mirrorpool: Domestic Spying

Several positive developments have occurred recently, including the passing of (at least cosmetic) anti-torture laws, the halting of Patriot Act extensions that would have endangered civil liberties, and the removal of Arctic drilling from the defense bill. These are significant defeats for the White House, but we must remain vigilant because the forces in control still vow to restrict our rights ostensibly in order to protect them. It's astounding that we're having to debate whether to allow the torture we deny using, or whether spying on Americans without a warrant is legal since the Constitution of the United States clearly states otherwise. Being at war doesn't suspend these safeguards; in fact, we should be particularly careful to respect the rule of law if our goal is be an example to the rest of the world. A president also shouldn't be able to use a conflict he himself started in order to establish "at war" status. Foreign and domestic relations demand a sensible diplomacy and a regard for universal values sorely lacking in recent dialogue.

Meanwhile, President Bush has admitted to authorizing extensive surveillance without the necessary court orders, emphatically insisting that he is within the Constitution. However, it's obvious that many of these cases exceeded customary boundaries, since apparently all formality had to be suspended. An expansion of power even beyond the Patriot Act (which still requires warrants) was sought, using 9/11 as the excuse, but when rebuffed, the White House decided to bypass both Congress and the courts. These revelations come on the heels of news that the Pentagon has been monitoring anti-war groups for some time now, a practice that has more to do with keeping an eye on perceived enemies of the Bush administration than national security. Linking those exercising their constitutional right of dissent with terrorism is a paranoid fantasy worthy of former President Nixon, and is indeed reminiscent of the late 1960s. Ironically, the laws now in place were set up to eliminate just this kind of excess. In taking us backwards, George W. Bush has effectively imperiled the liberty he so vociferously claims to champion.

Presidential powers set forth in Article Two of the Constitution are being stretched to undermine the Fourth Amendment guarantee of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. This is a convoluted attempt to strengthen the executive at the expense of the legislative and judiciary branches. A tribunal set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is already in place to handle top-secret inquiries and provide special warrants when needed. Even this essentially rubber stamp court was forced to modify increasingly broad administration requests in order to comply with the law. It didn't take long for the president to grow impatient with these limitations and decide to dispense with the requirements altogether. That he personally signed off on more than three dozen cases reveals an extra bureaucratic step that should have been left to the court in the first place.

The charge that the leaking of this program somehow endangers national security is patently false since most self-respecting terrorists must suspect that wiretaps are occurring around the clock anyway. Urgency isn't an issue since authorization can be obtained retroactively within 72 hours, or up to 15 days during wartime. The only difference now is that the president has taken it upon himself to make the decision giving the National Security Agency (NSA) wider leeway instead of allowing judges or Congress their say; this is beyond the scope of his office. Our representational government requires the input of all three branches, along with guidance from the Constitution. A separation of powers must be recognized, or else a totalitarian state may ensue. The executive's reach should always be equal to, but never superior to the others; this is the foundation of our republic.

A circumstance that needs to be taken into account is the emergence of technology that wasn't available back in 1978 when FISA was set up. Computers can now search through massive amounts of data in a short time, and consequently e-mails and hard-drives can be monitored in an unprecedented fashion. Phone calls, both land and cell, can be traced much more easily than before. This raises privacy issues that have never been fully addressed, but we shouldn't have to amend the Constitution to do it. New laws need to be forged regarding the changes in the way information is handled, but the administration must not be allowed to abuse the situation in the meantime. Limits need to be set on how much data can be stored indefinitely, simply as a matter of shielding the innocent. It has now emerged that for several years internet providers and telecommunications corporations have supplied the NSA with virtually everything they have requested without restriction. Unbeknownst to us, the government has been accessing virtually all international communications, either originating in or destined for the U.S., placing our country in a legal limbo of potentially catastrophic proportions.

Congressional hearings have been called for in a bi-partisan manner, unusual for our current political climate, but it remains to be seen whether there is any substance involved, or if this is just empty posturing. No Senator or Representative wants to face re-election without seeming to stand up for such a basic right as safety from undue government scrutiny. Unbelievably, we seem obliged to petition for the rights secured by the Revolutionary War all over again. The executive branch has assumed powers normally reserved for kings or dictators, not the elected officials of a democracy. Checks and balances established by the founders have been pushed aside in favor of the president.

Even though Mr. Bush can't prove that he was ever legitimately elected, he is still required to abide by the Constitution. That the domestic spying story was withheld from the public for over a year at the behest of the White House (they didn't want it released now, either), is indicative of an abdication of responsibility by both the mainstream media and the Bush administration. The public was not only deliberately uninformed about matters critical to their expectations of privacy, but denied crucial information before the 2004 election. This amounts to blatant intimidation of the fourth estate, directly jeopardizing freedom of the press guarantees vouchsafed in the First Amendment.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) has offered a resolution of censure for President Bush and Vice President Cheney, as an adjunct to discovering if impeachment can address the avalanche of offenses committed by the administration. Certainly there are grounds for investigations into the manipulation of evidence in the run-up to the Iraq war, the torture of captives, the broad surveillance of citizens, and the issues behind indictments already pending against top government officials. Together this constitutes a devastating case of malfeasance surely exceeding anything Richard Nixon ever contemplated. Republicans ignore these crimes at their own peril; the only way to save their party and the country itself from imploding is to agree to full Congressional hearings, complete with subpoena power.

Unfortunately, the public has become inured to scandal, and a compliant Congress and media will probably once again give the president the benefit of the doubt after a spirited debate. Given a choice between introducing the Articles of Impeachment or an Amendment to the Constitution reflecting the new paradigm, the latter is a much more likely prospect. However, the issue isn't just about whether the president should have the powers he claims, but whether he overstepped the rules by superseding Congress and the courts in exercising them. Members of Congress have a responsibility to remove a president that has broken the laws of the nation, by impeachment if necessary. This directive is instilled in the very Constitution they are sworn to uphold, and that solemn duty is abrogated if such a trial fails to materialize.

As we head into the new year, and a congressional election to boot, we need to be mindful of the ability of the American people to bring about change. However, our election system is damaged in many ways and it's unclear whether it can be fixed in time to prevent another coup. It has been proven that the secret proprietary software owned by private companies friendly to the Bush administration can easily be hacked by insiders. Touch-screen computers are the most vulnerable and if they are to be used for such an important task as voting, open-source code verifiable by independent experts should be mandatory. Perhaps we would be better off scrapping polling places altogether and switching to a national mail-in format similar to Oregon's successful program, thus eliminating long lines, provisional ballots, picture I.D. cards, and the threat of electronic tampering in one fell swoop.

Election reform remains our greatest challenge, even ahead of holding the current administration accountable, because without the right to vote for the candidates of our choice, we can never make the changes necessary to get the country back on course. The mid-terms will help determine whether we head towards stability or increasing turmoil, depending on your viewpoint. A Democratic Congress could spell trouble for President Bush, but it would signal the beginning of healing for the nation and the world. Iraq, national security, international peace, and the economy, for starters, all hang in the balance. Let's work together to achieve real victory, which in this case has nothing to do with the battlefield, but rather the re-assertion of the ideals we all cherish, regardless of politics.

Sources:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5769

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1230-39.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1228-28.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1227-33.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1226-20.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1226-21.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1226-22.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1226-23.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1226-05.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1224-02.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1224-23.htm