NSA wiretaps: Illegal or not?
The Washington Post's David S. Broder writes a piece about former vice president Al Gore's return to the political fray earlier this week, when in a Washington, DC speech he damned President Bush's covert NSA wiretap policy (quickie wikipedia backgrounder here) as illegal and unconstitutional. Broder, who is widely regarded for his journalistic integrity, declared that Gore "has turned himself into a one-man grand jury" on this issue. But that is not necessarily a bad thing, he thinks, since Gore gave "as comprehensive a rundown of George W. Bush's ventures to the limits of executive authority as anyone could hope to find." Broder points to the obvious political perspective--Gore lost to Bush in the hugely controversial 2000 presidential election, and surely still nurtures a grudge against Bush.
- But even after discounting for political motivations, it seems to me that Gore has done a service by laying out the case as clearly and copiously as he has done. His overall charge is that Bush has systematically broken the laws and bent the Constitution by his actions in the areas of national security and domestic anti-terrorism.
Many in the media, and the broader public sphere--on both left and right--have been complaining more and more bitterly about Bush's tendency to reach for too much executive power at the expense of the other two branches of government (see, e.g., an editorial from last Sunday's New York Times: "The Imperial Presidency at Work"). And law suits challenging the wiretaps, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, have further raised the political temperature on this issue.
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal comes to the defense of the Bush policy. In an editorial this week the powerful newspaper's editorial staff rejects the legitimacy of the aforementioned suits. The Benton CommPolicy listserv summarizes the editorial piece (which is blocked to view unless you have a subscription) defending the administration's position. The lawsuits are frivolous, they write,
- because 1) the plaintiffs have no evidence they have been wronged and 2) the Totten doctrine which says a lawsuit can't proceed if it would inevitably lead to the disclosure of sensitive intelligence matters. The battle over the al Qaeda wiretaps isn't in fact a legal issue at all. It is basically a political battle between Congress and the White House over supremacy on matters of national security. President Bush has forthrightly defended the use of wiretaps as essential to fighting the war on terror. If the ACLU disapproves, it has every right to lobby Congress to exert political pressure on the White House to reverse its policy. But its charge of "illegality" is nothing but a political weapon designed to suggest something more nefarious.
posted by hdougie at 1/19/2006 08:56:00 AM
2 Comments:
In a previous episode (sometime in late December) of Hardball, where Andrea Mitchell sat in for Chris Matthews - this was the topic of discussion - and some interesting points were raised, which I find particularly relevant here. The fact that Gore made a speech which damned the actions of President Bush is something I find interesting on many levels. The one I will address is that the Clinton administration is known to have had authorized similar warrantless wireless taps - the distinction being they were for the FBI as opposed to the NSA. So, I must question where Gore draws the line in treading upon civil liberties. While I don't believe Gore's assertions are based primarily on his loss to Bush - it does seem that there may be some political motivation to his very public damnation of the current President. I strongly disagree with Bush's assertion that the state of the US post 9/11 gives him the support of article II of the Constitution or that he has the right to alter the balance of power so heavily in his favor. In light of Bush's track record manipulating the public into believing there is a threat (recall the reports of weapons of mass destruction that were not entirely accurate)many people find it hard to accept that Bush's decision to proceed in the use of warantless wire taps is much more than an abuse of his power. I can't say that I agree or disagree with these people. I will posit however, that it would be a shame if the heart of this issue, the apparent disregard for civil liberties, is lost in the political struggle that so often seems to overshadow the issues at hand. - Antonia Conklin-Heininger
Al Gore’s speech while obviously bias serves as an important wake up call to millions of Americans. People need to understand more clearly how the current administration conducts business and produces policy. President Bush and the administration seem bent on circumventing laws rather than changing them through the proper channels. They claim expanding power is required to fight terrorism in the post 9/11 world, but if it’s so necessary, then Congress will enact the proper laws to do so. Surely a Republican House and Senate combined with a conservative Supreme Court can modify laws to their satisfaction. Americans have long since lost faith in the Congress as a useful and responsible law making body, and it appears so to has the Bush administration. The government losing faith in itself and turning to illegitimate or illegal means to achieve a goal is a frightening prospect.
Finally, President Bush’s claim that he requires wartime powers just as Lincoln or Roosevelt did is completely irresponsible, for Bush himself has time and again reiterated the long duration the war on terrorism will undoubtedly have. Apparently he expects Americans to provide the Executive with long-term war powers, and the scary part is that they probably will. This fact makes speeches like that of Al Gore’s all the more vital. -David SaNogueira
Post a Comment
<< Home