Straight from the "Expert Lounge"...
Sorry for the dearth of entries this week, gang. My job has me working long days as a trainer/marketer, which involves my being "on" for about ten hours a day. This is in pretty stark contrast to my regular editing duties, wherein the only thing that's on is my XM radio. What it boils down to is that I'm tired and grumpy and haven't had the energy to rant. This lovely little editorial, given central prominence on today's opinion page, snapped me temporarily out of my torpor. The entire piece can be found here, but I will, as usual, include snippets as I go along.
Okay, so the guy is basically admitting, right off the bat, that he is partisan. Anyone who is so blasé about calling the ACLU, an organization that has defended Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, a partisan group is doing so because they're used to hearing it done, most likely on Fox News and other "fair and balanced" sources. So, this guy may be a "Former U.S. Army security specialist," but he's also a staunch social conservative. Check.
Ronald then goes on to explain four reasons why the President's wire-tapping is just a-okay and peachy keen.
Okay, true, but we lost more Americans in the year 1953 than we lost on 9/11, at Pearl Harbor, and in Iraq COMBINED. If that point seems irrelevant to you, I argue it's no more irrelevant to your argument than Pearl Harbor and Iraq military deaths are to the attacks on 9/11. Of significantly more relevance to me is that al Qaeda inflicted far fewer civilian casualties on the United States than the United States has inflicted on the civilians of Iraq. When you start comparing apples to apples, it becomes a lot more difficult for us to pretend we have the moral high ground.
Regardless, I think this is indicative of the real problem here: a vague and indiscriminate timeframe. 9/11 was undoubtedly a serious national emergency. but it occurred four and a half years ago. When does it stop directly influencing our national policy? I'm not insinuating that there isn't a need to take national security seriously, but the idea that an event can offer unlimited power to the President for an unlimited period of time is a dangerous relinquishing of liberty. As supporters of "original intent" should well know, the framers of the constitution, having recently fought a costly war for independence from a monarchy, purposefully kept the power of the executive branch limited. While the president is responsible for national security, no single event should give the president immunity from the law for four and a half years, period.
This is a nonsensical argument. Tapping phone lines is not a "necessary use of force." Hell, bombing Iraq wasn't a "necessary use of force" in the so-called War on Terror. Phone surveillance is an act of espionage, not force. Assuming that the authorization of one equates to authorization of the other is just that: an assumption. It is also an assumption that even Republican senators who answer to libertarian bases have issue with. If congress meant to grant him the power to wiretap civilian phone lines without a warrant when they granted him the power to wage war, they probably would have passed his direct request to do so as well. As they did not, their collective opinion on the matter is obvious.
Do you honestly believe this has been going on for less than a year? What a crock of shit. Just because they got caught less than a year ago doesn't mean they haven't been going about this since noon on September 11th, 2001. If there was any level of transparency within this administration, this might actually be a sticking point for critics of domestic espionage, but since nobody is so foolish as to believe this is a new development, the point is moot.
Seriously, somebody in charge of the RNC should send out a memo. If you want to be taken seriously in a debate, don't quote Fox News as the source of your statistics. Scientists hired by the tobacco industry argue to this day that cigarette smoke is wholesome, nutritious, and contains nine essential vitamins and minerals. Everyone who is not employed by a tobacco company recognizes that these scientists are full of shit. Similarly, if you are attempting to support neo-con rhetoric with statistical information, don't get your statistics from a news agency that shamelessly shills for the neo-cons.
Why don't I trust those statistics? If President Bush started eating children on a regular basis, I would expect the majority of Republican senators to support the habit, and a large number would probably even begin advocating for child eating on a national scale. Over the issue of domestic wiretapping, however, most Republican senators who haven't come out opposed to the practice are remaining strangely tight-lipped on the subject. If common wisdom in Washington concluded that most Americans were in favor of warrantless wiretapping, there'd be no reason for so many of them to take their heads out of the administration's lap. More likely, Fox News conducted a survey that went something like, "Do you support unlimited warrantless wiretapping by the administration, or do you oppose long prison sentences for child molesters?"
The Justice Department? FISA Court? My goodness! Those are certainly independent, unbiased oversights! Who else comprises the numerous "oversight" mechanisms in place? Does Karl Rove masturbate to risqué recorded conversations? Maybe Barb and Jenna play the tapes as mood music at their keggers. Regardless, I'm certain they display the critical thought and cunning independence of, say, an Alberto Gonzales.
