Bush's Breathtakingly Dishonest Plea for Greater Surveillance Powers
In his third major address in as many days, President Bush on Thursday called for the passage of legislation authorizing his illegal NSA surveillance program. Here's what he had to say:
What a load of bull. Any FISA judge would have instantly authorized a warrant for Hazmi or Mihdhar or any other suspected terrorist. This is especially true after the passage of the Patriot Act shortly after 9/11. Indeed, this is exactly what FISA was designed to allow. The problem before 9/11 was not that the federal government lacked the power to spy on these guys; it was that it didn't put enough effort into doing so. The President is just flat out dissembling here. And it got worse:
Translation: the program is illegal and without Congress' help, more courts are going to declare that we violated the law. The suggestion that "protracted legal challenges would put a heavy burden" on the program is comical to say the least. Why would the program be burdened? It's not as if NSA agents are out there writing legal briefs or something. And if they're so confident that they'll succeed in court, why are they worried about "protracted" legal battles? Isn't a decisive legal victory for the administration just around the corner? Don't they want their vindication?
Bush's speech then ventured into the realm of the pathologically dishonest:
That's fascinating, because in October of 2001--in response to 9/11--Bush signed into law a whole bunch of amendments to FISA. Here's what he said at the time:
Just a few days later, Bush made the exact same point:
Of course now we know that within weeks (perhaps even days) of making this solemn pledge, Bush instructed the NSA to disregard the law he had just signed and pledged to enforce "to the full," the one passed "with broad support in both parties" and intended to "uphold and respect the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, while dealing swiftly and severely with terrorists." Why did he do this? Well, here's how he explained it in his speech yesterday:
Is it even possible to be any more disingenuous? The amendments to FISA contained in the Patriot Act were passed with the express purpose of giving the president the ability to listen in on any calls involving al Qaeda agents. Every single politician in the country is unambiguously in favor of listening in on al Qaeda's calls and to suggest otherwise is entirely dishonest.
Bush doesn't need any further Congressional authorization to intercept terrorist communications. What he wants is for Congress--via the Specter Bill--to do away with any requirement that the courts oversee what the executive branch is doing. He wants us to return to the pre-FISA era of unchecked executive power, where the J. Edgar Hoovers of the world could spy on whoever they wanted to without fear of being held accountable.
This is a battle that really matters. And it's just starting to heat up.
Another top priority after 9/11 was improving our ability to monitor terrorist communications. Remember I told you the two [9/11 hijackers Hazmi and Mihdhar] had made phone calls outside the country. At my direction, the National Security Agency created the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Before 9/11, our intelligence professionals found it difficult to monitor international communications such as those between the al Qaeda operatives secretly in the United States and planners of the 9/11 attacks. The Terrorist Surveillance Program helps protect Americans by allowing us to track terrorist communications, so we can learn about threats like the 9/11 plot before it is too late.
What a load of bull. Any FISA judge would have instantly authorized a warrant for Hazmi or Mihdhar or any other suspected terrorist. This is especially true after the passage of the Patriot Act shortly after 9/11. Indeed, this is exactly what FISA was designed to allow. The problem before 9/11 was not that the federal government lacked the power to spy on these guys; it was that it didn't put enough effort into doing so. The President is just flat out dissembling here. And it got worse:
Last year, details of the Terrorist Surveillance Program were leaked to the news media, and the program was then challenged in court. That challenge was recently upheld by a federal district judge in Michigan. My administration strongly disagrees with the ruling. We are appealing it, and we believe our appeal will be successful. Yet a series of protracted legal challenges would put a heavy burden on this critical and vital program. The surest way to keep the program is to get explicit approval from the United States Congress. So today I'm calling on the Congress to promptly pass legislation providing additional authority for the Terrorist Surveillance Program, along with broader reforms in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (Applause.)
Translation: the program is illegal and without Congress' help, more courts are going to declare that we violated the law. The suggestion that "protracted legal challenges would put a heavy burden" on the program is comical to say the least. Why would the program be burdened? It's not as if NSA agents are out there writing legal briefs or something. And if they're so confident that they'll succeed in court, why are they worried about "protracted" legal battles? Isn't a decisive legal victory for the administration just around the corner? Don't they want their vindication?
Bush's speech then ventured into the realm of the pathologically dishonest:
When FISA was passed in 1978, there was no widely accessible Internet, and almost all calls were made on fixed landlines. Since then, the nature of communications has changed, quite dramatically. The terrorists who want to harm America can now buy disposable cell phones, and open anonymous e-mail addresses. Our laws need to change to take these changes into account.
That's fascinating, because in October of 2001--in response to 9/11--Bush signed into law a whole bunch of amendments to FISA. Here's what he said at the time:
We're dealing with terrorists who operate by highly sophisticated methods and technologies, some of which were not even available when our existing laws were written. The bill before me takes account of the new realities and dangers posed by modern terrorists. It will help law enforcement to identify, to dismantle, to disrupt, and to punish terrorists before they strike. . . .
Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists. The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones. As of today, we'll be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology.
Just a few days later, Bush made the exact same point:
Surveillance of communications is another essential method of law enforcement. But for along time, we have been working under laws [FISA] written in the era of rotary telephones. Under the new law [which amends FISA], officials may conduct court-ordered surveillance of all modern forms of communication used by terrorists. . . .
These measures were enacted with broad support in both parties. They reflect a firm resolve to uphold and respect the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, while dealing swiftly and severely with terrorists. Now comes the duty of carrying them out. And I can assure all Americans that these important new statutes will be enforced to the full.
