The White House tries sarcasm

January 25, 2006

In its continuing quest to debate the president’s warrantless-search program without actually addressing the substance of the controversy, the White House released another campaign-style “Setting the Record Straight” document yesterday. This time, the issue was “domestic spying” — not the policy, mind you, but the wording. This comes directly from the talking points, with emphasis in the original.

Definition: Domestic Vs. International.

* Domestic Calls are calls inside the United States. International Calls are calls either to or from the United States.
* Domestic Flights are flights from one American city to another. International Flights are flights to or from the United States.
* Domestic Mail consists of letters and packages sent within the United States. International Mail consists of letters and packages sent to or from the United States.
* Domestic Commerce involves business within the United States. International Commerce involves business between the United States and other countries.

Yes, the arrogant, condescending attitude of the White House comes out nicely in print, doesn’t it? You can almost hear Karl Rove’s voice saying, “If I explain this to you as if you were a child, maybe you’ll understand.”

A few thoughts in response. First, the reason the program is frequently referred to as “domestic spying” is because the spying is happening here. We have a domestic agency tapping into domestic calls featuring at least one domestic caller. Some wacky people consider this reason to call it a domestic program. Sheer madness, I know.

Second, the White House may be factually wrong. According to officials at the NSA, some of the monitored calls were purely domestic, featuring one person inside the U.S. calling someone else inside the U.S.

And third, the semantics debate over the meaning of the word “domestic” may be important to the White House, but for Bush critics, Rove, McClellan, Gonzales & Co. are missing the point. Let me put this in a way the White House may understand…

Definition: Legal Vs Illegal.

* Legal programs are programs that follow the law. Illegal programs are those that circumvent the law.
* Oversight refers to some level of accountability through checks and balances. Autocratic government is when one branch believes it can do as it pleases.
* Accountability addresses a process through which one is responsible for his or her behavior. Lawlessness is when the rule of law no longer matters.
* A law-abiding president is a chief executives who believes we are a nation of laws, not men. The current president is confused about these subtle constitutional nuances.

If we explain this to the Bush gang as if they were children, maybe they’ll understand.

January 25, 2006 at 1:35 pm

You’ve had so many of these in the past few days, CB, not to mention your occasional summaries that are so succinct — who do we petition to get you named Message Czar at the DNC with virtual unfettered authority to get out a non-watered-down, non-committee-speak message for Ds?

If we explain this to the Bush gang as if they were children, maybe they’ll understand.

I like it when CB gets mad. It doesn’t happen often but when it does, it reminds me that I don’t want to be on his bad side.

I don’t see why you’d reference Rove on this one. Whoever wrote that is an idiot. Maybe I’m just missing some subtle whammy somewhere, but I don’t think that memo is going to help their case at all. Because it’s just too damn obvious and so beside the point…mainly for the reasons you gave. I suppose this might work on the more simple-minded members of the media, but I don’t even think it’d work terribly great on them either.

Overall, I think people are getting tired of the GOP’s rebranding and semantics, and this most recent attempt wasn’t even half-assed. This issue is much too serious for such silly games. Whoever put that out didn’t do them any favors.

Can we email the CB’s clarification to Scott MCClelland? Maybe it will help him! Good Stuff CB.

The following is further down the slippery slope.

DATELINE: Washington, DC – February 22, 2011

Today, President Hillary Clinton admitted that the NSA was running a “terrorist surveillance program” on white supremacy groups residing in Idaho and Montana. President Clinton pointed out that the NSA was monitoring international communications between several groups and their contacts in the western provinces of Canada. The president went on to say “that based on the precedent establish by George W. Bush against Al Qaeda, we feel this is entirely legal.”

I second MNP’s motion, and would amend it to read that CB’s creation be faxed to all members of the White House, Congress, Senate and every major media outlet in the country. Brilliant!!

They’ve dumbed down what they have to say to the point of insult.

I bet the Regal Moron is proud of this even though he still can’t read or understand it. Of course, he figures he can do anything he wants, so who cares?

Maybe Bush wrote it, assuming that others have as many language comprehension problems as he does. But I think it has Harriet Miers’ signature all over it, her being the schoolmarm type.

This is all just noise to try to detract from the trouble Bush is in. A tidbit more from the WH site:

Deputy Director Of National Intelligence General Michael Hayden: “One End Of Any Call Targeted Under This Program Is Always Outside The United States.” GEN. HAYDEN: “I don’t think domestic spying makes it. One end of any call targeted under this program is always outside the United States. I’ve flown a lot in this country, and I’ve taken literally hundreds of domestic flights. I have never boarded a domestic flight in the United States of America and landed in Waziristan. In the same way – and I’m speaking illustratively here now, this is just an example – if NSA had intercepted al Qaeda Ops Chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Karachi talking to Mohamed Atta in Laurel, Maryland, in say, July of 2001 – if NSA had done that, and the results had been made public, I’m convinced that the crawler on all the 7 by 24 news networks would not have been ‘NSA domestic spying.'” (General Michael Hayden, Remarks, Washington, DC, 1/23/06)

Hayden might also have said that he wouldn’t be allowed on a foreign flight from the US to Wazirstan without showing proof that he was authorized to take the trip. Besides being patronizing, he is dissembling (or to quote GW, disassembling). He fails to say that for the government to legally eavesdrop on telephone conversations occuring between individuals in the US and individuals in other countries, warrants are required under FISA for listening to the American end.

