BCT Editorial – 3/27/06

This page was last updated on March 27, 2006.

Salutes & Boots; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 27, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Salute: To U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., for his blunt assessment of the Bush administration’s stand on its illegal domestic eavesdropping program. Specter, who as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be leading the effort to write the program into law, was harsh, and rightly so, in criticizing the administration for its high-handed disregard of the Constitution. ‘They want to do just as they please, for as long as they can get away with it,’ Specter told The Associated Press. ‘I think what is going on now without congressional intervention or judicial intervention is just plain wrong.’ It’s good to see that Specter believes Congress has oversight responsibilities when it comes to the executive branch. Too many of his GOP colleagues have been more than willing to abdicate their constitutional duties and let this White House do whatever it wants.”

[RWC] Gee, what a surprise. The editorial keeps up the policy of incorrectly referring to the terrorist surveillance program as “domestic eavesdropping” or “domestic spying.” This program is domestic only if you believe airplane flights between the U.S. and foreign countries are domestic flights. This is at least the sixth editorial since December that has misrepresented the terrorist surveillance program.

Hmm, I wonder why the editorial didn’t mention that none of the legislators – four Democrats and four Republicans – who had been briefed about the program from the beginning raised any illegality flags. Also, if the terrorist surveillance is so bad, why aren’t so-called opponents calling for the program to stop?

Here’s something else to consider. Before the 1970s-era Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the government performed exactly the same surveillance during time of war the Times is whining about now without warrants. During World War II, FDR even had letters from GIs to home opened and read! Is the Times claiming that surveillance was unconstitutional? If so, you can’t make an unconstitutional act constitutional by simply passing a law; you need to pass an amendment.

I’ve written it before and here it is again. I don’t know if the program is legal or not, and a lot of legal experts on both ends of the political spectrum have differing opinions. The point is, no one in any kind of position of responsibility has called for the program to stop.

Rather than completely repeat myself, go to my critique of the editorial “The rule of law” for more discussion of this issue.