TIME: Presidential Snooping Damages the Nation

[tuvor]

Presidential Snooping Damages the Nation
Bush has put himself above the law and in the company of rogues

Back in the 1930s, when confronted with clear evidence he had violated the law, Georgia's then agriculture commissioner and gubernatorial candidate Eugene Talmadge popped his bright red suspenders and dared those accusing him of corruption to do something about it, declaring, "Sure, I stole, but I stole for you." He was elected Governor in 1932. Accused of breaking the law in the current debate over electronic spying, President George W. Bush has, in his own way, dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of our Constitution, I hope they will.

Let's focus briefly on what the President has done here. Exactly like Nixon before him, Bush has ordered the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct electronic snooping on communications of various people, including U.S. citizens. That action is unequivocally contrary to the express and implied requirements of federal law that such surveillance of U.S. persons inside the U.S. (regardless of whether their communications are going abroad) must be preceded by a court order. General Michael Hayden, a former director of the NSA and now second in command at the new Directorate of National Intelligence, testified to precisely that point at a congressional hearing in April 2000. In response, the President and his defenders have fallen back on the same rationale used by Nixon, saying essentially, "I am the Commander in Chief; I am responsible for the security of this country; the people expect me to do this; and I am going to do it." But the Supreme Court slapped Nixon's hands when he made the same point in 1972. And it slapped Bush's hands when, after 9/11, he asserted authority to indefinitely detain those he unilaterally deemed "enemy combatants"--without any court access.

Bush's advocates also argue that the congressional resolution authorizing military force in Afghanistan and elsewhere--to bring to justice those responsible for the 9/11 attacks--authorized those no-warrant wiretaps. But there is absolutely nothing in the clear language of that resolution or in its legislative history suggesting that it was intended to override specific federal laws governing electronic surveillance. If Bush succeeds in establishing this as a precedent, he will have accomplished a breathtaking expansion of unilateral Executive power that could be easily applied to virtually any other area of domestic activity as long as a link to national security is asserted.

Finally, presidential defenders have argued that efficiency demands bypassing the courts. There again, the clear language of the law does them in. Even pre--Patriot Act law provided a very robust mechanism through which a President, facing what he believes is such an emergency that the short time needed to secure court approval for a wiretap would obviate the need for one, can order a tap without prior court approval as long as he eventually gets an O.K. within three days. If that degree of flexibility does not suit a President, it is hard to imagine what provision would. And if the President thought the law governing eavesdropping was misguided or impractical, he should have proposed amendments.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1145243,00.html

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. The author of this very good article is Bob Barr.

Not exactly one of us librul moonbats. This kind of commentary is likely to be much more effective in reaching rank and file Rushbots because of Barr's role in the Clinton impeachment. He's a dyed in the wool conservative; maybe the Fox-watching mouthbreathers will listen to him.

I'm no fan of Barr's because he is in other respects very conservative, but he did a damn good job of clearly and accurately outlining the arguments against Bush's spying.

[LuckyTheDog]

20. Good job, Bob

I probably disagree with Bob Barr on most things. But I am glad to see that he shares our concern for the Constitution. Common ground? Wow, it still exists.

[IndianaGreen]

21. Bob Barr?

When the far right and the far left agree that Bush should be impeached, then the moderates should call for that too.

[Jade Fox]

2. "For the sake of our Constitution I hope they will."

Would that we had that power, and were not dependent on a Congress whose members take their guidance from the GOP.

I think Bush will be impeached. But it's not a matter of the simple will of the people like this writer suggests.

[Hekate]

17. Perhaps someone should point out to Mr Barr that we have no free press...

...at the moment.

Perhaps Mr Barr would be surprised to learn that more than once in this godforsaken administration upwards of a million American citizens have marched on Washington DC, that hundreds of thousands showed up to protest the Republican National Conventions, that a goodly percentage of us took to the streets to protest the invasion before it happened -- he might be surprised because if he's only getting his news from the MSM, IT'S NOT BEING REPORTED ACCURATELY. To hear it from the MSM, a few tie-dyed hippies periodically drop in from Brigadoon to protest bringing young Joan Baez with them. Trivial. Nothing to see here.

!@#$%?! Mr. Barr, WE'VE BEEN TRYING FOR FIVE YEARS and your pals in the mainstream media keep ignoring us and minimizing our concerns and generally waiting for us to go away.

Hekate
:argh:

[Hekate]

18. I can't send an LTTE to TIME because my browser is too old...

... I got one of those messages offering to download a newer version of my browser, but my whole computer is too antique to stand for it.

