Column: The ACLU's Wiretap Shuffle
I’ve stopped watching Hardball. Normally I’d tune in for the 3am Eastern showing, but I’ve switched to the Three Stooges on Spike TV (called “the first network for men” when, in fact, ESPN was the first network for men). This is partly because I’ve been thinking of writing a Stooges biography, but mostly because I figured Mo Howard couldn’t make any less sense than Chris Matthews, who I think lost his mind somewhere between Abu Ghraib and the disclosure of President Bush’s wiretapping order.
Still, I lamented Matthews’ being on vacation when the ACLU published its ad in the New York Times last Thursday comparing President Bush to Richard Nixon. For those who haven’t seen the ad, it features pictures of both Nixon and Bush – to the right of Nixon are the words, “He lied to the American people and broke the law.” And next to Bush, “So did he.” Each is accompanied with quotes seemingly backing up the accusation; Nixon’s about having no prior knowledge of Watergate, Bush’s about his administration obtaining court orders before wiretapping.
The ad reads: “What should we do when the U.S. President lies to us and breaks the law? Congress must thoroughly investigate these lies and renew its bipartisan commitment to our Constitution’s system of checks and balances. A special counsel must be appointed to determine whether oaths of office were broken and federal laws violated through the Bush NSA spying program. Because it’s not about promoting a political agenda. It’s about preserving American democracy.”
This is the language of an organization that simply Can’t Take It Anymore – kind of what Ted Kennedy sounds like right before he gets all loud and twitchy. Nonetheless, the ACLU does raise an interesting question: What should the American people do when their president lies to them?
First, the American people must accept that not all lies are frivolous; sometimes presidents have to lie, because to not lie would prove more detrimental. The ACLU ad quotes Bush from an April 2004 stump speech … I’m unsure how wiretapping came into it, but ongoing efforts to preempt terrorism would have been dealt a staggering blow had the president admitted to working around the FISA court to monitor Americans speaking to known terrorists or terrorist organizations. It was better for Bush to say, “Yes, we are obtaining warrants” and leave it at that than give the enemy, foreign or domestic, a strategic heads up.
The American people must also understand that the federal government doesn’t care enough about them to monitor their calls to Pizza Hut. Frankly, anyone worried about the government listening to their phone calls are flattering themselves into thinking they’re interesting enough to warrant the attention. Sure, government is willing to subsidize your old age, your grocery shopping and your bastard children, but by no means does it care what Bobby said to Britney in fifth period English. (As though schools still teach English!) The Bush wiretaps make up a statistically insignificant percentage of all calls made and received during any given time period you can possibly name; no matter what the tinfoil hats say, the feds aren’t looking for you. Period.
Still unsettled? George Washington University posts National Security Agency documents online; among them is the United States Signals Intelligence Directive (USSID), issued 27 July 1993. (All emphasis in the following quotes is original.) “In emergency situations, DIRNSA / CHCSS [Director, National Security Agency / Chief, Central Security Service] may authorize the COLLECTION of information to, from or about a U.S. PERSON who is outside the UNITED STATES when securing the prior approval of the Attorney General is not practical because: a) The time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE and would cause substantial harm to the national security. b) A person’s life or physical safety is reasonably believed to be in immediate danger. c) The physical security of a defense installation or government property is reasonably believed to be in immediate danger.”
Furthermore, DIRNSA / CHCSS may undertake emergency collection of information if “there is probable cause that the TARGET meets one of the following criteria: a) A person who, for or on behalf of a FOREIGN POWER, is engaged in clandestine intelligence activities (including covert activities intended to affect the political or governmental process), sabotage, or INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST activities, or activities in preparation for INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST activities, or who conspires with, or knowingly aids and abets a person engaging in such activities.”
On page 14, “foreign power” is defined in one of six ways (a through f). The fourth and fifth definitions are: “a group engaged in INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM or activities in preparation therefore,” and “a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of UNITED STATES PERSONS.”
Still, I lamented Matthews’ being on vacation when the ACLU published its ad in the New York Times last Thursday comparing President Bush to Richard Nixon. For those who haven’t seen the ad, it features pictures of both Nixon and Bush – to the right of Nixon are the words, “He lied to the American people and broke the law.” And next to Bush, “So did he.” Each is accompanied with quotes seemingly backing up the accusation; Nixon’s about having no prior knowledge of Watergate, Bush’s about his administration obtaining court orders before wiretapping.
The ad reads: “What should we do when the U.S. President lies to us and breaks the law? Congress must thoroughly investigate these lies and renew its bipartisan commitment to our Constitution’s system of checks and balances. A special counsel must be appointed to determine whether oaths of office were broken and federal laws violated through the Bush NSA spying program. Because it’s not about promoting a political agenda. It’s about preserving American democracy.”
This is the language of an organization that simply Can’t Take It Anymore – kind of what Ted Kennedy sounds like right before he gets all loud and twitchy. Nonetheless, the ACLU does raise an interesting question: What should the American people do when their president lies to them?
First, the American people must accept that not all lies are frivolous; sometimes presidents have to lie, because to not lie would prove more detrimental. The ACLU ad quotes Bush from an April 2004 stump speech … I’m unsure how wiretapping came into it, but ongoing efforts to preempt terrorism would have been dealt a staggering blow had the president admitted to working around the FISA court to monitor Americans speaking to known terrorists or terrorist organizations. It was better for Bush to say, “Yes, we are obtaining warrants” and leave it at that than give the enemy, foreign or domestic, a strategic heads up.
The American people must also understand that the federal government doesn’t care enough about them to monitor their calls to Pizza Hut. Frankly, anyone worried about the government listening to their phone calls are flattering themselves into thinking they’re interesting enough to warrant the attention. Sure, government is willing to subsidize your old age, your grocery shopping and your bastard children, but by no means does it care what Bobby said to Britney in fifth period English. (As though schools still teach English!) The Bush wiretaps make up a statistically insignificant percentage of all calls made and received during any given time period you can possibly name; no matter what the tinfoil hats say, the feds aren’t looking for you. Period.
Still unsettled? George Washington University posts National Security Agency documents online; among them is the United States Signals Intelligence Directive (USSID), issued 27 July 1993. (All emphasis in the following quotes is original.) “In emergency situations, DIRNSA / CHCSS [Director, National Security Agency / Chief, Central Security Service] may authorize the COLLECTION of information to, from or about a U.S. PERSON who is outside the UNITED STATES when securing the prior approval of the Attorney General is not practical because: a) The time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE and would cause substantial harm to the national security. b) A person’s life or physical safety is reasonably believed to be in immediate danger. c) The physical security of a defense installation or government property is reasonably believed to be in immediate danger.”
Furthermore, DIRNSA / CHCSS may undertake emergency collection of information if “there is probable cause that the TARGET meets one of the following criteria: a) A person who, for or on behalf of a FOREIGN POWER, is engaged in clandestine intelligence activities (including covert activities intended to affect the political or governmental process), sabotage, or INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST activities, or activities in preparation for INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST activities, or who conspires with, or knowingly aids and abets a person engaging in such activities.”
On page 14, “foreign power” is defined in one of six ways (a through f). The fourth and fifth definitions are: “a group engaged in INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM or activities in preparation therefore,” and “a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of UNITED STATES PERSONS.”
Doubtful the ACLU (or Senator Boxer, for that matter) has considered the finer legal points; it depends on your not knowing or thinking about them when asking you to demand a special counsel. Do yourself these favors: Read everything President Bush has said about the wiretaps since the New York Times broke the story; then read USSID. If you remain genuinely uncomfortable with the process, I say: Call or write your representatives and demand a special counsel. I know it’s hard to believe, but sometimes the federal government does undertake specific actions in our best interest … President Bush is confident in saying this is one of the rare examples, and for once I agree with him.
03 January 2006
posted by Brian S. Wise | 7:32 PM
<< Home