The meme of the day for many conservatives is straightforward enough: intelligence acquired through warrantless searches helped prevent the thwarted terrorist hijackings, which makes Dems both wrong (about eavesdropping) and dangerous (about stopping terrorism).
The Wall Street Journal raised the argument today, and John Hinderaker summarized the meme nicely.
We were able to do this because of the NSA’s international terrorist surveillance program. If the Democrats succeed in killing that program insofar as it involves communications with one end inside the United States, on the ground that the program constitutes an invasion of privacy, the NSA will be able to break up terrorist plots overseas, but not ones that involve people (citizens or otherwise) inside the United States, and most directly threaten Americans.
This is wrong for at least two reasons.
First, it’s based on the assumption that U.S. intelligence, obtained by the NSA and acquired through warrantless searches, was directly responsible for stopping this plot. I think it’s probably a little too early to say with any real certainty what role American intelligence played, but there’s already reason to be skeptical of Hinderaker’s claim. As Congressional Quarterly reported, “[Conservative lawmakers] largely praised the administration’s response, although it appeared British authorities had thwarted the plot with minimal involvement by the United States” (via TP). Were British officials able to thwart this attack “because of the NSA’s international terrorist surveillance program”? Reports are still unclear, but it seems like a stretch.
Second, to argue that Dems would prevent intelligence gathering is just silly.
Glenn Greenwald argued the point quite clearly.
Not a single Democrat in Congress wants to stop eavesdropping on the telephone conversations of terrorists — neither international calls nor domestic calls. Nobody is against eavesdropping, and Hinderaker’s warning that Democrats favor eavesdropping only for international calls but want to “kill” the government’s ability to eavesdrop on all other calls is nothing short of a deliberate falsehood.
This point is so obvious, so self-evidently clear, that it should be unnecessary to point it out. The NSA eavesdropping scandal has never been about whether the government should eavesdrop. It is about whether the president has the right to break the law. Those who object to the president’s illegal NSA program do not object to eavesdropping on terrorists. To the contrary, everyone favors eavesdropping on terrorists. The objection is to the president’s illegal eavesdropping (i.e., in secret and without warrants) rather than eavesdropping in compliance with the law (i.e., with judicial oversight and approval).
Follow the law, spy on the bad guys, prevent attacks. It’s really not that complicated.
Update: Spencer Ackerman adds some additional insights to the subject, noting that British officials were able to stop the plot by acquiring intelligence legally — by obtaining and complying with court-issued warrants. “This week’s counter-terrorism success should demonstrate how possible it is, and remains, for open-society to combat jihadism while preserving the rule of law,” Ackerman said.
In fact, let’s take that a step further. According to a U.S. intelligence official cited by the Post, some of the British terrorists placed phone calls to individuals within the United States. Whoever they called should very obviously be placed under surveillance. The FISA court would undoubtedly agree, despite Bush’s protests that successful counter-terrorism surveillance has to occur outside the restrictions of FISA. In short: counter-terrorism success, vigilance, the rule of law, and you — perfect together.
Remind me, what are conservatives complaining about again?