I think I am all "gated" out, but this is an interesting analysis of the latest bombshell out of Washington:

Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn't agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda, but it will not work. We're seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president's desperation.

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden's use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that "the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy." But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a "shameful act," it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had "legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force." But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow, as the president seemed to claim in his press conference—or in any way required extra-constitutional action.

In the Interim the debate "Rages," at Bush Pal Jeff G's Protien Wisdom. It continues to amaze me that anyone can continue to justify this crap. We have a President, and an administration that continues to defecate on the Constitution and people who are suppossed to be SUPER Patriots, continue to act as apologist for it. Sorry guys, this one definately does not pass the smell test, and as more details become available, and more constitutional lawyers, NOT HACKS weigh in on the matter, it looks worse and worse...

I am going to ask the question again, and I am sure it will be ignored by the trolls who respond to this post... WHERE does Bush's powers as a "War Time President," end?

Jack Grant, writing at The Moderate Voice, asks another important question. One the Righties stumbling all over themselves to spin this story, seem to be ignoring....

My question: Was an Executive Order needed? Were the existing provisions of FISA not sufficient to authorize NSA collection of these communications? Since very few FISA requests are turned down, what special situations arose that were not covered by the FISA?

This is the key question that has been in my mind ever since the story first appeared.

This question needs to be answered, but until then it should be noted that this administration has not shown a tendency towards preserving the individual freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. To the contrary, the administration appears to be trying to circumvent the checks-and-balances system in order to allow the executive branch to operate without any restraints. Because of that history, I view this executive order with extreme suspicion.

I look at just about everything this administration does... with suspicion, as should anyone who has not spent the last year in a bunker.

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.grupo-utopia.com/blog/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1145

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Snoopgate":

» Warrantless Wiretaps, Then and Now from Considerettes
Bush's EO dealt with phone calls to foreign countries from people who were in a terrorists little black book (and cell phone and computer). Clinton's even extended to solely domestic locations. Their outrage over this EO and the Plame affair would just... [Read More]

Tracked on December 20, 2005 09:11 PM