|
DC Examiner Castigates Bush "Spying"
I didn't much care for this, but the Examiner had been fairly well balanced, I thought, up until I read this.Last week, The New York Times reported that, following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to spy on people within the United States, including American citizens, as part of ongoing efforts to prevents acts of terrorism. This eavesdropping was conducted without warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which typically approves such requests. The disclosure has sparked a bitter debate over civil liberties and the reach of executive authority. Who's right? Let's weigh the president's words at his Monday press conference and see where the chips fall. "We know that a two-minute phone conversation between somebody linked to al-Qaida here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives. To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks." Constitutionally sound? Although the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids "unreasonable searches" and lays out specific guidelines for obtaining warrants, Bush counters that Article II not only designates him as commander in chief but also grants him the authority to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Verdict: Even "Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely." Bush claims that he has not violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it illegal to conduct electronic surveillance without approval from the special and independent court established under FISA. Poppycock. FISA establishes a court to approve such requests and, for 30 years, that court system has properly acted as a check on executive power and has monitored the government's electronic surveillance within the United States. Bush plainly circumnavigated that court. Any possible rationale for that? Leaks, maybe? Same reason DiFi wasn't briefed? Verdict: Wrong "The legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress." Did Bush have good reasons sidestepping the FISA court? Bush claims that Congress gave him the authority to do so through the Authorization to Use Military Force, which sailed through Congress a week after the Sept. 11 attacks. Double poppycock. Since when did an authorization of military force constitute the trampling of a decades-old law that safeguards innocent Americans from government snooping? How many were snooped, again? I guess that doesn't matter - 'steep and slippery slope', and all that. Verdict: Wrong "To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks." Bush also justifies his sidestepping of the FISA court by arguing that doing so is, well, quicker. But the FISA court already is largely a quick rubber-stamp for government requests. From 1979 to 2002, FISA issued 15,264 warrants and did not reject a single application. Emergency warrants can be obtained within hours and even minutes. And the court's decisions can be applied retroactively. Verdict: Even So why is this "Even"? "The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy." Does anyone really believe that al-Qaida operatives - either here at home or living abroad - don't already assume that the U.S. government is spying on them? Maybe you didn't read the story about bin Laden switching off his sat phone after reading about eavesdropping? Remember? He disappeared after that. If there WERE two AQ dopes who didn't know about the surveillance, they do NOW! Verdict: Wrong "I also pledged to the American people to do everything within my power to prevent this from happening again." Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney both maintain that their secret domestic surveillance may have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks. Wrong. The NSA already had the power and ability to check e-mails or listen to telephone conversations before Sept. 11. It simply had to receive a warrant from the FISA court to do so. Verdict: Wrong Other opinions? Posted by: Bobby 2005-12-22 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=138126 |