies conduct investigations with the aid of certain techniques, one of which is lawful access.

For the police, this involves the lawful interception of communications and the lawful search and seizure of information, including computer data. Lawful access is a specialized tool used to investigate serious crimes, such as drug trafficking, money laundering, smuggling, child pornography, and murder.

So there ARE civilized places in the world where the police are granted stronger powers for serious crimes.

I'm too tired to write anymore, so you'll have to trust me when I say that I saw a similar item relating to police powers in the U.K.

I am still waiting to read a level-headed, factual critique of the Bush policy.