Patterico's Pontifications

12/19/2005

Who’s Being “Cavalier”?

Filed under: Civil Liberties,Dog Trainer,War — Patterico @ 6:28 am



Yesterday, the L.A. Times editorialized:

PRESIDENT BUSH WAS CAVALIER on Friday night when he told Jim Lehrer on PBS that a report about the National Security Agency eavesdropping on U.S. citizens was “not the main story of the day.” He is entitled to his own news judgment, but it reveals a lot about his willingness to disregard constitutional safeguards and civil liberties while pursuing the war on terrorism.

I think the editors are cavalier in not mentioning in their editorial what President Bush believed the story of the day actually was: the Iraqi elections.

L.A. Times editors are entitled to their own news judgment as well. But in my own personal opinion, the elections — which had stunning Sunni participation and mark a true turning point in the war — are indeed a bigger story than the eavesdropping, the supposed illegality of which remains unclear.

UPDATE: Orin Kerr promises a post on the legality of the surveillance later today. I think that, like the Katrina response, this is one of those stories on which it will pay to be careful and avoid snap judgments. I look forward to Kerr’s post, whatever it says.

UPDATE x2: Kerr’s super-tentative conclusion and supporting analysis are here. Kerr says the surveillance program was probably constitutional, but probably violated FISA. But don’t hold him to it.

If Kerr is right, Bush has violated the statute — but the editors’ pontifications about Bush disregarding “constitutional safeguards” was premature.

16 Responses to “Who’s Being “Cavalier”?”

  1. Oh c’mon, there’s no contest.
    You have one story that can be twisted, opinionified, opaqued and misinterepreted to make Bush look bad and another one that can’t really be twisted to make him look bad.

    Obviously the first is Earth-shattering in its implications while the second is merely rah-rah-ing for the President.

    Veeshir (dfa2bf)

  2. Too many turning points has made Patterico dizzy I think.

    Since the warrantless wiretapping authorized by Bush, in violation of laws passed by an elected Congress, is treated so cavalierly by Patterico, I have a hard time understanding why he thinks democracy is such a big deal in the first place.

    m.croche (85f703)

  3. What’s all the fuss about?

    GWB is right, Democracy in Iraq is more important than kowtowing to MSM’s anti-American agenda. Besides, Constitutional authority for NSA monitoring of resident terrorists is located in the same language which overturned the 10th Amendment.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  4. The only reason the eavesdropping is at all controversial is that the Bush administration and the federal agencies in charge of national security are batting 1000 since 9/11/01. If there had been any successful attacks on US soil since 9/11/01, the outcry among the Democrats (as well as some Republicans) would have been that too little eavesdropping had been done, or that it hadn’t been done well enough. The rule of law can survive only if security is maintained. No government can withstand pressure to adopt extreme measures to preserve the lives of its citizens when ordinary measures fail. Those calling for a return to pre-9/11 status should keep this in mind. And if concern for their fellow citizens isn’t enough to temper their urge to try to turn this into political advantage, perhaps they might consider that they will be blamed if they succeed in removing the so-far successful measures taken to prevent another 9/11.

    With that said, I’m all for requiring oversight and warrants. We’ll need that sort of protection, just in case the Democrats ever get control of the government again (God help us).

    TNugent (58efde)

  5. TNugent: “The rule of law can survive only if security is maintained”

    i.e. We had to destroy the rule of law in order to save it.

    Perhaps Tnugent can tell us why it was necessary to trash the rule of law in the first place. The FISA court wasn’t compliant enough? Quick enough? Hard to believe.

    m.croche (68637a)

  6. ” The FISA court wasn’t compliant enough? Quick enough? Hard to believe.”

    Have you ever had to obtain a FISA warrant? Somehow, I doubt it.

    Clue for the clueless: it will take, even with the accelerated procedures, 3-7 days. That’s not good enough for quick telephone calls.

    Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  7. …it will take, even with the accelerated procedures, 3-7 days… – Clam

    That’s not what I heard. I heard that for 72 hours before even asking the court, they could wire tap anyone they wanted.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  8. and 72 hours, divided by 24 hours in a day, equals ???

    And that’s assuming that the FISA court isn’t dragging its feet, or busy, or whatever.

    Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  9. That’s not what I mean. I heard that they could tap anyone they wanted, then ask FISA. They didn’t have to get permission first.

    Why didn’t the Bush admin. just complain about or fix the system if it wasn’t good enough rather than subvert it, anyway? If a system is broken, don’t undermine it, fix it for Christ’s sake. Whatsamatter with them, anyway?

    Tillman (1cf529)

  10. First, it was an editorial and on the link you provided labeled it as such. Anybody can take it for what it’s worth. I do not see a journalistic ethics problem.

    Second, was I deluded in believing that the NSA and its super-computers were created for, and for the last forty years have been, monitoring international telecommunications? If this was a secret, it was a very open one. Personally, I see no constitutional problem. If you shout across the street to your neighbor you cannot complain that others heard you. Likewise, if you convert your voice to electromagnetic waves and (literally) spread it through the galaxy you cannot complain that someone captured it on his scanner. The President is absolutely right in his position and the leakers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    nk (2d5ea9)

  11. The Angry Clam writes: “Clue for the clueless: it will take, even with the accelerated procedures, 3-7 days. That’s not good enough for quick telephone calls.”

    Make that one Clueless Clam: Warrants are obtainable retrospectively. The Bushistas could get that telephone call, then go to the FISA court for a warrant, retrospectively. Most assuredly they would get it: The FISA court has shown itself to be remarkably compliant after all.

    And is the Clueless Clam’s argument really supposed to be that the President can unilaterally ignore laws it dislikes? Three cheers for democracy, eh?

    So much for Patterico’s huffing and stamping about the LA Times, illegal immigrants and “criminals”. The president authorizes a program illegal under congressional statute and he can barely muster a shrug.

    m.croche (83edbf)

  12. By the way, did anyone else notice how Kerr’s “plausible” turned into Patterico’s “probable” with regard to the arguments in the Fourth Amendmend analysis? Refresher course on the distinction: I think it’s plausible to suppose that Patterico would be indifferent to a President Clinton authorizing warrantless wiretaps in violation of FISA. Probable? Ha.

    Here’s a bright side for Patterico, though: ALberto “Congress authorized this even though we couldn’t get them to authorize it” Gonzales hasn’t the least chance of ever becoming Supreme Court Justice.

    m.croche (83edbf)

  13. Croche:

    By the way, did anyone else notice how Kerr’s “plausible” turned into Patterico’s “probable” with regard to the arguments in the Fourth Amendmend analysis?

    Kerr:

    My answer is pretty tentative, but here it goes: Although it hinges somewhat on technical details we don’t know, it seems that the program was probably constitutional but probably violated the federal law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

    Croche missed that even though it was in the 1st paragraph of Kerr’s post, so I bolded the relevant word for him. Here’s how I characterized Kerr’s conclusions:

    Kerr says the surveillance program was probably constitutional, but probably violated FISA. But don’t hold him to it.

    Feel free to compare my characterization with Kerr’s own description.

    Patterico (806687)

  14. I think it’s plausible to suppose that Patterico would be indifferent to a President Clinton authorizing warrantless wiretaps in violation of FISA. Probable? Ha.

    Check this out.

    Patterico (806687)

  15. First, it was an editorial and on the link you provided labeled it as such. Anybody can take it for what it’s worth. I do not see a journalistic ethics problem.

    Who said I did?

    Patterico (806687)

  16. No, you did not. Please aceept my apology for implying that you did.

    nk (ca8012)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0782 secs.