BCT Editorial – 5/14/06

This page was last updated on May 14, 2006.

Fear factor; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 14, 2006.

This editorial has a lot in common with one from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette entitled “Spying on our own.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Another big lie from America’s Big Brother

“How many more big lies by the Bush administration will it take before Americans wake up to the danger their own government poses to them?

“When The New York Times broke the story that the super-secret National Security Agency was illegally wiretapping domestic telephone calls, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration officials said the wiretaps were limited to international calls and were being used to respond quickly to terrorist threats against the nation.

“It was a lie.

“USA Today reported on Thursday that the NSA has been secretly collecting records of ordinary Americans’ telephone calls to build a database of every call made within the country.”

[RWC] Actually, as you probably now know, it is the Times doing the lying. As the P‑G, the Times wants us to believe phone records are the same as eavesdropping on the international communications of suspected terrorists.

As I noted in the critique of the P‑G editorial, this story did not break on Thursday (5/11/06). The New York Times reported this program back in December 2005. What took the Times so long to get its panties in a bunch? It couldn’t be that a nomination for CIA director is coming up, could it?

“The paper reported AT&T Corp., Verizon Communications Inc., and BellSouth Corp. telephone companies began turning over records of tens of millions of their customers’ phone calls to the NSA program shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

“The companies said Thursday that they are protecting customers’ privacy but have an obligation to assist law enforcement and government agencies in ensuring the nation’s security, The Associated Press reported.”

[RWC] According to The New York Sun, at least part of the authority to acquire the phone records came from the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) of 1994. This act was passed by a voice vote by a Democrat-majority House and a Democrat-majority Senate and was then signed by Democrat President Bill Clinton. Oops.

“Since Sept. 11, 2001, Big Brother, with a willing assist from big business, knows who you called, how long you talked with them, where you were when you made the calls, the time of the calls and who knows what else - and didn’t think it needed to let you, your representatives and senators in Congress and the federal courts, including a special one appointed to deal secretly with national security issues, know it was invading your privacy on such a massive and unconstitutional scale.”

[RWC] “Willing assist from big business?” Don’t we expect all businesses to follow the law noted above? Why wouldn’t we expect businesses to help thwart terrorist activity?

As with the terrorist surveillance program, select leaders of Congress – both Democrat and Republican – were briefed about this program and they acknowledged this fact.

Regarding court notification, most government actions don’t require it. If all government actions required court sanction, the executive and legislative branches would be subordinate to the judicial branch. That’s not how our government is designed. The “special” court to which the editorial refers is FISA. FISA stands for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It handles issuing search and wiretap warrants. It has no authority over the acquisition of ordinary business records. Court opinions going back to the 1970s consistently ruled that requesting phone records does not require a search warrant because phone users have no legitimate expectation of privacy regarding those records. On top of that we have the CALEA of 1994 noted above.

As far as I can tell, something is unconstitutional when it doesn’t support the Times agenda.

Based on this paragraph, it appears the Times wants us to make public announcements of our tactics to thwart terrorists. Maybe the CIA, NSA, et cetera should just set up websites and/or mailing lists so we can make sure terrorists know exactly what we’re doing.

“In response to the USA Today report, Bush gave Americans his tired post-9/11, fighting-terrorism ‘trust us’ response, assuring Americans that their privacy is being ‘fiercely protected’ and that the administration is ‘not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans.’

“How do we know that? We don’t. We have to take his word for it because Bush’s congressional lap dogs certainly haven’t been very vigilant in their oversight of this administration, because Bush’s television-and-radio talk show sycophants won’t hold the administration accountable for its abuses, and because the courts have shown far too much deference to executive power.”

[RWC] Are these the same “lap dogs” that claim they’ll move to impeach President Bush should Democrats regain majority status in Congress? On what planet does the editorial author live?

I love it. Conservative television and radio talk shows have a tiny fraction of the market as compared to the mainstream media, yet somehow they are overwhelming outlets like the Times? Come on, guys, get a grip! While we’re on it, though, if the Times actually listened to those evil non-liberal shows, it would find quite a bit of disagreement with President Bush on a number of topics. It is true, however, that most of these programs don’t view President Bush as Satan. Most of us believe the terrorists and their “useful idiot” collaborators in the U.S. are the real enemy.

“This is no time for complacency. The rule of law is a fragile thing, easily manipulated by those who put power before principles. Basic American rights are being eroded. They’ll be gone before you notice.”

[RWC] One of the last things I want is to read a Times editorial decrying people “who put power before principles.” There’s only so much hypocrisy I can handle.

What “Basic American rights are being eroded?” Are we to believe all business records have the status of doctor/patient and client/lawyer records? As I note in the P‑G editorial critique, you can buy phone records on the Internet.

Given the Times dim view of the Bush administration’s relatively tame and apparently constitutional actions, I can only imagine its horror at the actions of presidents like Abraham Lincoln and FDR. I suspect, though, the Times would find a way to excuse FDR.

“This is an administration that has shown repeatedly that it believes itself to be above the law. This is an administration that writes its own rules and keeps them secret. This is an administration that routinely tramples basic constitutional rights. This is an administration that views dissent as treason.”

[RWC] As with this entire editorial, these are cute drive-by accusations. Where is the evidence, however?

“Given this administration’s sorry constitutional track record, the United States is one terrorist attack away from seeing the rule of law assigned to the dustbin of history.”

[RWC] So the Times acknowledges there are terrorists out there trying to kill us?

Here’s the way to tell this is a politically motivated attack. If the Times really believed there were legal problems with the program, but it wanted to put the welfare of the country first, the editorial would have acknowledged the program makes sense but would have suggested ways to make it legal. Instead, the Times showed its true colors and accused President Bush of being the real enemy.