Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Mata Hari Bush
President Bush and the New York Times have a lot of 'splainin to do.' I can't tell whose behavior in the growing domestic spying scandal is more reprehensible. President Bush for blatantly disregarding the law and making up his own rules as he goes along, or the New York Times for sitting on the story until their hand was forced by their own reporter, who has written a book that's ready to be published. Let's examines Bush's role first and wonder why he didn't learn any lessons about spying from his dad.
Bush has asserted he has every right to spy domestically because he's the president, and it's his job to protect the U.S. But president's are not kings. They can't make up rules as the go along. They're expected to (and swear to) uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States of America. And as Newsweek's Jonathan Alter notes, this is where he's failed miserably.
Bush has asserted he has every right to spy domestically because he's the president, and it's his job to protect the U.S. But president's are not kings. They can't make up rules as the go along. They're expected to (and swear to) uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States of America. And as Newsweek's Jonathan Alter notes, this is where he's failed miserably.
The Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism. What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow—as the president seemed to claim in his press conference—or in any way required extra-constitutional action.
It was nice of the Times to report this tidbit, seeing they waited a year (a year!) to disclose the fact that the NSA was keeping tabs of international calls and communications made by U.S. citizens. And not only did they wait a year, they did so for absolutely no reason. Presumably, the same national security concerns -- which we've already shown to be groundless -- that existed last year still exist now. So what's changed? Well, their reporter is about to publish a book with this information. There's no election to influence. And Judith Miller is no longer on staff -- actually, that last one has nothing to do with anything. Just wanted to point it out. But the reality is their reporter was going public with a story they've had for a year, and they had to do something. And if we take the Times at their word and say they didn't publish it for national security reasons, then they should be expected to tell us what's changed and why they're publishing it now. It doesn't take a year to sort out these types of details. We can and should hold their feet to the fire on this. It's shoddy journalism. And it's unacceptable.In addition to blatantly ignoring the law, Bush tried to keep public from knowing he was spying on them, saying national security was compromised by the revelation of this program. Hogwash! Terrorists presume they're being spied upon. They assume that their communications can be compromised and that someone might be monitoring their actions. That's why they use satellite phones (a fact that's published regularly) and encrypted e-mail. It's the general public that didn't know that were being spied upon. And they should be worried. According to a story in today's New York Times the NSA isn't the only administration agency engaged in keeping a close eye on U.S. citizens.
One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
# posted by vinism @ 5:38 AM 