There again, Ronald is talking about our ongoing "war" as evidence of Presidential authority, but I will again argue that we're not at war. We are involved in the occupation of Iraq, but fortunately nobody is stupid enough to claim that the wiretapping relates directly to that occupation. No, that can be explained away by "The War on Terror"®. This presents two very pressing problems, however. First of all, this "war" doesn't fit the historical definition of a war. There is no front, there are no battles, there is no open conflict; there isn't even a clearly definable enemy. Saying the "War on Terror" gives the president emergency wartime powers is like saying The Cold War or the War on Drugs granted the same powers. Calling it a war doesn't make it a war. We Americans just like the terminology; we've been at "war" with one intangible enemy or another for decades.
Second, terror, or even "Terror", is not something we can defeat. Do you remember the time when everybody in the world considered America a great friend and ally? Neither can anyone else. It never happened, and it never will, though certainly the prospects are worsened with an administration that callously thumbs its nose at world opinion. When will this war be over? When will we wipe out Anti-American sentiment? When will we have an absolute zero chance of a terrorist attack on our soil? When will the president lose these wartime powers? The answer to the first three questions is never, as is the answer to the last if Ronald's argument is valid. That alone, frankly, invalidates Ronald's argument.
Finally, this is no longer simply a foreign policy issue. The administration certainly wants to frame it that way, but domestic espionage is, by definition, a domestic issue. Supreme Court decisions regarding war and foreign policy don't really apply. If you really need to fall back on this argument, let's think about some of those precedents. Internment camps for Japanese Americans. McCarthyism. The Hoover FBI. Nixon's tapes. Not exactly a laundry list of our proudest moments, is it?
I don't care what kind of résumé Ronald here has. This opinion has no bearings outside of the personal political leanings of the author, and certainly carries no level of authority or expertise. Why the Post Standard put this piece at center stage, and offered it far more space than most letter-writers receive, is nearly as mystifying a question as how a true Republican can support the kind of big, bureaucratic government necessary to carry out domestic espionage.
"The ACLU is taking the issue to court. While partisan attacks upon a president who is trying to protect the country are deplorable, it is reasonable to question the source of the president's authority. The allegedly 'non-partisan' Congressional Research Service claims that it cannot find any authority for the president's action. I don't think they've been looking very hard."
Okay, so the guy is basically admitting, right off the bat, that he is partisan. Anyone who is so blasé about calling the ACLU, an organization that has defended Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, a partisan group is doing so because they're used to hearing it done, most likely on Fox News and other "fair and balanced" sources. So, this guy may be a "Former U.S. Army security specialist," but he's also a staunch social conservative. Check.
Ronald then goes on to explain four reasons why the President's wire-tapping is just a-okay and peachy keen.
"The first source of authority is Article II of the Constitution. It is a long established principle that the president has certain inherent and inferred powers to act unilaterally in an emergency as Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
...
The 9/11 attack was one of the biggest emergencies in our history. Terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and our military headquarters in Washington. They also attempted to attack other targets. We lost more people in few hours on 9/11 than all of the people lost at Pearl Harbor in 1945. And we lost more people that day than we have lost in Iraq to date."
Okay, true, but we lost more Americans in the year 1953 than we lost on 9/11, at Pearl Harbor, and in Iraq COMBINED. If that point seems irrelevant to you, I argue it's no more irrelevant to your argument than Pearl Harbor and Iraq military deaths are to the attacks on 9/11. Of significantly more relevance to me is that al Qaeda inflicted far fewer civilian casualties on the United States than the United States has inflicted on the civilians of Iraq. When you start comparing apples to apples, it becomes a lot more difficult for us to pretend we have the moral high ground.
Regardless, I think this is indicative of the real problem here: a vague and indiscriminate timeframe. 9/11 was undoubtedly a serious national emergency. but it occurred four and a half years ago. When does it stop directly influencing our national policy? I'm not insinuating that there isn't a need to take national security seriously, but the idea that an event can offer unlimited power to the President for an unlimited period of time is a dangerous relinquishing of liberty. As supporters of "original intent" should well know, the framers of the constitution, having recently fought a costly war for independence from a monarchy, purposefully kept the power of the executive branch limited. While the president is responsible for national security, no single event should give the president immunity from the law for four and a half years, period.
"The second source of authority involves two acts of Congress. After 9/11, Congress authorized the president to use all necessary force to fight the war on terror. Using the military intelligence services in support of fast moving offensive and defensive operations can logically be inferred from the post 9/11 authorization."
This is a nonsensical argument. Tapping phone lines is not a "necessary use of force." Hell, bombing Iraq wasn't a "necessary use of force" in the so-called War on Terror. Phone surveillance is an act of espionage, not force. Assuming that the authorization of one equates to authorization of the other is just that: an assumption. It is also an assumption that even Republican senators who answer to libertarian bases have issue with. If congress meant to grant him the power to wiretap civilian phone lines without a warrant when they granted him the power to wage war, they probably would have passed his direct request to do so as well. As they did not, their collective opinion on the matter is obvious.
