Hugh Hewitt has offered his take on the illegality of the domestic surveillance programs undertaken by the NSA, and he believes it is either (best case) legal, or (worst case) ambiguous. He cites one Supreme Court case which specifically declined to rule on executive power and surveillance. (Orin Kerr cites two.)
Hewitt, by the way, teaches Constitutional Law as his "day job". He's also a tireless blogger. In putting together five lengthy posts on this affair, he did a fair amount of research. Unlike, apparently, some media outlets.
CBS Document Experts and NYT 4rth Amendment Experts
by Hugh Hewitt
December 20, 2005 06:57 AM PST
Micelle Malkin, after listing a long set of links to the great number of people who have argued that the president has the authority to order surveillance of foreign powers in communication with American citizens:Now, go back and look carefully through the Times article. The reporters who have been so assiduously working on the story for at least a year couldn't find a single, non-anonymous expert in national security and the law to come up with the kind of informed analysis that took legal and counterterrorism bloggers three days to research and post.
How pathetic is that?
There are those who take a different, thopugh I think wrong, view, and the paper's job is to present both sets of views. (In my first of five posts onthe subject, I pointed readers to a blog that was insisting on the program's illegality.) The refusal to do so in a comprehensive fashion is the core disability in most of left-wing MSM, the reason why the collective reputation of the old, elite media has cratered, why subscription rates fall and fall again, and why advertisers are increasingly turning to new media to find the huge and growing audience that simply won't touch the usual suspects.
The big media outlets have their strengths. They have the personnel and resources to uncover news. The problem, now too obvious to be denied, is that in a number of areas, only one side of the story gets reported. When it takes only days (or more often now, minutes) to uncover substantial amounts of material that was unaccountably missed by the papers, it's easy to see why some might decide to withhold trust.