>goes away muttering that TIME's e-mail must be around here somewhere so can bypass the damn website<

I'm glad the likes of Bob Barr are beginning to see the light, but he and they are going to have to do some heavy lifting of their own and not just throw it back onto We The People, because they got us into this mess.

Hekate

[Harper_is_Bush]

3. Kudos to TIME

They took a lickin' over that last article "Did Bush cross the line?", so I gotta give credit on this one!

[cliss]

4. Isn't that a great line?

"Sure I stole, but I stole for you". Sheesh.

Well, I think Time Magazine has GOT to be getting its stories straight by now. The Bush administration has become so ludicrous, so outrageous that it's become a challenge: either you end up sounding like Bill O'Really, or you tell the truth. It's that simple.

[More Than A Feeling]

5. Wow, apparently TIME's admiration for Ann Coulter doesn't

extend to sounding like her in defense of the president. In this atmosphere, that's shocking.

[Kurovski]

6. It doesn't put Bush " ...in the company of rogues."

as stated in the article's sub-title.

Bush himself is already a key rogue in an administration run amuck.

[FourStarDemocrat]

7. Bush is Chief Rogue

Bravo to Bob Barr, and hoping many other conservatives follow his lead.

[Kurovski]

11. I see Cheney as chief rogue, but for PR purposes

it's much cleaner to "brand" Bush as chief rogue.

With that in mind, I defer to your position. :-)

[jrd200x]

8. I hated Barr during Clinton impeachment but this is awesome

He is a RWW but has always been strong on privacy and the constitution. You'd think he's be calling for impeachment.

[neuvocat]

9. That's not surprising at all.

Anytime that someone uses the government to his or her own ends, the country always suffers as a whole.

[greiner3]

10. Now both of the weeklies are on our side in this;

I truly hope that this will keep gathering strength and take down everyone in its path.

[EVDebs]

12. Wait till those in Congress get to see their files......

For that matter, it's all been offshored and privatized with Ben H. Bell's company Global Information Group Ltd., in the Bahamas (what became of the TIA project).

http://www.zmetro.com/archives/000901.php

and also at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36853-2004Oct15.html

""Robert O'Harrow Jr:

It began as one of the Bush administration's most ambitious homeland security efforts, a passenger screening program designed to use commercial records, terrorist watch lists and computer software to assess millions of travelers and target those who might pose a threat.

The system has cost almost $100 million. But it has not been turned on because it sparked protests from lawmakers and civil liberties advocates, who said it intruded too deeply into the lives of ordinary Americans. The Bush administration put off testing until after the election.

Now the choreographer of that program, a former intelligence official named Ben H. Bell III, is taking his ideas to a private company offshore, where he and his colleagues plan to use some of the same concepts, technology and contractors to assess people for risk, outside the reach of U.S. regulators, according to documents and interviews.

Bell's new employer, the Bahamas-based Global Information Group Ltd., intends to amass large databases of international records and analyze them in the coming years for corporations, government agencies and other information services. One of the first customers is information giant LexisNexis Group, one of the main contractors on the government system that was known until recently as the second generation of the Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-screening Program, or CAPPS II. The program is now known as Secure Flight.""

It has not been 'turned on' that we know of...and do YOU trust the Bush administration to tell you it hasn't been 'turned on' yet ?

To top it off, the information databases aren't secure and the data is often questionable itself:

""...Alan Paller, director of research at the Bethesda, Md.-based SANS Institute, said the California law is probably necessary because the kinds of crimes that are being committed. For example, a group in Russia and Ukraine has been acquiring customer data, extorting money to prevent its release and selling it anyway. Paller said he believes some companies are paying off the extortionists in an attempt to contain the damage. "You have to make the price of paying off the extortionists higher than the price of not paying them off, and this bill is the first thing that does that," he said""

Bill Would Force Companies to Disclose Thefts of Personal Data
Feinstein bill is based on new California law
by Patrick Thibodeau
http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/privacy/story/0,10801,76768,00.html

Nowadays when I see books like Spychips by Katherine Albrecht telling about how Wal-Mart can track my purchase of underware and meanwhile the DoD can't track OBL's purchase of kidney dialysis equipment and supplies in Afganistan/Pakistan/Dubai...I just have to throw up my hands and say that * and company have declared the US public blanket 'terrorists' lumped in with OBL. And today I read that the FBI is busy interrogating strippers while nuts buying .50 cal rifles are off to the races.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x484

It's a good thing BushCo has only 3 more unbearable years left in office. There IS a God !

[Blutodog]

13. The Dau report:

Read this if u really think anything different will occur after this latest Bu$h outrage.

