A court order for every wiretap?

Suppose the National Security Agency receives a tip that one of the merchant ships anchored in New York Harbor contains three hydrogen bombs – and that the captain of this bomb ship is on the telephone with an Arab consulate arranging to evacuate himself and crew along with securing their transfer off the ship and onto a submarine.

Should the National Security Agency, or any other of our intelligence or crime-fighting agencies, be required to seek a court order before tapping that phone?

TRENDING: Hillary debuts radically different look as speculation she's joining 2020 race builds

Would it be possible to obtain a court order in time to tap that phone – and before 5 million New Yorkers were incinerated?

And how could the absolute secrecy required to effectively tap and apprehend such nuclear terrorists be maintained by applying to a judge? Are all judges and their staffs subject to secrecy requirements?

Speaking in New York City, Vice President Cheney said:

"A spirited debate is now under way, and our message to the American people is clear and straightforward. These actions are within the president's authority and responsibility under the Constitution and laws, and these actions are vital to our security."

The president authorized the program after the Sept. 11 attacks, allowing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to al-Qaida, the officials said.

Last Friday, top presidential adviser Karl Rove in a speech to the Republican National Committee said:

"Let me be as clear as I can: President Bush believes if al-Qaida is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly disagree."

And to be sure, important Democrat John Kerry, U.S. senator from Massachusetts and unsuccessful Democratic presidential nominee, declared: "He's playing an old game. Every time they have a problem, they play the 9-11 card."

Continued the senator: "We all support surveillance – that's where they are playing word games again. You can protect the safety of the American people and you can protect the Constitution."

This latest Kerryism was effectively answered by another Massachusetts elected leader, Gov. Mitt Romney, who said:

"The eavesdropping is a big matter for people who are inclined to dislike the president. The great majority of Americans think it is the president's first responsibility to protect the lives of the American citizens in an urgent setting where there is a threat of terrorism.

"I would never suggest that the president should break the law. My guess is – my assumption is – he did not break the law. The president has a responsibility to follow the law – which I believe is likely to be found – but he also has a primary responsibility to protect the American people."

Related special offer:

"Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington"