Bush unplugged

Last night on PBS, Bush artfully dodged every question about revelations that his White House allowed the NSA to spy on American citizens, on American soil, without a warrant, possibly illegally. Today, however, in a rare live radio address, the president expanded a bit on his thoughts.

President Bush today acknowledged that he had secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on international communications of Americans and other domestic residents with known links to al Qaeda.

The controversial order has been approved by legal authorities in his administration, Bush said, and he added that members of Congress had been notified of it more than a dozen times.

He defended his decision to sign the secret order, calling the program a “vital tool in our war against terrorists” and “critical to saving American lives.”

“This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security,” a stern-looking Bush said. “Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends, and allies. . . .And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.”

“I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups,” Bush added.

In other words, when it comes to warrantless spying on Americans, Bush believes he should “stay the course.”

Bush seemed almost annoyed at having to discuss the issue at all, even chastising journalists for reporting the story.

He chastised the news accounts, saying, “The existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk.”

This misleading argument is a stretch, even for Bush. As Josh Marshall noted, this “secret program” Bush referred to was the White House’s desire to get warrants it could have received quickly and easily.

If I’m understanding this correctly, this program allowed the president to conduct warrantless wiretaps in cases where he could have conducted the same wiretaps with warrants by seeking a warrant from the FISA Court. If the wiretaps were against the “international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations” then the FISA Court certainly would have issued the warrants. So it’s the same difference.

Regardless, when it comes to the issue of warrantless spying on Americans, Bush was effectively laying it all on the line this morning. Not only did he acknowledge that this occurred, but he was admitting that he had personally signed off on these searches on multiple occasions.

Where did Bush find the authority? Bush said that he authorized the program “using constitutional authority vested in me as commander-in-chief.” Experts and lawmakers from both parties disagree, but the president seems to be in the I’m-the-president-and-I-say-so zone where his conduct is legal by virtue of the fact that it’s his conduct.

It sets up a compelling showdown. A lot of officials at every level believe Bush has gone too far this time, while Bush believes he will continue to go as far as he pleases.

Stay tuned.

It’s quite simple, really.

Either you obtain warrants to conduct surveillance on US citizens or you’re a criminal. Not hard, really.

So if the President is free to unilaterally determine if he is a criminal or not, then we no longer have a republic but rather a dictatorship.

And if we have a dictatorship, let’s at least be honest about it and get rid of that 200+ year-old scrap of paper we call our Constitution. I’m tired of all this posturing about our country being “free” and “a democracy” when our government acts as if it’s anything but.

So, yes, this is an important question that needs to be settled.

  • I’m too distracted by Holiday shopping to make a good comment but stay tuned here on the threads too. I’m sure we will all have something to say about this.

  • It’s really pretty simple. Bush (perhaps it would be more accurate to say “Cheney”) doesn’t believe that the executive should have any restraints or checks on its freedom of action. The president, and his appointees, are obligated neither by morality nor precedent to do anything they don’t want to do. In this case, it’s not like the court wouldn’t have approved the action in an expedited manner; this whole thing probably could have been handled in a couple hours. They just didn’t want to bother, and felt on principle that they shouldn’t have to bother.

    This action is of a piece with the torture decisions, willfully deceiving Congress about the cost of the prescription drug benefit, and shifting $700 million from military operations in Afghanistan to Iraq. The administration recognizes no checks on its powers.

    Whether this is an outgrowth of Bush’s belief that he is God’s instrument, or the absolute entitlement he’s enjoyed for his entire life, or even someone’s honestly held Constitutional position is kind of irrelevant; the point is that this MO represents a fundamental threat to the character of our country, one I’d argue is far more dangerous than any terrorist.

  • A very good explanation of FISA may be found here.
    It explains that the threshold getting a warrant to eavesdrop on US citizens or permanent resident aliens is higher than it is for foreign nationals living in the US.

    Under FISA, surveillance is generally permitted based on a finding of probable cause that the surveillance target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power — not whether criminality is in any way involved. §1801(b)(1).

    The key here is that if the target is not a US citizen or permanent resident alien it is fairly easy to brand them “foreign agents”. For “foreign agents” there is no need to show probable cause of criminal intent. The bar is higher when it comes to US citizens and permanent resident alien.

    American citizens and permanent residents are “agents” if they knowingly engage in espionage for a foreign power or intelligence service, and such activities “are about to involve” a violation of U.S. laws–any criminal laws, not just espionage. §1801(b)(2)(B).

    Further,

    A “United States person” may not be determined to be an agent of a foreign power “solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” 50 U.S.C. § 1805(a)(3)(A).

