Snoopgate: A Bigger Bust Than Fitzmas
Well, popularity doesn’t mean legality, but a scandal without a scandalized public is pretty hard to pursue to impeachment. Recently, we noted how the lesser Kennedy blew hard and windy on Snoopgate:
…[W]ith sorrow, we are now learning that in this great land we have an administration that has refused to follow well-crafted, longstanding procedures that require the president to get a court order before spying on people within the United States. With outrage, we learn that this administration believes that it does not have to follow the law of the land.
Not just above the law, this administration seems to be saying that it IS the law. It contends that it can decide on its own what the law is, how to interpret it, and whether or not it has to follow it. I believe that such an arrogant and expansive view of executive power would have sent chills down the spines of our Founding Fathers — as it does for every American hearing these startling revelations today.
Every American, that is, except for the 64% who are totally okay with it. As Ace notes here, that number includes 51% of Democrats!
That’s not to say I’m all hunky-dory with the NSA snooping; I do think the legal case is, at the very least, questionable. It’s becoming increasingly apparent, though, that this is a trade-off most Americans want to make, though I suspect we would all feel a little better if the circumstances were clearly defined and the legal haze removed.
So, my question to Congress is, what are you waiting for? Enact the Kaus Plan ASAP!…
UPDATE 11:14 p.m.: For more on Teddy, Chairman Mao, the NSA, and the dangers of believing everything you read, I refer you to this excellent post by Academic Elephant – good stuff…
It’s not surprising that 64% of Americans think the NSA should be able to conduct surveillance — but that’s not the issue. Rather, the issue is whether it should be allowed without a warrant. The wording of the survey question misses the point.
Had the NSA conducted wiretaps and received the required approvals from the FISA court, there would be no controversy at all.
Also, according to todays Times, the fact that the FISA requirements were ignored is now jeopardizing the government’s prosecution of terrorism cases, as the defense lawyers can raise numerous fourth amendment objections. It would be truly sad and ironic if the administration’s insistence on circumventing the law led to cases being dismissed and people who may be guilty getting a get-out-of-jail card.
peter, do you really think that’s the case? I don’t think rewording the question would move the numbers much at all…the general public doesn’t even know what a FISA court is, I suspect…it hasn’t been on Jerry Springer lately.
Whoops, that was a little bit elitist, wasn’t it?…
Poll watching: 64% support warrantless eavesdropping
… on suspected terrorist operatives here in the US who are believed to be communicating with overseas terrorist operatives. Via Rasmussen:
December 28, 2005–Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA)…
As a sidebar, I’ve got a little more about Senator Kennedy’s editorial…this might make you laugh.
http://elephantsinacademia.blogspot.com/2005/12/homeland-security-agent-ate-my-paper.html
How can anyone read Kennedy’s screed and not instantly recall the wiretapping antics of his brothers??? Most notably, Bobby and Hoover listening in on MLK??
AE, that’s great stuff; I’m updating the post….
While the Rasmussen Poll question omitted all mention of (lack of) warrants or Judicial oversight, you know what the issues are.
Do you support wholesales eavesdropping on the phone calls and emails of millions of Americans — without a warrant and without Judicial oversight — and do you support it, regardless of whether the President’s initials happen to be GWB or HRC?
I begin to suspect that this (among other things, like arbitrary detention without trial, torture, ‘extraordinary renditions’, …) is just fine, as long as it’s your guy who’s playing Big Brother.
I don’t know, maybe I’m jaded, but it seems pretty obvious to me. Thanks for the kind words!!
Jacques, I am of two minds; of course, these things can go too far, and there is the ‘slippery slope’ argument. On the other hand, the slippery slope argument is often deployed willy-nilly and doesn’t always make much sense. I don’t have a problem with the government employing some sort of data-mining techniques, if they are limited in scope and if non-threatening communications are destroyed and not stored somewhere.
That having been said, I really do wish Congress would address the issue with new legislation of some sort, so that the parameters can be debated and set – even if the details must remain secret for national security reasons – not to mention that it IS troubling when the President – any president – acts outside of the law, and there is a good case to be made that Bush did just that here.
Your point about GWB or HRC is a valid one; certainly, Bush was expected to act decisively in the wake of 9/11. Equally clearly, we are in dangerous territory with our civil liberties. It’s the great domestic debate of our time, I suspect, this trade-off between security and liberty.
[...] Contact : Dec 29th – 7:13am « Snoopgate: A Bigger Bust Than Fitzmas [...]