Of course now we know that within weeks (perhaps even days) of making this solemn pledge, Bush instructed the NSA to disregard the law he had just signed and pledged to enforce "to the full," the one passed "with broad support in both parties" and intended to "uphold and respect the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, while dealing swiftly and severely with terrorists." Why did he do this? Well, here's how he explained it in his speech yesterday:
If an al Qaeda commander or associate is calling into the United States, we need to know why they're calling. And Congress needs to pass legislation supporting this program. (Applause.)
Is it even possible to be any more disingenuous? The amendments to FISA contained in the Patriot Act were passed with the express purpose of giving the president the ability to listen in on any calls involving al Qaeda agents. Every single politician in the country is unambiguously in favor of listening in on al Qaeda's calls and to suggest otherwise is entirely dishonest.
Bush doesn't need any further Congressional authorization to intercept terrorist communications. What he wants is for Congress--via the Specter Bill--to do away with any requirement that the courts oversee what the executive branch is doing. He wants us to return to the pre-FISA era of unchecked executive power, where the J. Edgar Hoovers of the world could spy on whoever they wanted to without fear of being held accountable.
This is a battle that really matters. And it's just starting to heat up.
posted by A.L. at 11:13 PM
15 Comments:
Could "protracted legal challenges would put a heavy burden" possibly refer to his chimpeachment?
A person can dream, can't he? Good post, thanks!
3rd time is the charm for Patriot Acts.
Sounds like the president is running out of things to tell us that we already know. Again.
they are mighty selective about which lies get out, and which they hide. must be hard when everyone they have tortured or accused comes back to haunt them, or work for them if they get paid enough.
since there is no truth emanating from "da newz" I wonder if we will ever know?
It's extraordinarily important that it is understood that Bush is not simply inept or poorly spoken. As your post illuminates, his rhetoric and his actions exist solely to take him where he and Cheney want to go. It is beyond foolhardy to underplay how Bush has upped the ante here. Secrecy is no longer his protector, the Legislative branch did not lockstep, the American people have taken their Mickey Mouse ears off and he senses a very real threat to his throne. This is a very dangerous time we live in and the threat is not from AQ.
Is it even possible to be any more disingenuous?
Scientists suggest that it is not, in fact, possible to be any more disingenuous.
But then again, "it's just a theory."
I wrote a follow-up: Big brother is watching.
A.L. -- I really enjoyed this post and am thankful for the time you've taken to deconstruct the arguements and their historical frame into everyday language. I know it's not rocket science, but very helpful in discussing the issue with fellow citizens who have trouble connecting the dots.
I only wish everyone was a mad as I am.
I'm as mad, believe me.
thebigerns, well you may say you're mad, but can't tell from that gay pic.
Are you a lumberjack and you're OK, you work all night and you sleep all day...
You cut down trees, you eat your lunch
you go to the lavatory.
On Wednesdays you go shopping and have buttered scones for tea
You cut down trees, you skip and jump
you like to press wild flowers.
you put on women's clothing and hang around in bars.
You cut down trees, you wear high heels, suspenders and a bra. You wish you'd been a girlie, just like your dear papa!!
At least I have a face, and do not have to hide behind anonymity when I speak. If you could muster the same courage and substance of character, then you could be more than just an anonymous jerk, your ability to cite Monty Python skits notwithstanding.
AL,
I think a better reading of what Bush is saying suggests that his point now is actually considerably different from what he was saying in 2001. In 2001, the issue was whether the surveillance laws, and particular the non-content pen register statute, governed Internet communications at all. The Patriot Act ensured that it did. I gather Bush's point now is about the effectiveness of surveillance of communications, mostly focusing on content information under FISA. So while some of the words he's using are similar, the points he is making are actually quite different.
Orin,
Thanks for dropping by. Respectfully, though, I totally disagree with you on this one. The favorite rhetorical tactic of Bush and his defenders at the moment is to treat FISA as if it were some historical relic from a bygone era when all we had were landlines and there were no terrorists. That was clearly the point Bush was trying to convey in his speech the other day. And it's completely dishonest. FISA, though originally passed in 1978, has been amended around ten times since then, including in 1994 (after the first World Trade Center bombing) and in 2001 (after 9/11). It is a modern statute, one that has been updated to take into account modern technology and the threat of terrorism. Bush made this point himself.
Now I'm not saying that FISA is perfect or that reasonable people can't debate over how to improve it further. But it is just flat out dishonest to suggest, as Bush does, that FISA reflects only the state of the world in 1978.
Moreover, the White House had an opportunity in 2001 to update FISA post 9/11. That was the point of the Patriot Act. That particular Congress would have passed any amendments that were even remotely reasonable. The White House sought and received a number of key amendments. Bush responded by signing the amendments into law and praising the new law. He then turned around and just days later ordered the NSA to disregard the law, on a theory that he, as Commander-in-Chief had the inherent authority to disregard a duly enacted statute (the very one he had just praised and pledged to uphold).
Now it's possible that, as you suggest, Bush's problem with FISA was not addressed by the Patriot Act amendments. But if so, it was his job to seek additional amendments, not to just disregard the law, in secret.
A.L.,
Thanks for your response. Just to be clear, my comment is not about the Bush Administration's approach to FISA as a whole; it's limited to the question of whether Bush's comments about the Patriot Act in 2001 are inconsistent with his points this past week.
I don't see this "considerably different" thing Orin Kerr claims is a "better reading" of the remarks. In '01, he spoke of a new law that addressed "e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones."
Now he is concerned that "When FISA was passed in 1978, there was no widely accessible Internet, and almost all calls were made on fixed landlines."
But, the law was updated. It dealt with cell phones etc., a world not of fixed landlines. It is also telling that the concerns about not following the law is skipped over to cover Bush's back.
After all, he's not 100% full of himself. You really need to underline that fact. It is the better reading for sure.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home