They’ve dumbed down what they have to say to the point of insult.

Bah, they’ve dumbed it down so every NASCAR lovin’ one of the 38% that still support the administration will have no trouble repeating ad infinitum. Republican want a cracker?

Would someone please clarify or correct this for me?

If they’re monitoring an international phone call, and the person who is not in America then comes to America, even if there is no evidence to indicate he/she is a terrorist, doesn’t the Bush Administration feel it has the rights to keep tapping them?

In other words, isn’t this policy (supposedly) only targeting non-Americans, meaning someone who is not an American, but currently in America, can have domestic calls tracked too?

If I’m wrong, I apologize, I really am trying to keep abreast of the situation.

Any chance that a) they dumbed it down so that Bush himself can understand it or b) that Bush himself wrote that bit?

I think the Bushies know they are in very serious trouble, perhaps impeachment trouble. They are trying desperate tactics to cover their faults. I think even a stupid American, as they seem to think we all are, will see through this latest try.

“If they’re monitoring an international phone call, and the person who is not in America then comes to America, even if there is no evidence to indicate he/she is a terrorist, doesn’t the Bush Administration feel it has the rights to keep tapping them?

In other words, isn’t this policy (supposedly) only targeting non-Americans, meaning someone who is not an American, but currently in America, can have domestic calls tracked too?”

Not without a warrant!

FISA is written to say that if you are a foreigner in the United States legally (as most of the 9/11 highjackers were) you are a US Person (US Citizen or legal alien resident) and the requirement to obtain a FISA warrant to tap your communications applies.

The thing about the 4th amendment is, if you apply for a student visa to study in the U.S., you have as much a right to privacy as a U.S. citizen. That is what the law and constitution state (as interpreted by the Supreme Court).

There’s also the fact that FISA itself, which by definition only applies to domestic spying, applies to any communications to which one party is a U.S. person within the U.S. So the distinction they are trying to draw is of no legal relevance.

The White House want us distractws, CB, which is why they are raising this “domestic” vs. “international” red herring. The key word (well, phrase, actually) is “foreign intelligence”.

Without doubt, foreign intelligence is what the NSA was primarily seeking.

Anyone want to argue with that?

Good.

And without doubt, the acquisition of foreign intelligence is governed by FISA — the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

It’s interesting that the White House is proferring the choice of two equally irrelevant words. Strawman anyone?

I think there must have been a snafu over at the White House. Someone mistakenly posted a memo intended for Bush on the White House web site. You can be sure whoever did it goin’ catch hell.

Lance, for FISA purposes a US person is either a US Citizen or a resident alien, i.e. a green card holder. This does not include all legal aliens. For example, foreign students typically don’t have green cards.

It probably worth bookmarking this site which contains FAQ’s about FISA.

I’m sorry, I must disagree. If one end of the call is from outside of the United States, then it is legitimate to call it international. Of course, it isn’t clearly domestic or international, but certainly reasonable people can differ on this point. And yes, I know that the administration will botch this up. They imply that they have a ‘list of members of Al Qaeda’. I’m skeptical. And if they do, I’m sure that most of the names are of innocent people. But nonetheless, I don’t see it as a clear contravention of the 4th amendment. Am I wrong?

NeilS, I think the reason that international surveillance is OK is that the 4th amendment only protects US persons (citizen and non-citizen residents). Given that, it doesn’t matter if one end of the call is international. If the other end involves a US person, you’re supposed to get a warrant, have probable cause, and describe what you’re looking for. It is a little more complicated than I imply, but I think that is the essential argument.

Here’s the part I don’t understand:

The Bill of Rights, including the 4th Ammendment, is a restriction on what powers the government has over our natural rights as people. Not as citizens, but as people.

As such, America, Americans, and the American government should be extending those 4th Ammendment protections even to those outside the United States, because out government was set up to ensure the natural rights of men, not “Constitutional rights,” which don’t exist.

(And for those with questions, may I refer you to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.)

According to officials at the NSA, some of the monitored calls were purely domestic, featuring one person inside the U.S. calling someone else inside the U.S. – CB

Yeah, but the NSA knew that those were wrong numbers. They were definately trying to call Al Qaeda. Terrorists are notoriously inaccurate dialers or clickers or whatever. It’s not the NSA’s fault if they catch a misplaced call. They’re really under a lot of stress right now.

Fact is, we don’t know who they’re spying on and we can’t take their word for it. And if they are spying on Americans in America, even if they are a party to half of an international call it’s domestic spying. Period.

President Bush says that he is not breaking Constitutional Law by ordering wire taps on U.S.A. citizens for “suspicion” of the possibility that someone may be breaking a law.

The 4th Amendment reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.“

President Bush has totally invalidated the 4th Amendment under our present Constitution! If you agree with his present assertions, then you are willing to give him the power to do anything he thinks is proper. It gives jhim and future Presidents the inherent authority to eavesdrop, imprison citizens on his/her own declaration, kidnap and torture, and what ever else he/she chooses to do.

I’m quite uncomfortable about that, and I hope you are too. Who knows some future president may choose to have only one American News Paper, one source of T.V., no “Blogs”, etc.. Russia, Germany and China all did it in my life time, it also can happen here.

Does the fact that many telecommunications transmissions, even traveling from the US to the US, now go through satellites (that are literally outside the U.S.) mean that it’s fair game to listen in on them, because they are literally outside the US? We’ve heard this administration splitting hairs on stuff like this before.

Comments are closed.