Smooth Criminals
Just Trust Them

Shortly after September 11 attacks, Bush secretly permitted the National Security Agency to monitor international telephone calls and e-mail messages of hundreds of Americans. This is problematic because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) dictates that the targets of eavesdropping must be foreign governments or their agents. According the flawed logic of the Bush regime, our country is apparently plagued with hundreds of foreign agents disguised as American citizens. The results of these illegal investigations ultimately failed to reveal any plot inside the U.S., including Al-Qaeda agents.

On February 6, 2006, the United States Senate held a hearing regarding the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping. The court ultimately found that such practices could continue "within the parameters of being reasonable." Several concerns were voiced, however, including questions regarding the role of FISA. This law was implemented shortly after the Ford administration, during Carter's presidency. It was created specifically to monitor intelligence-gathering information, regardless of whether or not laws were being broken. In effect, the president does indeed have authority to wiretap for foreign-intelligence gathering without a warrant, as long as it is obtained after the fact. The Bush administration has not done this when performing warrantless wiretaps, and has been disobeying federal law as a result.

Berger versus New York, a 1967 court ruling, states that the "Supreme Court has viewed communications interception as an especially grave intrusion on rights of privacy and speech." Given the sensitivity of the topic of communication-interception, such as wiretapping, FISA was eventually created. This held officials accountable-those who were in government positions capable of using warrantless wiretapping had to answer to others within the government. Senator Herb Cole (D-WI) raised an excellent question during the Senate hearing:

"To accomplish this [wiretapping], the administration had three options, as you know: first, you could have followed the current law, which most experts believes gives you all the authority you need to listen to these calls; second, if you thought the law inadequate, you could have asked Congress to grant you additional authority; or third, the course you followed, conduct warrantless spying outside current law and without new authorization. If you had the two options that would have given you unquestionable authority to monitor these calls and one whose legality was at best questionable, then why did you go for the most questionable one? Why not either follow the law or seek new laws?"

In response, the Bush administration defended their position by citing their overriding authority in the use of military force during times of war. As communication surveying is a violation of personal privacy, one of our fundamental rights, it is a forceful military tactic. Unfortunately, the court hearing finally concluded that the President's authority during times of war superceded federal laws on wiretapping, including those laid out in FISA.

Yet 30 years ago, a similar situation led former President Gerald Ford to take a different route, going against the opinion of his own advisors. These advisors included the former President Bush-then head of the Central Intelligence Agency-Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. In 1975, the Ford administration encouraged an FBI investigation of the New York Times, and its reporter Seymour Hersh. Hersh had written an article on the subject of U.S. submarines conducting spying operations inside Soviet waters. Cheney, who was White House chief of staff at the time, requested an investigation including the use of illegal wiretaps. Rumsfeld was defense secretary then, as now, also recommended the investigation be opened. But Ford decided these actions went against existing laws regarding wiretapping, despite his "overriding authority."

At the Senate hearing in early February, concern was expressed regarding future rulings that could be corrupted by the allowance of illegal wiretapping today. That is, while the Senate insisted that no fault was found in the practices of the Bush Administration, they acknowledged such a decision could set precedence, putting American liberties at risk in the future.

Currently, a formal leaks investigation has been initiated by the National Security Agency. This will attempt to discover who is leaking sensitive information on wiretapping to the press. However, it is important to note that the information printed by media sources was shortly thereafter obtained by the National Security Archive, who added the documents to their website. The National Security Archive is a source of many governmental documents, which include those relating to executive decisions made for purposes of national security. These are posted so American citizens can remain rightfully informed on their government's processes.

On Wednesday, February 22, 2006, citizens in several U.S. cities gathered in front of government buildings to hold candlelight vigils protesting the President's use of illegal wiretapping. MoveOn, a non-profit organization whose Democratic political endeavors are geared toward the government playing a more moderate role, organized the event.

There are several motivations to these actions, but primarily MoveOn wants to ensure that FISA, which was outlined specifically to regulate war activities by the government, is obeyed by our current president. To the many who are troubled by his actions, it is an issue of the preservation of rights. For others, it threatens them because it hedges inherent rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, pointing towards an accumulation of power in the Executive Branch.

If our current president can override federal law at a time of war, other presidents will also be capable of doing so. The people cannot take action to protect their privacy and liberty if a president continually abuses his responsibility in a harmful manner. To those who held candles and peacefully protested the erosion of Constitutional rights, the preservation of liberty at home is an issue of national security. Those who are in positions of great power in a democracy must follow its laws, most especially during times of turmoil, such as a war with no clear end in sight.

Written By Faye Hoxie

Back