Letters: Judge gives the NSA a pass

Re “New judge, new ruling on spying,” Dec. 28

In his ruling upholding the National Security Agency program of collecting metadata on phone calls, U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley wrote that the program is necessary as “the government’s counterpunch” due to its failure to “connect the dots” before 9/11.

Pauley continued that the government “adapted to confront a new enemy, a terror network capable of orchestrating attacks across the world.”

The government’s failure to connect the dots wasn’t due to a lack of “dots” (basic intelligence) but rather to the failure of the various intelligence agencies to coordinate their efforts.

Pauley’s strong language supporting the program sounds more like an NSA press release than a judicial opinion.

Ed Schoch

Westchester

This article demonstrates that it is a judge’s political philosophy that determines constitutional issues. The public should know that it is not the original intent of the founders, who obviously could not foresee the future, that controls the law. That is why the fight over each seat on the Supreme Court is critically important.

As to law professor John Yoo’s position that the more recent federal court decision that the NSA’s spying activities were consistent with the constitution based on the rule of stare decisis (that prior Supreme Court precedent controls the case before the federal District Court), one need only remember that Yoo was the Bush administration lawyer who wrote the “legal” opinion that it was lawful for prisoners to be tortured.

W. James Osborne

Sherman Oaks

Pauley is mistaken if he believes that information is available for government collection because it is voluntarily conveyed to a third party.

One is forced to submit to phone company record-keeping to be able to use a phone; one is forced to allow service providers to compile histories of Web searches and emails to communicate on the Internet; and if one hopes to be able to travel by air, rent a car or stay in hotels, one is compelled to have a credit card.

This information is not voluntarily conveyed. Rather it is extorted from those who would wish any semblance of participation in modern society.

Elliott Oring

Long Beach

ALSO:

Letters: Sad tours of Detroit

Letters: In defense of Wells Fargo

Letters: Men who do ‘feminine’ work