'I said: "either politically impossible or not within the President's power."'
Yes, and I'm not sure I disagree with that statement. My responses weren't directed to that statement, but to the more specific enumerated critiques. In any event, "X is seen as politically impossible" shouldn't become "never ask for X", or X will never be seen as politically possible because no one is asking for it.
'Recognizing foreigners as having "rights" that constrain the security-related operations of the NSA would be a political non-starter.'
I think that's something we should fix (and I think doing so would be in our long-term interest on several fronts, including security). We start by stating that it's something we want.
Re internet security: Breaking encryption standards, and then recommending that it's time to move to new standards when the breaks become sufficiently significant, is not undermining internet security - it is furthering internet security.
'Finally, while the President could theoretically instruct the Justice department not to rely on the doctrine, he can't "reject it" as the law of the land.'
"Rejecting" a law doesn't have a precise legal meaning that I'm aware of. The call is for him to 1) say that it's bad, and 2) to take steps to curtail it.
"He also can't, practically, tell the DOJ not to rely on it. U.S. v. Miller is the underpinning of a huge portion of white-collar and antitrust enforcement activity."
So call for legislation that restricts it without overly restricting it (granting that the costs of going all the way would exceed the benefit), or find some other means of enabling that enforcement.
Yes, and I'm not sure I disagree with that statement. My responses weren't directed to that statement, but to the more specific enumerated critiques. In any event, "X is seen as politically impossible" shouldn't become "never ask for X", or X will never be seen as politically possible because no one is asking for it.
'Recognizing foreigners as having "rights" that constrain the security-related operations of the NSA would be a political non-starter.'
I think that's something we should fix (and I think doing so would be in our long-term interest on several fronts, including security). We start by stating that it's something we want.
Re internet security: Breaking encryption standards, and then recommending that it's time to move to new standards when the breaks become sufficiently significant, is not undermining internet security - it is furthering internet security.
'Finally, while the President could theoretically instruct the Justice department not to rely on the doctrine, he can't "reject it" as the law of the land.'
"Rejecting" a law doesn't have a precise legal meaning that I'm aware of. The call is for him to 1) say that it's bad, and 2) to take steps to curtail it.
"He also can't, practically, tell the DOJ not to rely on it. U.S. v. Miller is the underpinning of a huge portion of white-collar and antitrust enforcement activity."
So call for legislation that restricts it without overly restricting it (granting that the costs of going all the way would exceed the benefit), or find some other means of enabling that enforcement.