Dau Report (from Salon.com) -
"The Dynamic of a Bush Scandal: How the Spying Story Will Unfold (and Fade)"
by Peter Daou
The third button on the Daou Report's navigation bar links to the U.S. Constitution, a Constitution many Americans believe is on life support - if not already dead. The cause of its demise is the corrosive interplay between the Bush administration, a bevy of blind apologists, a politically apathetic public, a well-oiled rightwing message machine, lapdog reporters, and a disorganized opposition. The domestic spying case perfectly illuminates the workings of that system. And the unfolding of this story augurs poorly for those who expect it to yield different results from other administration scandals.
Here's why: the dynamic of a typical Bush scandal follows familiar contours...
1. POTUS circumvents the law - an impeachable offense.
2. The story breaks (in this case after having been concealed by a news organization until well after Election 2004).
3. The Bush crew floats a number of pushback strategies, settling on one that becomes the mantra of virtually every Republican surrogate. These Republicans face down poorly prepped Dem surrogates and shred them on cable news shows.
4. Rightwing attack dogs on talk radio, blogs, cable nets, and conservative editorial pages maul Bush's critics as traitors for questioning the CIC.
5. The Republican leadership plays defense for Bush, no matter how flagrant the Bush over-reach, no matter how damaging the administration's actions to America's reputation and to the Constitution. A few 'mavericks' like Hagel or Specter risk the inevitable rightwing backlash and meekly suggest that the president should obey the law. John McCain, always the Bush apologist when it really comes down to it, minimizes the scandal.
6. Left-leaning bloggers and online activists go ballistic, expressing their all-too-familiar combination of outrage at Bush and frustration that nothing ever seems to happen with these scandals. Several newspaper editorials echo these sentiments but quickly move on to other issues.
7. A few reliable Dems, Conyers, Boxer, et al, take a stand on principle, giving momentary hope to the progressive grassroots/netroots community. The rest of the Dem leadership is temporarily outraged (adding to that hope), but is chronically incapable of maintaining the sense of high indignation and focus required to reach critical mass and create a wholesale shift in public opinion. For example, just as this mother of all scandals hits Washington, Democrats are still putting out press releases on Iraq, ANWR and a range of other topics, diluting the story and signaling that they have little intention of following through. This allows Bush to use his three favorite weapons: time, America's political apathy, and make-believe 'journalists' who yuck it up with him and ask fluff questions at his frat-boy pressers.
8. Reporters and media outlets obfuscate and equivocate, pretending to ask tough questions but essentially pushing the same narratives they've developed and perfected over the past five years, namely, some variation of "Bush firm, Dems soft." A range of Bush-protecting tactics are put into play, one being to ask ridiculously misleading questions such as "Should Bush have the right to protect Americans or should he cave in to Democratic political pressure?" All the while, the right assaults the "liberal" media for daring to tell anything resembling the truth.
9. Polls will emerge with 'proof' that half the public agrees that Bush should have the right to "protect Americans against terrorists." Again, the issue will be framed to mask the true nature of the malfeasance. The media will use these polls to create a self-fulfilling loop and convince the public that it isn't that bad after all. The president breaks the law. Life goes on.
10. The story starts blending into a long string of administration scandals, and through skillful use of scandal fatigue, Bush weathers the storm and moves on, further demoralizing his opponents and cementing the press narrative about his 'resolve' and toughness. Congressional hearings might revive the issue momentarily, and bloggers will hammer away at it, but the initial hype is all the Democrat leadership and the media can muster, and anyway, it's never as juicy the second time around...
Rinse and repeat.
It's a battle of attrition that Bush and his team have mastered. Short of a major Dem initiative to alter the cycle, to throw a wrench into the system, to go after the media institutionally, this cycle will continue for the foreseeable future.
###

[unhappycamper]

19. Blutodog:

Please be aware that DU copyright rules require that excerpts of copyrighted material be limited to four paragraphs and must include a link to the original source.

In the future, please insure your posts adhere to this standard.

TIA,

unhappycamper
DU Moderator

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

14. Has Anyone Seen Karen Hughes?

UnderSecretary for something or other.
It's your money.

[freesqueeze]

15. Typically...

this administration is running from the facts.

We all heard Mr. Bush swear to, "protect and defend the constitution of the United States." I think there was even a Bible involved. I guess that was just another in a reeeeaaaallllyyyy long line of whoppers.

[AuntiBush]

16. If This Were a Democrat President He'd Already be Impeached!

Can't believe they have to argue this point, as it's illegal - period.

Even if Congress signed the bill, they're not given much of a chance to read most of them. Still, its no longer an excuse.

Checks & balances: Time to read everything even if it takes them all damn year long.

[nankerphelge]

22. Exactly...

what's the point of the rule of law, if you don't have to follow the law. It's troubling and scary.