"My own judgment is that it didn't seem to me, anyway, that it would have been that hard to go get the warrants," Powell said.
"And even in the case of an emergency, you go and do it. The law provides for that."
Monday, December 26, 2005
Why is everyone headlining this story, as the Houston Chronicle does here, with Colin Powell's legal opinion (and so what?) buttressing W's authority to eavesdrop? The more interesting part of Powell's commentary was the fact that he points to the difference between subjective certitude and objective certainty, to the possibility of W's fallibility: why not, he asks, just use the secret court? That this seems not to make sense to Powell should be alarming to Americans: