John Bolton: Federal Court's NSA Ruling Sends US on 'Road to Doom'

[flowers]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/12/25/John-Bolton-Federal-Courts-NSA-Ruling-Sends-US-on-Road-to-Doom

On Tuesday’s broadcast of America’s Newsroom on the Fox News Channel, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton warned that a U.S. District Court ruling by Judge Richard Leon earlier this month that put a halt to the National Security Agency’s metadata collecting program was a threat to U.S. national security.

According to Leon’s ruling, the program violates the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures and the Obama administration has failed to sufficiently show the program has prevented any terrorist attack.

But Bolton criticized that finding, explaining that just because an agency has the means to do something does not mean it will actually do it.

"Look, I’ve known Dick Leon for a long time,” Bolton said.

    I respect him as a judge. He’s flatly wrong on this. Other judges have found the programs constitutional. And it’s an example, I think, of what can happen whether in the legal system or public debate about what NSA is doing. People can say, "Well, you know NSA can do x, y and z." Look, the United States military is very powerful. It could launch a coup against the United States. Read the novel Seven Days in May. It could do that, but it hasn’t and there’s no evidence it will. And that’s part of being a responsible citizen in a representative government, to make sure the instrumentalities that we create don’t commit abuses. Until you see signs of abuse, it’s very, very dangerous to say, "We’re going to cut back NSA." People say, "Well, where’s the evidence they have caught this terrorist or that terrorist?" It’s a lot more complicated than that and goes to the first point I make. It’s very hard for NSA to say what they’re doing. That gives the game away.

The former ambassador also questioned the expertise of a federal judge like Leon to rule against the NSA since that judge may only have a narrow view of what role it plays in the U.S. intelligence apparatus.

“[L]et’s come back to Judge Leon,” Bolton added.

    Let me tell you something, whatever you think of the NSA program, when we have federal judges making national security decisions, we are on the road to doom. They are the last people that ought to be deciding what can keep America safe. That’s for the elected branches of government. And I think anybody familiar with how this intelligence is gather would tell you, it’s a very complicated mosaic of putting this piece of information together with that piece of information. It takes a long time, as it took a long time to find Osama bin Laden. But it’s the totality of the effort that matters. And the notion that people who don’t have a full understanding of what NSA is actually doing say, "We can do without it," I think doesn’t pass scrutiny.

Bolton suggested more congressional oversight and involvement but was skeptical that was possible unless there was more political leadership on the program’s behalf.

[Oceander]

The abuse is seizing evidence without having any probable cause to do so.  Mr. Bolton's argument is tantamount to saying that so long as the cops don't have the present intent to arrest Person A for anything, nor any suspicion that Person A has committed a crime or possesses evidence of a crime, then they can freely waltz into his house, unannounced, at any time of day or night, and take photographs of everything in the house.  I trust that, when put into that perspective, the illegality of the NSA's conduct becomes apparent.

[EC]

You mean your cops can't do that? 

[Oceander]

You mean your cops can't do that? 

Depends on exactly what you mean by "can."  As a technical matter, they aren't supposed to do that under the Constitution.  As a practical matter, they do it all the time, particularly in lower income neighborhoods.

[EC]

Depends on exactly what you mean by "can."  As a technical matter, they aren't supposed to do that under the Constitution.  As a practical matter, they do it all the time, particularly in lower income neighborhoods.

Technically they are not supposed to do it here. The only organization with the right to enter any premises at will without a court ordered warrant is HM Customs and Excise. Of course, they can't actually arrest anyone ....

You see where this is going.

[Oceander]

Technically they are not supposed to do it here. The only organization with the right to enter any premises at will without a court ordered warrant is HM Customs and Excise. Of course, they can't actually arrest anyone ....

You see where this is going.

I'm waiting there to meet you!

[Fishrrman]

Well, Mr. Bolton.

I've certainly respected your positions on other matters.
But I suggest you read up on your Thomas Jefferson.

Any court decision that preserves liberty (even at the expense of the NSA's idea of "security") is OK with me.

I'll go further.

Do you recall Judge Robert Bork's testimony before Congress years ago, that got him into so much trouble?
When under questioning, he made the statement that he didn't believe the Constitution provided any inherent "right to privacy"?

Well, actually, I believe Judge Bork was right. There's nothing in the Constitution that specifically enumerates a citizen's "right to privacy". But still, he was castigated for even mentioning it.

So... to put the hamstrings on types like you (and on the N[ew]S[tasi of]A[merica]), perhaps it's high time that the citizens of this country take action to add a "right to privacy" to the Constitution.

It should go like this:
===================
Citizens protected by this Constitution possess an inalienable right to privacy in their persons, business, and homes, and while they are in public.

It shall be a violation of this Constitution for the United States or for the several States to violate or invade the individual privacy of citizens by use of physical, mechanical, or electronic means or by the use of devices on land, on water, below the ground, or from the air.

This protection shall extend to all lawful communications and acts by an individual citizen or between two or more citizens, including content that is spoken, written, or electronically transmitted. It shall extend to citizens regardless of their location, whether in private or in public.

The only exceptions will be as governed by the Fourth Amendment of this Constitution.
===================

Four short paragraphs that anyone can understand.
Even you, Mr. Bolton.

Maybe strictly enumerated language like above, enshrined into our Constitution, would indeed put us on a "road to doom", as you predict.

But I'm willing to take my chances...