Last 2005 Round-Up
According to this poll by Rasmussen Reports, 64% of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. Just…
What Do Those Polls Really Mean?
the high level of support for these kinds of warrantless searches against terrorists who are communicating with individuals inside the US shows that most folks still have some kind of functional common sense. Now, if the big media outlets actually no…
I just love how you twist the poll around. There was absolutely no mention of warrantless eavesdropping and you know it. This is not a partisan issue as you are trying to make it. This is about the President of the United States believing that he is above the law and all of his loyal followers supporting him no matter what. The report actually said:
“Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States.”
Glenn Greenwald has an excellent write up on this for anyone interested in honest legal analysis.
Dude, I’m not twisting the poll around – if you haven’t noticed, the ‘warrantless’ aspect is covered all over the place here! In fact, I’ve just linked to Greenwald – you’ll have to look elsewhere to find your scapegoat…
[...] All kinds of good stuff continues to come out from both sides of the aisle on the Rasmussen poll we’ve discussed previously. Here are a couple of good ones from opposite sides of the aisle:Jeff Goldstein has a lengthy post up examining some of the assumptions behind the questioning of the poll’s wording; Glenn Greenwald finds it to be “[o]ne of the most absurdly formulated polls ever”. [...]
Four years after this program of large-scale illegal wiretapping was initiated, now you want Congress to consider legislation to (retroactively) legalize the practice? If anyone in the Administration had the slightest interest in maintaining the rule of law, why weren’t they proposing amending FISA, or new legislation to cover this NSA eavesdropping, years ago?
[Under the "Yoo Doctrine," of course, no such legislation is required: the President has unlimited powers during wartime and can do whatever the heck he wants. Conveniently, the War on Terror will last forever, or until a Democratic President is elected, whichever comes first.]
Yes, there should be Congressional Hearings. To determine, definitively, whether the President acted illegally (it sure looks that way, but IANAL). And if he did, impeachment proceedings should follow.
If a Democrat were in the White House, you would be demanding no less…
Well, Jacques, my stance isn’t quite as hypocritical as you make it sound; the issue of whether it should be legal is seperate from whether it is, and George W. Bush won’t be in the White House forever (a fact I suspect you’re grateful for). What I’m saying is take away the grey area, not just for retroactive justification (I don’t think that’s a good way to do things anyway) but for the future…
And, unless I misunderstand you, you propose to entirely ignore the latter question, while holding hearings on the former.
Seems to me that that’s not merely ignoring illegal activity, but actively encouraging it.
Three years is a very long time.
How do you propose to determine whether it was legal? Hearings on that? What’s the difference between that and impeachment proceedings? I don’t think Congress can judge the legality of presidential actions outside of that process – and I assume there will be court cases brought that will reach the Supreme Court. That’s not ignoring, it’s arguing the reality that unless impeachment proceedings are brought to the floor, the legality of past actions belongs in the judicial realm…
Huh?
Congress holds hearings all the time about potential illegal activities in this or that sphere.
And in the case of (alleged) Presidential wrongdoing, it is the Senate, not the Courts, which is charged with adjudicating the matter. That’s why it is called an “Impeachment Trial“.
Jacques, I think we’re talking past each other here, but saying the same thing (probably because my comment was hopelessly muddled and ill-stated – absolutely, Congress holds hearings on these types of matters all the time). If I wasn’t clear, my question was: are you then saying that articles of impeachment should be drafted and the process begun? Because otherwise, I don’t see that Congress can do anything of substance other than showboat…but you’re correct that Supreme Court involvement would not be explicitly related to presidential wrongdoing, sorry for the sloppiness there…
I wouldn’t be opposed to hearings that just delved into the matter more deeply, provided they were held in closed session if national security issues were discussed, as they certainly would be…
Still, my main concern is that, going forward, legislation be introduced to update FISA for the 21st century…
First, they need to hold hearings to investigate exactly what the NSA was doing, and on what authority.
To be sure, since it took 4 years for the mere existence of the program to come to light, we probably don’t know its full parameters, let alone what other illegal activities may have been, similarly, initiated by Executive Order.
Then, if the facts warrant, they need to bring Articles of Impeachment.
The USA Patriot Act did introduce significant modifications to FISA. If those were insufficient, the Administration has had 4 years to propose further modifications.
But that is not, I suspect, what this is about. It seems that the powers the Adminstration seeks would never pass Constitutional muster and that, in the end, that’s why they decided to act without Congressional mandate, or Judicial oversight.