BCT Editorial – 1/2/06

This page was last updated on January 4, 2006.

Legal limbo; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 2, 2006.

This editorial is a rehash of “The rule of law” (December 21, 2005). My guess is this rerun is a result of a recent Rasmussen Reports poll (12/26-27/05) showing over 64% of Americans (51% of Democrats) believe President Bush’s order was commonsense during time of war; only 23% disagreed. I believe the Times feels it needs to keep pushing its spin of the program until we agree President Bush needs to be impeached.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Administration’s willingness to put itself above the law should alarm all Americans

“They didn’t have to do it, but they did.

“The Bush administration didn’t have to step outside the law to intercept domestic-based telephone calls and e-mails in its efforts to track terrorist activities, but it did. In doing so, it set itself above the law.

“What’s frightening about the Bush White House’s disdain for the law is that it could have gotten what it wanted legally.

“Eric Mink, a columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reported that according to figures compiled by the Federation of American Scientists, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret intelligence panel set up under a 1978 act that requires a warrant for domestic spying, granted 18,742 applications from 1979 through 2004. During that time span, it denied a mere four requests.”

[RWC] As I’ve noted before, a columnist is merely an opinion writer, just like editorial authors. As a result, I believe columnist “facts” should be believed only after being verified with a credible independent source.

“The president and his men have argued that speed was of the essence in regard to these intercepts, which meant the National Security Agency, which, by law, is barred from domestic spying, didn’t have time for legal red tape.

“The problem with that argument is that the 1978 law takes that scenario into consideration. It allows agents to start tapping immediately and apply for the warrants up to 72 hours later.

“This administration could have stayed within the law and still protected the United States and the American people, yet it deliberately chose to thumb its nose at the law.

“That should alarm every American who understands the importance of the rule of law to our nation’s very being.”

[RWC] The editorial fails to note an awful lot of legal experts believe the disclosed actions were completely legal. This includes former FISA judges and a Deputy U.S. Attorney General for Bill Clinton.

“The Fourth Amendment is quite clear on this matter: ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’

“Given this administration’s disdain for the rule of law and the willingness of far too many Americans to passively accept whatever it dishes out in the name of Sept. 11, 2001, our rights as Americans are in serious jeopardy.”

[RWC] Once again, in its zeal to paint the Bush administration as outside the norm in this area, the editorial fails to note Democrat icons Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton issued comparable executive orders.

Remember, 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.

“The war against terrorism does not justify stripping the American people of their constitutional rights. Those rights are important to you because without the protection of the rule of law, you are one dissenting telephone call or e-mail away from being classified an ‘enemy combatant’ by the Bush administration and joining Jose Padilla in legal limbo.”

[RWC] Unless your e-mail messages and phone calls are from/to suspected terrorists abroad, the subject program doesn’t affect you according to all published reports. The editorial wants us to believe the program covers communication between our grandmothers and us.

Is the Times beginning to support Jose Padilla?

Finally, note the editorial doesn’t even mention the issue of someone leaking national security secrets.