Morning Edition, February 14, 2006 · Renee Montagne speaks with Steve Bradbury, head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, about the legal justification for the Bush administration’s controversial domestic surveillance program. Bradbury says existing laws allow for the program because it identifies enemies in the ongoing war on terror.

How disappointing when the represetative of our chief legal branch chooses to selectively quote the Constitution. He rightly indicated that the fourth amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. He failed to mention, however, that the fourth amendment is somewhat specific about how to ensure that a search or seizure is reasonable:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It’s worth reviewing the complete annotations available on that terrorist loving resource, FindLaw.

I might also say, this is a little different time, in terms of what existed in 1976. Of course, we are at war. And we have briefed certain members of Congress.

What could be more dangerous than tens of thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at our cities, military installations, and industry? What does the AG know about the current risks to our republic that we do not? I was perusing plot summaries for Fox’s drama 24 when it hit me: terrorists are known to have planted nuclear weapons in our country’s major cities and are planning to detonate. The only thing more dangerous than the risk of nuclear holocaust is the certainty of nuclear holocaust.

I’m joking of course. Gonzales didn’t mean to imply that the physical risk was greater. He probably just meant that the changes to telecommunications technologies over the past 30 years were so significant that FISA no longer applies. This is an interesting argument with considerable merit. It is unfortunate, then, that part of Gonzales’ defense of the wiretaps includes comparisons to the wartime actions of Washington, Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt.

Gonzales called Bush’s program part of “a long tradition of wartime enemy surveillance — a tradition that can be traced to George Washington, who made frequent and effective use of secret intelligence, including the interception of mail between the British and Americans.”

“And for as long as electronic communications have existed, the United States has conducted surveillance of those communications during wartime — all without judicial warrant. In the Civil War, for example, telegraph wiretapping was common, and provided important intelligence for both sides. In World War I, President Wilson ordered the interception of all cable communications between the United States and Europe.

“The day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt authorized the interception of all communications traffic into and out of the United States,” Gonzales added.

So which is it? The same world or a new world?