I continue to ponder the NSA phone call database, and other related issues, and find myself troubled by the reactions by many on topic and consider an easy way to get to my serious concerns over the program.
There are several ways to attack the issue. For one, there is the competence issue. The Bush administration did not prove to be competent on dealing with post-invasion Iraq nor did it show it itself competent in the wake of Katrina. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security has hardly been impressive, and I have serious doubts about the re-org of the intelligence community. (Indeed, along those lines, Kingdaddy dubs Bush “the Dismantler”–and he has a point).
There are also the lapses into cronyism, such as the Harriet Miers, which plays into the competence issue, as well as the trust issue (i.e., whether the administration is worthy of).
However, let’s get to a simple issue that cause me great concern: if this administration is willing to engage in activities that it believes are legal without seeking approval from the proper authorities, what will it be willing to do that isn’t legal? IN other words: if it doesn’t think it needs permission for things for which permission might have been granted, mightn’t it be willing to avoid permission-seeking on even more dubious activities? If they don’t think they have to play by existing rules in the name of security, why would they start seeking permission for future activities? This is a very serious question that is not being taken seriously enough by pundits and the public alike.
There appears to be an attitude that doing whatever is necessary in the War of Terror is ultimately justifiable as an Article II power. This is, to put it mildly, a radically expansive reading of the constitutional powers of the president.
And, ultimately, this isn’t about the Bush administration–it is about how we want any president to employ the powers of the executive branch.
Don’t forget: this is the administration that did hold an American citizen, arrested on US soil, in jail for years without filing charges. What might it do if it thought its analysis of phone calls led them to think that a given set of persons were part of an al Qaeda cell? And, more to the point, what if they were wrong? Surely that scenario alone should give us all pause, and should want us all to see serious oversight of any programs being deployed in this area of policy (especially those that have substantial domestic components).
Again: just laying the “we are at war” card on the table (as I have seen done a number of times) is wholly insufficient. Not only is that not an argument (it is a slogan), it ignores the fact that, as I have noted before (for example, here and here), the War on Terror notion is an almost permanent situation. As such, this is not a case where emergency or extraordinary powers are to be tolerated. This is no reason whatsoever that whatever counter-terrorism powers that the president may need can’t be adequately debated in Congress and appropriately, legally and constitutionally crafted.
May 15th, 2024 at 10:55 am
Steven, you’re beginning to sound like a liberal. Welcome to the neighborhood!
May 15th, 2024 at 12:20 pm
I have a strong classical liberal/libertarian streak–always have.
Certainly I have a healthy distrust of government!
May 15th, 2024 at 1:15 pm
I too have a healthy distrust of government but do not share the same views on this program.
I must point out you are being unfair on the post invasion and post Katrina issue. Each of these are complicated situations that even with enormous amounts of planning there will be mistakes made. Those mistakes will be seen clearly after the fact but it is unfair to say that planning did not keep every imaginable contingency from happening.
War and natural disasters are chaotic events that we should accept as unmanagable to a certain degree. To try and predict and manage these events to the level many ask is folly.
Your argument concerning asking permission for what is considered legal doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t ask permission to do things that are legal in my world. I don’t ask a policeman if I may make a right turn on a red, I just do it because I believe it’s legal. The administration relied on it’s in house legal advisors to make their call on the legality of the NSA program. Seems normal to me.
In the more contentious matters I would expect the proper path to determine legality would be to test the program in the courts. There is nothing wrong with taking the position that no real determination of legality occurs until the courts have had a say. This is common in our society.
I agree this isn’t about Bush, it is about any president and the powers they wield. This will set precedents to be followed for years.
I still do not see the collection of data establishing patterns of calls to be a sufficient invasion of privacy for concern. Private companies collect more data than this, governmmental agents such as IRS agents and regulatory agents collect much more information than this. Certain regulatory agencies can sieze records withouts warrants yet I hear no complaints about these intrusions.
The threat (I will use threat rather than war)is serious and immenent. Because it is such a large threat we can allow minor intrusions such as this. Coupled with the congressional oversight that was and is in place I believe this to be a good program. The intelligence people must also think it is worthwhile or why waste time on it.
May 15th, 2024 at 1:30 pm
I allow for the fact that one should not expect perfection in times of war or disaster. However, the post-invasion work in Iraq has been far form impressive, and I don’t think was well thought-out (starting with inadequate troops to create a proper security environment).
In regards to Katrina: it was clear by late Tuesday to early Wednesday of that week that FEMA and DHS were ill-prepared for the event. Part of that was directly linked to the created of DHS in the first place.
The bottom line problem is: there isn’t sufficient Congressional oversight. Briefing a handful of members of congress, as was done with the wiretapping program isn’t oversight. Indeed, if the briefed members are not allowed to discuss the matter because of security issues, it doesn’t even qualify as “informing Congress” except in the broadest of senses.
In regards to asking permission: it was clear from the Qwest experience that they (the NSA) weren’t sure if the activity was legal or not, but thought it was. They didn’t want to find out. If they don’t want to find out in a case like this, what will they do with more extreme programs that they think to be vital to national security?
May 15th, 2024 at 2:25 pm
Homeland Security at the cabniet level is a Democrat doing. I was against it. TSA as union stooges is a Democrat doing. I was against it. Now the Dems have in Law & in Tradition what they wanted; we’re all screwed for not having fought harder when it was actually time to fight.
May 15th, 2024 at 2:29 pm
Well, the idea originated with Joe Lieberman (I think–at least he was an early champion). However, the Reps (the President included) saw it as a political winner and ran with it.
You really can’t blame DHS on the Dems–it was created by a a Rep Congress and signed into law by a Rep president.
May 15th, 2024 at 7:09 pm
Right, DHS is a remidner that “bipartisan bill” is not a synonym for “good policy.”
And, yes, I believe you are right that Lieberman was the first legislator to call for such an entity.