BCT Editorial – 2/28/06

This page was last updated on February 28, 2006.

The right way; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 28, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter is taking the right approach in dealing with the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance.”

[RWC] We should know what to expect when the editorial leads off with a lie. Unless we now refer to e-mail and phone calls between the U.S. and foreign countries as “domestic,” the NSA program to which the editorial refers is not domestic.

“Let’s hope the Bush administration sees the wisdom of Specter’s way on this matter.

“The Washington Post reports that the Pennsylvania Republican, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would have the federal government obtain permission to wiretap domestic suspects from the secret court created under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”

[RWC] According to all reports, the federal government already does this for domestic surveillance. The editorial is referring to terrorist suspects in foreign countries but the author intentionally omitted any mention of the foreign targets of the surveillance.

“The draft version of Specter’s proposal also would require the administration to give a handful of lawmakers more information about the program than they now receive, such as the number of communications intercepted and a summary of the results.

“Specter’s proposals run counter to the Bush White House, which believes it can do anything it wants anytime it wants to anyone it wants, all in the name of fighting terrorism (as the administration defines it). The power it claims to have is breathtakingly broad and constitutionally questionable.”

[RWC] As noted in a previous critique, 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.

Consider the following excerpt from a New York Times 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, Clinton’s Deputy U.S. Attorney General Jamie Gorelick told the House Intelligence Committee that “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes.”

“Although civil libertarians and the administration aren’t thrilled with what the senator is proposing, Specter is on the right track. Few people would deny the federal government should have the tools it needs to counter terrorism, at home and abroad.”

[RWC] Yeah, and the author “supports the troops” but not their mission. The fact is, people who oppose President Bush appear to be so blinded by hate they believe he is the real enemy, not terrorists. Need some evidence? You’ll note the Times has not once said the person who leaked info about this program should be tracked down. While the Times was very concerned about the alleged outing of Valerie Plame, not once has an editorial expressed concern about the NSA leak or the leak about alleged U.S. prisons abroad for terrorists.

“However, those expanded powers must come with sufficient judicial and legislative oversight to make sure that the constitutional rights of the American people aren’t trampled.”

[RWC] This final paragraph sounds reasonable until you remember Times editorials have consistently misrepresented and lied about the subject NSA program.

The editorial assumes the NSA program requires “expanded powers.” As noted above, the courts and at least two previous administrations argued “the president’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance.”

To be honest, I don’t know if the NSA program is constitutional or not. Ignoring the people presenting purely partisan opinions, let’s remember people on both sides of the political spectrum have been presenting reasonable arguments for and against the program’s legality. Let’s also remember that the Bush administration wasn’t trying to hide anything from Congress. That’s why the administration briefed selected members of Congress of both parties since the program’s inception. Let’s also remember that even if the program turns out to be technically illegal, everyone has agreed the program should exist.

Listen, I support appropriate oversight of all government programs. That’s not what this is about, however. This whole dustup about the NSA terrorist surveillance program is purely about politics. Otherwise, why did none of the briefed members of Congress – including the Democrats – see anything wrong with the program until someone leaked its existence? If any of these representatives had seen anything illegal in the program, they had the means to address them even given the secrecy of the program.