Deane Lavender – 4/21/06

This page was last updated on April 26, 2006.

Don’t trust Bush on wiretaps; Deane Lavender; Beaver County Times; April 21, 2006.

4/26/06 - Thanks to a reader, I just learned Deane is a he, not a she. I apologize for the error and made the appropriate changes to this critique. I did not correct my two previous critiques of Mr. Lavender’s letters.

Based on his previous letters (here and here), it appears Mr. Lavender is a serial Bush/Republican basher.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on April 6, Attorney General Gonzales was asked if the government has the authority to tap purely domestic telephone calls between American citizens without obtaining a warrant.”

[RWC] Right off the bat, Mr. Lavender tries to conflate purely domestic surveillance with the NSA terrorist surveillance program. The NSA program as currently reported monitors only INTERNATIONAL communications between suspected terrorists abroad and persons in the U.S. While folks blinded with partisanship seem to have a problem with the program, most Americans believe it makes sense. That’s why folks like Mr. Lavender attempt to confuse the issue.

“His reply was, ‘I’m not going to rule it out.’ That leaves open the possibility that such spying is already being undertaken. To do this is in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

[RWC] We shouldn’t be surprised Mr. Lavender omitted the context of the question and answer.

Here’s an excerpt from an Associated Press report. “He [AG Gonzales] said the administration, assuming the conversation related to al-Qaida, would have to determine if the surveillance were crucial to the nation’s fight against terrorism, as authorized by Congress following the Sept. 11 attacks. ‘I’m not going to rule it out,’ Gonzales said.”

“The warrantless wiretaps that are presently being conducted by the Bush administration are clearly illegal and in defiance of clear principles stated in the Bill of Rights.”

[RWC] Apparently Mr. Lavender has some legal insight at least a few FISA judges don’t have.

“The law provides for warrants for surveillance in cases involving national security to be issued in secret after review by a court designated by Congress specifically for that purpose, but the administration has by-passed the court, defying the law.

“Illegal surveillance is scary. Can the president declare himself and government agencies to be above the law? He apparently thinks so.

“This is a dangerous precedent, but so far Congress and the courts have not seriously questioned it. ‘Trust me’ is not an excuse. The founding fathers never intended that we should have the blind faith that a president would not abuse his power.”

[RWC] I hate to break the news to Mr. Lavender, but President Bush didn’t set a precedent. Both Presidents Carter (EO 12139) and Clinton (EO 12949) issued executive orders authorizing warrantless physical searches and electronic surveillance in the pursuit of foreign intelligence. Further, FDR ordered the reading of first class mail from soldiers abroad to their families at home in the U.S.

Many law experts assert the president has this inherent authority as commander in chief when conducting a war. It’s important to remember no mere law passed by Congress can usurp powers granted by the Constitution. Granting/taking constitutional powers to/from any branch of government requires a constitutional amendment.

“That is why the Constitution contains a system of checks and balances - so that no branch of government assumes dictatorial powers.”

[RWC] As I’ve noted before, folks like Mr. Lavender like to ignore certain facts.

First, if the Bush administration thought it was doing something illegal, why did it brief congressional leaders – both Democrat and Republican – from the very beginning?

Second, if the NSA terrorist surveillance program is so evil, why has no one in Congress – either Democrat or Republican – called for the program to be shut down?

Third, if the program is so evil, why have all members of Congress who claim it’s illegal also called for it to be made legal?