The Luxury of Passing Time

Powerline has excerpted remarks from Alberto Gonzalez' participation in a debate at Georgetown today. Or, you can read Gonzalez remarks in their entirety here.

There can be little doubt that the NSA surveillence is not only legal, but with reams of case law and executive precedent behind it. Furthermore, it is roughly the most common sense program that the left has decided to attack for partisan reasons.

Perhaps the most damning aspect of the Democrats attacks is their past history, as usual. In his post, John Hinderaker reminds readers of the relentless hammering from the left over pre-9/11 intelligence. One of their favorites was intercepted communications from 9/10 that "could have prevented" the attacks, and were subsequently used to paint the Bush administration as inept in the area of national security. General Michael Hayden's remarks to the Senate Intelligence Committee however, demonstrate that the intelligence was gathered under the very same process being used today. The one that is now an "outrageous violation" of civil liberties.

This prompts a question from Hinderaker:

What would happen if the President had not authorized the international surveillance program after September 11, and instead had relied solely on FISA, and the following events were to take place: the NSA obtains information that an al Qaeda operative overseas is planning a nuclear attack in conjunction with a cell inside the United States. The NSA decides to intercept all communications between the overseas al Qaeda operative and individuals located inside the U.S.; but first, it must obtain multiple layers of approval from lawyers and assemble all of the information needed to complete a FISA application. It begins that process, but the next day, while NSA is still working on getting the necessary approvals, a nuclear device levels much of Washington, D.C.

Suppose that disaster had happened a year ago. How do you think the surviving Democrats would have responded? Do you think they would have praised the administration for refusing to go outside the bounds of FISA's procedures? Or do you think they would have denounced President Bush and his administration as the most irresponsible, feckless and ineffective officials to control the executive branch since James Buchanan?

Personally, I can't imagine a single Democrat willing to stand at a podium and tell the American people they would have to learn to live with occasional massacres to protect the integrity of the FISA court. Or, that despite the terrible losses the country had just suffered, the executive branch did the right thing in not even trying to collect vital, preventive, intelligence.

Can you?