One Last Legislative Push to Legalize Warrantless Surveillance

Guest Post by Anonymous Liberal

Yesterday I wrote about Vice President Cheney’s deeply dishonest speech to the Federalist Society in which he claimed, among other things, that the administration’s warrantless surveillance program rested “on firm legal ground.”

When I first read the speech, I assumed it was just another case of Cheney being Cheney. The man is, after all, in a deep state of denial about a great many things. Why should warrantless surveillance be an exception?

But Cheney’s speech on Friday was followed by another speech on the same subject Saturday, this time by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The AP reports:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales contended Saturday that some critics of the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program were defining freedom in a way that presents a “grave threat” to U.S. security.

Gonzales was the second administration official in two days to attack a federal judge’s ruling last August that the program was unconstitutional. Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday called the decision “an indefensible act of judicial overreaching.”

Gonzales, in remarks prepared for delivery at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado, said that some see the program as on the verge of stifling freedom rather that protecting the country.


Almost as a rule, when two top administration officials make speeches on the same topic on consecutive days, it reflects a concerted effort by the White House to influence the news cycle. As the AP story points out:

Gonzales and Cheney’s attacks on the court order came as the administration was urging the lame-duck Congress to approve legislation authorizing the warrantless surveillance. The bill’s chances are in doubt, however, because of Democratic opposition in the Senate, where 60 votes are required to end debate and vote.

This is an effort that Democrats can’t afford to take lightly. While I’m encouraged by the lack of press coverage Cheney and Gonzales’ remarks have received, I’m positive that the White House is going to do whatever it can to get the lame duck Republican Senate to pass some version of this dreadful piece of legislation, which has already passed in the House.

It is imperative that this not happen. If such a bill were passed, it could not be undone once the Democrats take over in January. President Bush would, without question, use his veto power to block any efforts to roll back such legislation. The Democrats in the Senate need to use whatever procedural measures they can–up to and including the filibuster–to prevent such a bill from passing. They are the last line of defense, and they only need to hold out a little while longer.

From the moment of its inception over five years ago, the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” has been illegal. The legal arguments underpinning the program have always been frivolous, and those within the administration who came up with them had to have known that they would never survive any real scrutiny. That’s why the administration was so upset when the existence of the program was first reported. It wasn’t because any crucial operational details were released. It was because the exposure of the program virtually insured that, at some point, the legality of the program would have to be litigated in court, a battle the government was sure to lose.

And that’s why the administration is increasingly desperate now. They know that, absent legislation legalizing the program, it will almost surely be struck down. That day of reckoning is coming. All we have to do is make sure the Senate doesn’t moot the issue by passing this distastrously ill-advised legislation during its lame duck session.

The disingenous and dangerous aspect of this “debate” has always been the typical, simplistic Bush/Republican framing of the issue as an either/or proposition. The proper framing would be to ask the question, how do we acheive necessary and reasonable levels of security while protecting our lawful rights? Not asking that question is to surrender to our enemies, real or imagined.

A lot of Americans are prone to black and white thinking. It’s tidy and easy to grasp without expending much mental energy. Nevertheless, Ds need to make a concerted PR effort to make the point that black and white thinking often leads to false choices with potentially disasterous consequences.

  • If the warrentless surveillance had not been revealed I wonder if any Dems including the next president would have ever heard about it. It’s obviously aobut executive power. And it’s about secrecy, but not national security secrecy, it’s about political secrecy. I guess it’s good in a way that the Bushes thought Reps would be in power forever. It made them more arrogant and less careful about covering their tracks.

    You’re right, Dems have to pull out all the stops to block this from becoming lawful. What are the Rep gonna do? Threaten the nuclear option?

  • You know, I’m starting to think these goons want to go to jail.

    Seriously, if I thought BushBaby etc really gave half a damn about the safety of American citizens…I’d be a babbling idiot, just like them. OK, I might at least listen to all the ominous growling about how we’ll be blown to atoms if we don’t let No Such Agency do whatever it wants. However, I know they don’t care so they are putting the TSP forward (again) for two reasons:

    1. The Terrorist Surveillance Program is the fitting complement to the Military Tribunals law. The name says it all: We know they’re terrorists because we were watching them. Innocent until proven guilty is so pre-Sept 11th. It allows NSA to listen to phone calls at random, grab people based on what it hears (yeah right) deny prisoners the right to know what it heard that caused it to send in the guys with AK-47s. Of course the entire program ignores a little wrinkle: There’s a serious shortage of translators who know Persian languages, which leads me to assume calls between English speakers will get the most attention while other recordings gather dust. Something for the idiots who want this law to pass because “it only affects foreigners” to consider.

    2. If Congress blocks this latest affront to the very concept of America, ShrubCo can say “Told you so,” and smirk when there’s a terrorist attack any where on the planet.

    OK, who wants to go hunt lame ducks?

  • All the Democrats have to do is hang on to a “threat to filibuster” for two weeks and it’s over. Given the way these bozos usually snatchdefeat from the jaws of victory, I’m sure that halfwit moron Ben Nelson will come forward in a spirit of “bipartisanship” to offer something worthyof his reputation as a legend in his own mind. It’ll be him or that traitor LIEberman. But if the other 42 keep calm in the eye of the storm, we could get through it.

  • There’s a simple way to rally the troops to this issue.

    A lot of Americans had to die, not too long ago, to wrest such awful power from a mad tyrant on the other side of an ocean. America had no choice in the matter in 1941.

    In 2006—almost 65 years to the day after the forced decision to deal with that Bohemia-esque tyrant—the United States Senate has a choice.

    It can deny this most recent Beer Hall Bungler that awful power.

    Or it can weigh the immeasurable, horrific cost of taking this power away from the tyrant, by force of arms.

    How many Americans died to defeat Hitler’s Reich?

    And how many Americans will have to die, to defeat Bush’s Reich?

    Shall he be defeated by the ballot—or the bayonet?

    That, America, is the choice….

  • Comments are closed.