    I would appear that an innocent phone call placed in the US from a US citizen to cousin Said in Saudi Arabia, who happens to be in Al Qaeda, would be protected by the first amendment and could not be monitored under a FISA warrant. It is this type of restriction which Bush most likely wants to get around. He wants to monitor call of people not known to be “foreign agents” and not about to break a criminal law. He wants to go fishing.

  • Rege, good analysis.

    in general, these are sadly nixonian concepts, brought to us by people who think the only thing nixon did wrong was to get caught.

  • “possibly illegally”

    I think we can safely drop the “possibly”. What he did was illegal, if law is to have any meaning distinct from simple power.

  • Nixonian…that’s my thinking too, Howard.

    What Bush has here is the “plumbers” on steroids with access to the eavesdropping capabilites of the NSA…

    And my conspiracy-addled brain is skeptical that this has been restricted to domestic-foreign intercepts…I’m thinking why couldn’t the spooks at NSA intercept a domestic communication…send it to one of our own listening posts overseas and then send it back to whomever it was intended to in the first place here in the States?? Voila: the communication satisfies the domestic-foreign characteristics of Bush’s executive order.

    If I were doing that at NSA, I wouldn’t want a FISA judge looking over my shoulder either…

  • “constitutional authority vested in me as commander-in-chief” is the same reason he gets to torture, according to his legal advisors and Cheney.

    What happens when his legal advisors give him incorrect advice? Not being a constitutional lawyer, I really don’t know. But “my legal team told me I was above the law” seems like a crappy defense.

  • Change that “intended to” to “intended.”

    CB, can we get a preview option here, pls???…lol.

    And Happy Holidays, CB…you’re the best!

  • There are 3 reasons I can find to avoid seeking a wiretap warrant.
    1: The FISA court has been infiltrated by al qaeda.
    2: No judge would issue the warrant.
    3:Too lazy to follow procedure.

    None of these are acceptable.

  • “As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have”

    The ironic thing about this is that it’s absolutely true. You just have to keep in mind who he is refering to – it’s not the terrorists, it’s us, the reality based community.

  • I keep wondering why in the hell we have someone like John Yoo, http://www.nndb.com/people/327/000049180/ lurking around in the background of this spying on American citizens crap. Why is this South Korean feeding ShrubCo assurances that it’s proper and even essential that civil liberties be compromised if the Executive branch deems it necessary no matter what other interpretations may be out there. Why does this guy remind me of Ahmad Chalabi and all the trouble he has caused? Chalabi has gotten us into a war and creamed our economy with his theft and graft and infectious corruption. Yoo is contributing significantly to the destruction of our civil liberties. RepubCo has either stood up and saluted or rolled over clutching blocks of cash. Democrats have wrung their hands and fretted.

    We are being fucked over by people who have no business being involved in our country’s workings or concerns. John Yoo is no good. Ahmad Chalabi is no good. But they have been and are heavily influencing the direction this country’s going. America has been weakened by the actions of these bastards. What the hell is up with that?

    I wouldn’t go quite so far as to run a true “Manchurian Candidate” scenario up the pole but I have felt for the duration of the Shrub years that America is not being directed by it’s leaders in this country’s best interests.

  • P.S. I have no desire to be dissing South Korean people by focusing on that aspect of John Yoo’s profile. But the juxtaposition of his foreign birth and the, (what I consider), very destructive and negative impact he is having on our civil liberties laws and procedures makes me uneasy to say the least.

  • From Bush’s Radio Address:

    In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

    This raises the question of what constitutes a known link to Al Qaeda in BushWorld? Recall, that prior to the Iraq war Bush and Cheney claimed that Saddam had known links to Al Qaeda. However, the evidence turned out to be rather thin, to say the least. I hope that Specter, when he hold hearings on this spying, will ask to see and make public the evidence Bush has used to justify this unconstitutional spying on American citizens. I sure that we will find out that it was as thin as the Saddam evidence.

  • What’s the deal with “congress had been notified a dozen times”? Is that in memo form? Just so-s ya know and all.

    Dollar to a donut they tapped Soros’ phone while they were at it.

  • Why don’t we all add the following to our email messages:

    CC: President Bush via NSA

    I think if this catches on and spreads throughout the planet, it would be much more effective than a million blog comments. IMHO

  • “Why don’t we all add the following to our email messages:

    CC: President Bush via NSA”

    I love it. I’d make only one change, to reflect the reality of what’s happened:

    CC: His Majesty, King George Bush via NSA

  • Comments are closed.