"In addition, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) explicitly authorizes electronic surveillance without a warrant for a period of up to one year. This is contained in Title 50 U.S. Code Sections 1801-03, which explicitly defines 'international terrorist groups' and their agents as 'foreign powers.' To put it crudely, the spies who wrote the FISA law anticipated exactly this situation years ago."
Do you honestly believe this has been going on for less than a year? What a crock of shit. Just because they got caught less than a year ago doesn't mean they haven't been going about this since noon on September 11th, 2001. If there was any level of transparency within this administration, this might actually be a sticking point for critics of domestic espionage, but since nobody is so foolish as to believe this is a new development, the point is moot.
"The third source of presidential authority is 'the people.' According to the Fox News Channel, polls indicate that some 58 percent of the Americans support the NSA program even without warrants. Most people simply don't feel threatened because most people don't communicate with international terrorists outside the country."
Seriously, somebody in charge of the RNC should send out a memo. If you want to be taken seriously in a debate, don't quote Fox News as the source of your statistics. Scientists hired by the tobacco industry argue to this day that cigarette smoke is wholesome, nutritious, and contains nine essential vitamins and minerals. Everyone who is not employed by a tobacco company recognizes that these scientists are full of shit. Similarly, if you are attempting to support neo-con rhetoric with statistical information, don't get your statistics from a news agency that shamelessly shills for the neo-cons.
Why don't I trust those statistics? If President Bush started eating children on a regular basis, I would expect the majority of Republican senators to support the habit, and a large number would probably even begin advocating for child eating on a national scale. Over the issue of domestic wiretapping, however, most Republican senators who haven't come out opposed to the practice are remaining strangely tight-lipped on the subject. If common wisdom in Washington concluded that most Americans were in favor of warrantless wiretapping, there'd be no reason for so many of them to take their heads out of the administration's lap. More likely, Fox News conducted a survey that went something like, "Do you support unlimited warrantless wiretapping by the administration, or do you oppose long prison sentences for child molesters?"
"The president has acted responsibly to assure proper 'oversight' to protect Fourth Amendment rights. He notified appropriate members of Congress, the Justice Department and the FISA Court of his action.
The Justice Department has conducted periodic independent audits of 'the Program.' Further, there are numerous other 'oversight' mechanisms in place."
The Justice Department? FISA Court? My goodness! Those are certainly independent, unbiased oversights! Who else comprises the numerous "oversight" mechanisms in place? Does Karl Rove masturbate to risqué recorded conversations? Maybe Barb and Jenna play the tapes as mood music at their keggers. Regardless, I'm certain they display the critical thought and cunning independence of, say, an Alberto Gonzales.
"The fourth source of presidential authority is 'judicial precedent.' Numerous court decisions support the president's action.
In general, the courts have been very reluctant to interfere with the president in matters of war and foreign policy."
There again, Ronald is talking about our ongoing "war" as evidence of Presidential authority, but I will again argue that we're not at war. We are involved in the occupation of Iraq, but fortunately nobody is stupid enough to claim that the wiretapping relates directly to that occupation. No, that can be explained away by "The War on Terror"®. This presents two very pressing problems, however. First of all, this "war" doesn't fit the historical definition of a war. There is no front, there are no battles, there is no open conflict; there isn't even a clearly definable enemy. Saying the "War on Terror" gives the president emergency wartime powers is like saying The Cold War or the War on Drugs granted the same powers. Calling it a war doesn't make it a war. We Americans just like the terminology; we've been at "war" with one intangible enemy or another for decades.
Second, terror, or even "Terror", is not something we can defeat. Do you remember the time when everybody in the world considered America a great friend and ally? Neither can anyone else. It never happened, and it never will, though certainly the prospects are worsened with an administration that callously thumbs its nose at world opinion. When will this war be over? When will we wipe out Anti-American sentiment? When will we have an absolute zero chance of a terrorist attack on our soil? When will the president lose these wartime powers? The answer to the first three questions is never, as is the answer to the last if Ronald's argument is valid. That alone, frankly, invalidates Ronald's argument.
Finally, this is no longer simply a foreign policy issue. The administration certainly wants to frame it that way, but domestic espionage is, by definition, a domestic issue. Supreme Court decisions regarding war and foreign policy don't really apply. If you really need to fall back on this argument, let's think about some of those precedents. Internment camps for Japanese Americans. McCarthyism. The Hoover FBI. Nixon's tapes. Not exactly a laundry list of our proudest moments, is it?
I don't care what kind of résumé Ronald here has. This opinion has no bearings outside of the personal political leanings of the author, and certainly carries no level of authority or expertise. Why the Post Standard put this piece at center stage, and offered it far more space than most letter-writers receive, is nearly as mystifying a question as how a true Republican can support the kind of big, bureaucratic government necessary to carry out domestic espionage.
posted by Zafrod at 1:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home