It’s no surprise that the President defended the NSA’s domestic eavesdropping this morning; the guy backs every decision he makes, to the death. And it’s no surprise to learn that the President had “reauthorized the program more than 30 times since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and plans to continue doing so,” according to the AP.
But what’s odd is why the Administration felt they needed to avoid geting warrants for the wiretaps, in the first place. As Josh notes:
[T]he prime rationale for this program appears to have been to avoid the time and bureaucratic hurdles involved in getting warrants.
In the abstract, there sounds like there might be some merit in that argument, especially considering the importance of speed in counter-terrorism work.
The problem is that the FISA Court — the secret court set up to handle just such warrant requests — is designed for speed. And it is known for being extremely indulgent of government applications for warrants…
It turns out that FISA specifically empowers the Attorney General or his designee to start wiretapping on an emergency basis even without a warrant so long as a retroactive application is made for one “as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.” (see specific citation, here)…
All of this, of course, is separate from the issue of the president overruling a federal statute by executive order — something that by definition a president cannot do. But something seems fishy about the rationale itself.
But that’s not the only fishy thing here. In his radio address today, the President said:
The existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk.
Which implies that, somehow, suspected jihadists might not have known before that the government could be eavesdropping on them. Realistically, what are the chances of that?
UPDATE 2:05 PM EST: Also, if the Administration thinks it basically has the power to do whatever it damn pleases — detain Americans indefinitely, torture terror suspects, eavesdrop without a warrant — then why bother pushing for the Patriot Act? What do you need new laws for, if you’re already allowed to use every trick in the book?
UPDATE 12/18/05 AM: Ryan says the same thing, but better. And be sure to check out this WaPo page one analysis:
In his four-year campaign against al Qaeda, President Bush has turned the U.S. national security apparatus inward to secretly collect information on American citizens on a scale unmatched since the intelligence reforms of the 1970s.
UPDATE 12/18/05 PM: Be sure to check out Glenn Greenwald on whether or not these warantless wiretaps were legal or not. (Hint: no.)
Were not talking here about an unconvincing or erroneous legal argument. This is something different entirely it is an argument based upon a fundamental misquoting of the law in question designed to make illegal behavior look legal.
(Big ups: Jeralyn)
...
How else are we going to defend ourselves against successful intimidation operations?
Who’s intimidation operations are you talking about? The Presidents or our enemies. In fact, it’s getting harder to distinguish between just who is more dangerous; a rogue President, skirting national and international law for his own dogmatic pursuit or the terrorists, skirting national and international law for their own dogmatic pursuits.
hmmm…
Good Afternoon Folks,
Allthough the above story has made headlines the past 48 hours there is really nothing new here.
Some of you lawyers please correct me if I’m incorrect on this, but under the Congressional mandate after 9/11 excluding the Patroit Act President Bush or the next President is acting with in the law. Congress gave the President a very broad authority to go after terrorists and President Bush is rightly using it.
As to the NSA interception of communications I believe that only includes tapping into domestic to domestic land lines only.
Wireless mobile communication is still the last I heard, considered public airways and the Government can intercept any thing transmitted to include, voice, video, text and any other data.
If Congress is really so outraged about this let them pass legislation to deal with it. So far no one seems that upset.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Patriot act is a Justice Department/FBI thing. The NSA spying/torture/detentions etc stuff is Department of Defense. You’ve got to remember that there are several competing bureaucracies involved here.
PierreM
As far as I’m concerned, this tears it. Josh Marshall says
It turns out that FISA specifically empowers the Attorney General or his designee to start wiretapping on an emergency basis even without a warrant so long as a retroactive application is made for one “as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.” (see specific citation, here).
“Timliness” was stated over and over again yesterday by administration apologists as the reason that they could not take the time to apply to the FISA cout for permission. That is obviously crap. They simply do not want to have to apply for permission from FISA.
As far as I’m concerned there is only one reason for that. They do not want FISA (who has only been known to deny permission one time since its inception) to find out who they are surveilling.
Wanna guess why?
Maybe we should ask John Bolton.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/16/142620/20
Yeah, the FBI is too busy hassling students for checking out commie books:
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12–05/12–17-05/a09lo650.htm
I feel so much safer with these Crooks & Liars in charge.
Ah, I see George is taking our advice by showing how strong he is by openly flauting the law. Adolf and I did that too when our power was so compelte that we didn’t need the fig leaf off legal nicety to cover our actions.
Oh, my guys wore black and Adolf’s brown. What color does George’s supporters wear?
Why do you need new laws if you can ‘do whatever you please’? Maybe because you actually CAN’T do whatever you please. Now that makes some logical sense.
I would advise that the NY Times report be taken with a grain of salt. There is a whole lot of speculation out there, and very little of it actually seems reasonable. Just because Bush defends it or can’t explain it doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea. Seriously, the guy couldn’t explain how to make a grilled cheese sandwhich if he had to.
As for the NSA intercepts, how is this news? The NSA has been in the SIGINT business for years, and the entire international ECHELON network intercepts roughly 3 billion communications every day. Don’t tell me that innocent private conversations don’t end up in that total.
Please post an author’s name with your opinion pieces. Anything else is unprofessional and unbecoming of any website that wishes to be taken seriously.
And here I thought all this time that defensetech.org was for the defeat of militant terrorists and understood that George Bush isn’t the boogyman the liberal wacko world wants to believe he is.
I was wrong… sorry, my bad.
I think we should be working to defeat militant terrorism Dan, I just wish the Cheney administration, excuse me the Bush administration, was doing something about it.