This article summarizes the issue of the illegal spying plus the integrated Patriot Act issue.
CIVIL LIBERTIES
Welcome To The Surveillance State
The Bush administration is trying to jam through a permanent extension of the
PATRIOT Act before Congress adjourns for the year. But Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) has
assembled a bipartisan coalition advocating a more deliberative approach -- a
temporary, three month extension until the Senate can resolve remaining concerns
that certain provisions give "government too much power to investigate its
citizens." An effort by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) to block a permanent extension
of the act this year appears to have enough votes to be successful. But it does
it matter? The New York Times reported that in 2002, President Bush secretly
authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on Americans and
others in the United States in ways that "go far beyond the expanded
counterterrorism powers granted by Congress under the USA Patriot Act." The
program has revived a domestic spying operation at the NSA not seen since the
1960s when the agency routinely eavesdropped "on Vietnam War protesters and
civil rights activists."
BUSH MAY HAVE AUTHORIZED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY: Kate Martin, director of the Center
for National Security Studies, "said the secret order may amount to the
president authorizing criminal activity." Some officials at the NSA agree.
According to the New York Times, "[S]ome agency officials wanted nothing to do
with the program, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation."
Others were "worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional
or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was
elected president." In 2004, "concerns about the program expressed by national
security officials, government lawyers and a judge prompted the Bush
administration to suspend elements of the program and revamp it." But it
continues to this day.
DESPERATE TO AVOID EVEN NOMINAL OVERSIGHT: The administration's actions are
particularly suspicious because they already have all requisite authority to
conduct surveillance under the law. Under the PATRIOT Act, for example, law
enforcement and intelligence officials are required to seek a warrant from the
Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court (FISA) "every time they want to
eavesdrop within the United States." The court is notoriously compliant with
government requests for warrants. In its first 25 years "the secret
court...approved over 10,000 warrants -- with the numbers growing every year --
and never turned down a single request." (In 2002, the court rejected its first
request ever from Attorney General John Ashcroft.) Why was the administration so
desperate to avoid oversight, even from an extremely cooperative court?
THE YOO FACTOR: The domestic spying program was justified by a "classified legal
opinion" written by John Yoo, a Justice Department official. Yoo also authored a
memo arguing that interrogation techniques only constitute torture if they are
"equivalent in intensity to...organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or
even death." The Bush administration was forced to repudiate that memo once it
became public. (Yoo continues to defend it.) Yoo has also argued that "President
Bush didn't need to ask Congress for permission to invade Iraq." (Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice echoed the argument when she told a congressional
committee that "the president has the right to attack Syria, without
congressional approval, if he deems that a necessary move in the war on
terror.")
NYT REJECTS ADMINISTRATION EFFORT TO AVOID EMBARRASSMENT: The administration
asked the "New York Times not to publish this article, arguing it could
jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they
might be under scrutiny." It's a specious argument because a would-be terrorist
could be under scrutiny by an number of existing legal procedures, including
through the FISA court. The Times delayed publication for a year but ultimately
didn't buy the White House argument, publishing its report in this morning's
edition. |
