Bush's "Need for Speed" Argument Runs into the Truth (David Sirota)

[dooner]

In his news conference today, President Bush invoked the need for speed in the War on Terror as the reason he is illegally ordering the National Security Agency to conduct domestic surveillance without search warrants. Sounds like a compelling argument, right? In the fast-moving world of information age technology, we can't really afford to make our law enforcers take the time to go get a warrant, right?

It's true – Bush might have had a point, except for one tiny little detail he refused to discuss at his press conference: namely, the fact that current law is so lax that he is already permitted to get a search warrant 72 hours after surveillance is conducted. Put another way, the law currently allows Bush to order surveillance as fast as he possibly can, and allows surveillance operations to take place immediately. The only thing that is required is a court-issued warrant that can be ussed retroactively within 72 hours of when the operation started. And, as I've noted earlier, the special court that grants these warrants has only rejected 4 government requests in a quarter century, meaning getting a warrant is about as easy as it gets...that is, as long as you aren't trying to do something wholly outrageous and unrelated to the War on Terror.

<snip>

There really is only one explanation that a sane, rational person could come up with: The surveillance operations Bush is ordering are so outrageous, so unrelated to the War on Terror and such an unconstitutional breach of authority that he knows that even a court that has rejected just 4 warrant requests in 25 years will reject what he's doing. All you have to do is look at recent news reports about federal law enforcement and military assets being deployed against domestic anti-war and peace groups to know that this is well within what the Bush White House sees as acceptable behavior.

<snip>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/bushs-need-for-speed-a_b_12550.html

[Inland]

1. Or another possibility:

Bush believes that he should be able to do these things in principle. He never does anything openly and legally if he can do it secretly and illegally.

[spindrifter]

2. You are right on the money

with your analysis. It all fits into the arrogance of the people who are trying to bring us the New American Government--Ch*ney, Rummy, C*ndi and beyong them the Carlyle folks. They have an unhealthy dose of power corruption.

[C_U_L8R]

3. Congress needs to demand

that Bush fork over his enemies list.

Who is being wiretapped.. and why ???

[Straight Shooter]

4. bush is spying on his enemies, not enemies of the American people.

Bank on it.

[seafan]

5. Also from Sirota's piece:

(Emphasis mine.)

snip

And so we're back to the same question: why did the President order domestic surveillance operations without even asking retroactively for warrants? In his press conference, Bush tried to ramrod the entire issue into one of him working to defend America, and critics supposedly being weak on national security. But he frontally refused to answer the very simple question when a reporter put it to him:

QUESTION: Getting back to the domestic spying issue for a moment, according to FISA's own records, it's received nearly 19,000 requests for wiretaps or search warrants since 1979, rejected just five of them. It also operates in secret, so security shouldn't be a concern. And it can be applied retroactively. Given such a powerful tool of law enforcement is at your disposal, sir, why did you see fit to sidetrack that process?

BUSH: We used the process to monitor. But also, this is a different era, different war. It's a war where people are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And we've got to be able to detect and prevent. I keep saying that. But this is -- it requires quick action.

snip


* is using this surveillance extralegally to monitor Americans' private communications. That means that he is going on a fishing expedition for whatever he can find. There is no specific target of his surveillance. This is NOT what the FISA court will allow.

So, he is breaking 2 laws here, IMHO:

1. Not obtaining a warrant for the surveillance whatsoever.

2. Using the surveillance to fish for information, instead of having a specific wiretap target.

No wonder he cut the FISA court out of the process completely. It would never have allowed what he was going to do.


another snip from Sirota:

So even after public outcry, and even after a courageous reporter pointed out that the White House's "need for speed" answer doesn't hold water, the President stood up and said screw the law, screw the constitution, I'm going to do it anyway - and I'm not going to provide any legal justification for any of it.

This scandal has quickly ripped the veneer off this White House's use of "national security" in the post-9/11 world. It sees "national security" not as a priority in defending America, but as a slogan that justifies smarmy, used-to-getting-whatever-they-want politicians trampling the laws that are supposed to confine state power. This has nothing to do with the need for speed, or the need to fight terrorists – it has everything to do with an out-of-control, paranoid President believing he is above the laws that have governed this country for 200 years. And if America lets this stand – if we let the law be "brushed aside" - we set a dangerous precedent for future presidents to trample our Constitution.

[JABBS]

6. For another take on this story

Check out this JABBS post.