BCT Editorial – 8/23/06

This page was last updated on August 24, 2006.

Fright might; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 23, 2006.

Either the regular editorial writer is back from vacation, or someone waved an ammonia packet under his nose and brought him to his “senses.” During late July and early August, we saw two editorials telling us “We’re all targets” and “terrorists can successfully attack anywhere at anytime in the United States.” I noted in my critiques this seemed odd for the Times to say given editorials constantly refer to any mention of terrorism by the Bush administration to be “fear mongering” or a “scare tactic.” With this editorial, the Times is back on message.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Bush administration’s scare tactics on terrorism are losing effectiveness

“The Bush administration has Chicken Littled once too often on terrorism, as the growing skepticism among the American people shows.

“In the wake of last week’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit and the foiled attempt to blow up airliners flying from England to the United States, the Bush administration broke out the scare tactics once more.

“Only this time, the results showed that more and more Americans are catching on to this president’s and this administration’s exploitation of terrorism for domestic political gain.

“President Bush and his dwindling group of supporters were quick to attack Taylor’s decision as shackling the administration in its attempt to counter global terrorism.

“But Taylor did not say the federal government could not eavesdrop and use other clandestine tactics on the American people. Instead, she simply ruled that the president and his men should stick to the law, which, in this case, is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.”

[RWC] Not exactly. Even the liberal Washington Post acknowledged Judge Taylor’s ruling was at least partly a political rant. Here’s an excerpt from a Post editorial concerning the ruling.

“Unfortunately, the decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit, striking down the NSA’s program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work -- that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA’s program -- her opinion will not be helpful.”

In addition to violating the FISA, Judge Taylor accused the government of violating the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. We should also remember in testimony before Congress, some former FISA judges testified the NSA program did not violate the FISA.

“This law requires that federal agents get permission for a domestic wiretap from a special FISA court. Because of the way the law is written, that’s not much of a handicap. The law comes with a wiretap-now-get-permission-later clause that recognizes the need for authorities to move quickly on matters of national security.”

[RWC] Note the continued use of “domestic wiretap” instead of international wiretap. Unless you’re willing to call an airplane flight from Pittsburgh to Rome a domestic flight, you can’t call the NSA program a domestic wiretapping program.

Lest we forget, the wiretaps are only for communications into and out of the U.S. to/from specific foreign phone numbers and e-mail addresses tied to alleged terrorists. Many (most?) of these phone numbers and e-mail addresses came from documents and computers captured from known terrorists.

“The judge wrote what many Americans understand - the rule of law applies to all of us, including presidents.

“The administration also didn’t get much of a bounce from the arrests of English-based Muslims who are accused of planning to blow up airliners as they crossed the Atlantic Ocean.

“One reason for this is that Americans aren’t buying the administration’s effort to link the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the war against terrorism. They can see that the arrests in Britain and Pakistan were the result of good police work, not military might. They understand that this administration has been pursuing military and diplomatic policies that are counterproductive.”

[RWC] This is a hoot. In an editorial complimenting what it assumes is solely the result of “good police work,” the Times bashes the Bush administration for doing the same thing. Indeed, the British have far more leeway than U.S. counterterrorism agencies. The Times seems to believe there is no role for “military might” when it comes to combating terrorism. As we know, the Bush administration believes and effective strategy includes both military and police tactics.

This tunnel vision position should not be a surprise. Remember, we’re treated to editorial after editorial telling us the solution to our energy problem is conservation and any new domestic gas and oil production is counterproductive.

“This result can be seen in the latest poll conducted by the Pew Research Center. Pew Director Andrew Kohut told The Washington Post it was unclear whether the administration’s tactics would work this time. ‘There is no consensus that Republicans are better on terrorism than the Democrats, as was once clearly the case,’ Kohut said.

“The Post reported the Pew poll found that only 2 percent of those surveyed cited terrorism as the top issue that they want to hear candidates discuss - and that was after news of the airliner bombing plot.

“Americans understand the dangers terrorism poses. But they also are growing more aware of the dangers a power-hungry executive branch that sees itself as being above the law poses to basic American freedoms - and they won’t be scared again.”

[RWC] Folks like the editorial author blather on about “a power-hungry executive branch,” but fail to tell us how President Bush benefits from this power grab. For example, will the alleged power grab result in a greater pension? Will President Bush get to run for a third term? Face it; people don’t grab power for nothing. Until editorials can show us how President Bush will benefit, we can assume the author is just making stuff up.