| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| DC Examiner Castigates Bush "Spying" |
| 2005-12-22 |
| 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 |
| #7 In reference to Comment #5, as long as those 8 members are the heads of the oversight committees, then Congress has been notified - as defined by law. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2005-12-22 22:54 |
| #6 And FWIW, calling a briefing of 8 out of 535 members of Congress, forbidding them to discuss with staff or other members, and ignoring any objections "briefing Congress" is a bit of a stretch. The alternative would have been to tell ALL of Congress, virtually letting the cat out of the bag almost from the get-go. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-12-22 20:32 |
| #5 The story about bin Laden "turning off his sat phone" after reading about it in the papers (btw, the Washington Times) has been pretty widely discredited as an urban myth. The same information had been reported several times before the Times printed it, and he didn't stop using the phone at that time- it was a couple of years later after the near-miss cruise missile strike on the training camp (the "hitting a couple of donkeys in the ass" strike) that got his attention. And FWIW, calling a briefing of 8 out of 535 members of Congress, forbidding them to discuss with staff or other members, and ignoring any objections "briefing Congress" is a bit of a stretch. The letter from DoJ the NRO printed makes a decent case that this was authorized by a combination of the AUMF and inherent Article II powers, at least for the short term. But they would have been smarter to get some legislation to fix whatever made it impossible to run this through FISA. I doubt they would have had much trouble getting it added to the original Patriot Act. |
| Posted by: Huperetch Ulereper5813 2005-12-22 17:32 |
| #4 I have two thoughts about this: First off I doubt that this is illegal the way it was conducted. The President got the OK fro the AG and briefed Congress, so I am pretty sure he followed that part of the law. Hard to accuse someone of being secretive when they are briefing the opposition. Second if it turns out to be illegal on some grounds Congress should take IMMEDIATE steps to make it legal to conduct spying of this nature in case of a national emergency. I would add that if he hadn’t done this after 9/11 he should have been removed for incompetence. P.S FUCK PELOSI, BOXER, REID, and I thank God that they are not the party in power or President Gore/Kerry would be signing a peace (surrender) treaty with Bin Laden by now. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-12-22 17:10 |
| #3 Verdict: Wrong Until the day that members of the DC Examiner editorial board are turned into court justices, they'll have to excuse me for taking their opinions lightly. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-12-22 16:59 |
| #2 For the rad left, since history started in 2001, that makes them 4 years old and therefore not adults for contracts, voting, etc. to include consideration of their views. |
| Posted by: Glailing Ulusing4418 2005-12-22 16:29 |
| #1 Few things are more amusing than a journalist preaching the gospel of MYOB. |
| Posted by: BH 2005-12-22 15:47 |