View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Isaiah Z. Sterrett |
December 30th, 2005
We should read the laws, before we accuse people of breaking them.
As it turns out, contrary to the mournful screams of liberals, “Bush’s wiretaps” were (and remain) completely justified by law. It’s true that this country’s record of civil liberties during wartime is hardly one in which we can take pride, but this current episode is not an example of a wartime abuse. It is an example of a national security success.
First, a question: Was I the only one who had a hard time deciphering actual law and legal commentary from left-wing, and then right-wing, spin? When a debate about law is taking place in which neither side immediately brings up the law itself — in this case the U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive — we have a problem.
USSID, enacted in July of 1993, creates the following, as described by The American Spectator’s Jed Babbin:
Under Section 4 of USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court…; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States…international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."
USSID 18 goes on to allow NSA to gather intelligence about a U.S. person outside the United States even without Attorney General sanction in emergencies "when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because…the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security.”
Babbin further reports that FISA, misrepresented by liberals far and wide, allows the Attorney General to bypass the FISA court. This obviously makes sense, since it would be virtually impossible for the government to go before the FISA court every time a terrorist made a telephone call in which someone in the United States was a participant.
These facts are terribly simple. As Babbin summarizes, “[e]veryone who is ranting and raving about illegality has neither the facts (most of which we don't know) or the law and regulations (which weigh heavily in favor of legality) on their side.”
Knowing this, however, liberals continue to kvetch about nonexistent violations of civil liberties. “The shocking revelation that Bush has personally ordered secret wiretaps for years without court approval,” columnist Errol Louis sniffed, “are part of a White House policy of placing the President above the law.” Louis cites FISA but references only the provisions convenient to his point. He totally ignores USSID 18 (abovementioned), which justifies — at least in part — the actions of President Bush, the NSA, and Attorney General Gonzales.
One hates to whine about Clinton given that his successor is well into his second term, but I think liberals have abandoned their credibility when it comes to “the President [placing himself] above the law.” As one Senator suggested, the best reason to oppose the PATRIOT Act is that we may someday have President Hillary Clinton to abuse it.
I note further that hallucinatory Democrats did not bring up the Fourth Amendment when the Clinton-Reno Justice Department invaded a house on United States soil, shoved machine guns in the faces of the Americans who lived there, stole a member of their family (who happened to be six-years-old), and surrendered him to Castro’s Cuba.
Would Elian Gonzalez prefer to live under Communism, as Bill Clinton hoped, or live in the United States under the risk of “Bush’s wiretaps?”
Attorney General Reno actually defended her use of U.S. Marshals to kidnap a child, noting that such force had to be used as a result of the fact that “[t]here was information that it might be possible that there were guns in the crowd or in the home.” When asked if there were actually “guns in the crowd or in the home,” Reno coolly answered that the Marshals “weren't looking for the weapons. They were looking for the child, and they got the child.”
I guess the “right to privacy” isn’t so “fundamental” when we’re talking about children who’ve been born, as opposed to those still in the womb.
“Democrats have done worse” is not the best argument — but it’s true, nonetheless, and we should not forget it. We should also not forget to read laws before we accuse people of breaking them.
isterrett@hotmail.com
Visit their website at:
Responses to "Bush’s Wiretaps Are Legal"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The relevant sections:
4.1. (C xxx) The SIGINT mission of the USSS includes the collection, processing, storage, and dissemination of foreign communications (plaintext and encrypted) passed by radio, wire, or other electromagnetic means. It is the poiicy of the USSS to target or collect foreign communications. The USSS will not intentionally collect the communications of U.S. persons or communications that refer to U.S. persons except as authorized pursuant to the procedures contained in this USSID or its annexes. The USSS will only process and disseminate communications of U.S. persons, or that refer to U.S. persons, as provided for in this USSID.
SECTION 5 - COLLECTION
5.1. (C xxx) The Director, NSA, will consider requests to collect the communications of U.S. persons, or communications that refer to U.S. persons, only if one of the following criteria is satisfied:
a. The U.S. person has given consent and has executed the consent form as set forth in Annex I. Once the consent form has been executed, the Director, NSA, may authorize the collection. The Director, NSA, shall notify the Anorney General of each consensual collection.
b. The U.S. person is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. The purpose of the collection must be the acquisition of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence. It is also necessary that the information be unobtainable by less intrusive techniques. In this case, the Director, NSA, may:
(1) Submit an application for the collection in accordance with the FISA when the U.S. person is in the United States and the communications sought are those of that U.S. person (see Annex A).
(2) Request the Anomey General to authorize collection when the U.S. person is outside the United States, when the U.S. person is in the United States and only communications that refer to that person are sought, or when a U.S. person as defined in Section 3.31.b. is in the United States
(3) Authorize the collection if an emergency situation exists and the U.S. person is outside the United States.
5.2. (C xxx) In emergency situations, the Director, NSA, may approve for foreign intelligence or countefintmgence purposes the collection of communications of U.S. persons, or communications that refer to U.S. persons, when such persons are outside the United States and when securing the prior approval of the Attorney General is not practical.
It would be nice if so-called journalists, at least got the sections they are writing about correct, and, of course, many of the criteria for what constitutes an "emergency" are still "secret" .
For all the conservatives out there–remember that if you let this president get by with this, any president can–even those you don't like.
So you may trust this president with this much power (I certainly don't), but how about the next one. The constitution, with it's checks and balances of power, was put in place for a reason, but I guess you all have forgotten that.
Comment by JD | January 3, 2006
Ok, I had the wrong USSID 18 (I was looking at the 1980. I take back what I said about the journalist's accuracy. Still many parts of this are redacted, and, it is not as clear cut as you'd like people to believe, and, I still stand by my last statement.
Comment by JD | January 3, 2006
I had made a comment about this subject in another article, the main point being that we are AT WAR. No, as of yet, our beloved Congress has not set to paper a Declaration of War against our adversaries, but they MUST, and QUICKLY! JD has stated that the law says that "In emergency situations…" which states correctly that FISA courts can be sidestepped legally. JD goes on to state"…of course, many of the criteria for what constitutes an “emergency” are still “secret” ." How's this for an emergency; the slamming of hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon and an attempt at the White House? These acts being the actions of a group actively at war against our country. If one doesn't think that is an 'emergency situation', how about the prospect of mushroom clouds over one or more major city in the U.S.? Maybe the introduction of a bioagent as devastating as, say, the bubonic plague? Just what should constitute an 'emergency situation'? Please comment on how upholding the law and the spirit of it is, as JD states:"….if you let this president get by with this, any president can–even those you don’t like." OK, get away with what? Doing his job? Protecting the American People from a decimating terrorist attacks that may be many times more decimating than the first?
5.2. (C xxx) In emergency situations, the Director, NSA, may approve for foreign intelligence or countefintmgence purposes the collection of communications of U.S. persons, or communications that refer to U.S. persons, when such persons are outside the United States and when securing the prior approval of the Attorney General is not practical.
I care little about politics when my fellow Americans may be killed. Liberals, on the other hand, care more for politics than they EVER will care about anyone else!
Comment by Don | March 6, 2006
legal document
Iraqi Oil Workers Union Founder: US-Backed Oil Law Is \"Robbery\" By Amy Goodman Democracy Now.
Trackback by legal document | August 19, 2007