BCT Editorial – 12/21/05

This page was last updated on December 24, 2005.

The rule of law; Editorial; Beaver County Times; December 21, 2005.

Knee-jerk editorials like this are what puts the Times editorial board in the same category as people like Ramsey Clark and Cindy Sheehan.

I don’t know if the program was legal or not, and neither does the Times. This critique isn’t to argue for or against the program; its purpose is to show what the Times doesn’t want people to know.

Here’s the issue as described in a New York Times article. You won’t find it accurately described in the editorial. Based on this editorial and pretty much most coverage in the mainstream media, you would think President Bush was eavesdropping on your phone calls and e-mail notes to/from your Grandma. As you’ll read below, that’s untrue unless you and/or your Grandma are suspected terrorists and your Grandma lives abroad.

Beginning in 2002, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor without search warrant international telephone calls and international e-mail messages to/from foreign phone numbers and e-mail addresses linked to al-Qaida even if one side of the communication was to/from a person within our borders. This authorization did not include completely domestic communication. Intercepts of completely domestic communication still required a warrant.

From the beginning, the Bush administration briefed congressional leaders of both parties about the program. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, recently conceded they – among others – had been briefed over the years. Ms. Harman even said she believes the program is good and is upset that someone chose to break the law and disclose the program’s existence.

Nowhere in the editorial does the author express any concern that someone chose to disclose U.S. intelligence secrets during time of war.

Finally, let’s look at the context of the editorial’s complaint. Boiling it down, the editorial accuses the Bush administration of being overzealous in its duty to protect Americans from international terrorists. If this were true, I believe a reasonable person would recognize the apparent good intent and work to find a way to allow the feds to do their job without “pushing the envelope.” Instead, the editorial compares the Bush administration to the Third Reich. How sad.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Bush administration shows once again that it has little regard for legal niceties

“The rule of law is the very foundation of democracy in America.

“That’s why it is so frightening to see the Bush administration continually put itself above the law. Time and time again, this White House believes that it can make up its own rules, can be judge, jury and executioner.”

[RWC] This is what I refer to as a drive-by accusation. The author makes an allegation yet provides no supporting evidence. If the situation is so bad, why didn’t the author list a few of the alleged abuses to add weight to his accusations? The author does this repeatedly throughout the editorial.

The editorial fails to note congressional leaders from both parties were briefed about the program from the beginning. For over three years, briefed members of Congress had the opportunity to voice their objections and push for changes.

“That President Bush secretly ordered the super-secret National Security Agency, which is barred by law from conducting domestic surveillance, to eavesdrop on Americans with suspected links to terrorists might be, as the administration argued, something that had to be done to prevent attacks on the United States.”

[RWC] The assertion that the NSA “is barred by law from conducting domestic surveillance” appears to be incorrect. Executive Order 12333 issued by President Reagan on December 4, 1981, does not limit NSA responsibility solely to foreign signals intelligence gathering. Even if the assertion were true, the paragraph completely misrepresents the program as described by the NYT article. As noted in the NYT article, the authorization covered only “international telephone calls and international e-mail messages.” The NSA “still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.”

“The problem with that line of argument is that this administration has a track record of doing pretty much what it damn well pleases, and to hell with niceties like the rule of law. When it comes to fighting terrorism, anything goes - including basic civil rights of Americans who get in the way of this administration carrying out its policies.”

[RWC] I repeat my above observation. If the situation is so bad, why didn’t the author list a few of the alleged abuses to add weight to his accusations?

The author appears to believe the Bush administration is doing something previous administrations didn’t. Both Presidents Carter (EO 12139) and Clinton (EO 12949) issued executive orders authorizing warrantless physical searches and electronic surveillance in the pursuit of foreign intelligence.

“That’s why the U.S. Senate was right to delay the renewal of the Patriot Act, which was passed in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America. As we have argued before, the United States does need some form of the Patriot Act to deal with the challenges presented by international terrorism. No one questions that for a moment.”

[RWC] Is that right? I heard an audiotape of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) on December 16^th telling a rally of Democrat members of Congress, “We killed the Patriot Act.” The comment was met with cheers and clapping. The author’s claim sounds very similar to, “I don’t support their mission, but I support the troops.”

“However, stricter congressional and judicial oversight is needed to prevent the executive branch from trampling on the rights of loyal Americans. Patriots understand that; nationalists don’t.”

[RWC] Where’s the list of examples showing “the executive branch [is] trampling on the rights of loyal Americans?” If the rights of so many “loyal Americans” are being trampled, why didn’t the author cite even one?

Next the author gets into a personal attack. If you support the author’s premise, you are a patriot. If you don’t, you are unpatriotic.

“Instead of oversight, though, this White House wants carte blanche to do whatever it wants, wherever it wants, to whoever it wants, all in the name of fighting terrorism.”

[RWC] If that’s the case, why did the Bush administration brief congressional leaders of both parties about the program? If the White House really wants to do what the author claims, it wouldn’t take the risk of briefing Congress. You avoid briefing those responsible for oversight only if you believe you don’t have authority in law.

“This administration’s ends-justify-the-means abuse of power should give all Americans cause for concern. The rule of law is fragile, and it can vanish in an instant. Under the Bush administration’s collective mindset, the United States is one terrorist attack away from the rule of law being consigned to the dustbin of history.”

[RWC] As noted above, both Presidents Carter and Clinton issued executive orders similar to those issued by the Bush administration. In fact, Bill Clinton authorized a warrantless search of an American citizen’s (Aldrich Ames) home on U.S. soil. While there, government agents also planted listening devices, also without warrant.

While we’re on the rule of law, consider the following excerpt from the NYT article: “Administration officials were also encouraged by a November 2002 appeals court decision in an unrelated matter. The decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which sided with the administration in dismantling a bureaucratic ‘wall’ limiting cooperation between prosecutors and intelligence officers, cited ‘the president’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance.’”

In 1994, Deputy U.S. Attorney General told the House Intelligence Committee that the president “has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes.”

“‘First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out.’ - The Rev. Martin Niemoller.

[RWC] In case you don’t know, the above quote refers to Nazi Germany.

Let’s look at my personal modification of that quote, based on actions in the U.S. “First they (FDR) came for the Japanese-Americans, and I did not speak out – because though I was an American, I was not Japanese. Then they (Truman) came for the steel mills, and I did not speak out – because I owned no stock in steel companies.”

As a lot of liberals, the Times acts as if history began with President Bush’s inauguration in January 2001. Anything that happened prior to 2001 is ignored.

“We must not let history repeat itself.”

[RWC] How predictable. After presenting an incredibly partisan rant devoid of factual support, the author compares the Bush administration to Nazis, even though Nazis (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) were on the same end (left/liberal/progressive/socialist) of the political spectrum as is the Times editorial board.