Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
falsehoods that they are disseminating today, beginning with one of the most rabidly authoritarian voices who never stops
claiming to be a preeminent expert in this field:
Andrew McCarthy, National Review:
The New York Times reports that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review — the
specialized federal appeals court created by the 1978 FISA statute to rule on questions involving
national security surveillance — has reaffirmed that the President of the United States has inherent
constitutional authority to monitor international communications without court permission.
How misinformed, dumb and/or dishonest does someone have to be to read Lichtblau's article -- reporting that the court
"found that Congress had acted within its authority in August 2007 when it passed a hotly debated law known as the
Protect America Act" -- and conclude that this had anything to do with the "inherent constitutional authority" of the
President to eavesdrop in violation of a Congressional statute? And what kind of self-proclaimed legal expert would make
giddy claims about "vindication" from a court decision without at least noting that he hadn't read the decision and making
it clear that he had no idea whether this was true?
McCarthy then adds:
It understates the case to say the Bush administration has been slandered for asserting this power —
accused of shredding the Constitution and violating the principle that no one is above the law (even as
Congress put itself above the law — the Constitution — by enacting and trying to enforce a statute,
FISA, that sought to diminish the president's constitutional authority). It was never true.
He's obviously aware that the central claim in the NSA scandal is that Bush broke the law because he eavesdropped in
exactly the way Congress had prohibited. How can anyone think that the court decision released today had anything to do
with -- let alone resolved -- that question? Descending a bit further into the right-wing muck, we find:
Ed Morrissey, Hot Air:
This should really enrage the Left. The FISA court will make public a ruling that validates George Bush’s
warrantless surveillance on international communications, including those with one terminus in the
United States. . . . While the ruling does not directly reference the Terrorist Surveillance Program — at
least according to the Times — the ruling on the scope of authority invested in the executive relates
directly to that program. . . .
In the end, though, the biggest beneficiary should be George Bush. He has been unfairly castigated as
some sort of fascist for using the power he already had available to track terrorist communications and
keep this nation safe. Plenty of people owe him a big apology — and the New York Times and Eric
Lichtblau are first in line.
A.J. Strata, "The Strata-Sphere":
Well now the top intelligence court of the land has come out with an opinion vindicating Bush and
settling once and for all how insane the lunatic left is when it comes to national security. . . . Bush
leaves office vindicated, and the Mad-Hatter left has destroyed what little credibility they have left.
They are lucky that is all their insane actions resulted in.
Strata added: "The FIS Court of Review is the top court in the land on such matters. . . .There is no higher authority in the
federal court system." Someone might want to tell him that before he writes further, he should read about this thing called
the "U.S. Supreme Court," which happens to be a "higher authority in the federal court system" than the FISA Court of
Review on all matters.
BLACKFIVE:
And there you have it, one of the biggest whinges of the left has been that W has burned the
Constitution and smoked it's ashes. And here is the very court they were screaming he had subverted
making a public ruling that the President was properly exercising his authority. If W had not
undertaken these actions it would be fair to argue that he had failed to do his job making us safe from
attack.
And on and on and on. I'm certain more of it is sprouting up as I write.
It's certainly true that some people believe and have argued that warrantless eavesdropping (even when authorized by
Congress) violates the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement (that's a question which the Supreme Court, in the 1972
Keith case, explicitly left unresolved when it ruled that Nixon's warrantless eavesdropping in the context of domestic
Page 3 of 4
terrorism investigations violated the Fourth Amendment, but said that this may or may not be true for international
terrorism investigations). The ruling released today did resolve that question (at least until Supreme Court review) by ruling
that the warrantless eavesdropping which Congress authorized in the 2007 Protect America Act did not violate the Fourth
Amendment.
But that has always been, at most, a totally ancillary issue to the NSA scandal. The uproar over what Bush did was based in
the fact that the eavesdropping he ordered was illegal because it was prohibited by the Congressional statute called
"FISA". Bush followers and the Bush DOJ, in response, claimed that (i) the President has the "inherent authority" under
Article II to eavesdrop however he wants, regardless of what Congress says and (ii) the 2001 AUMF "implicitly
authorized" eavesdropping in violation of FISA.
The FISA ruling had nothing remotely to do with those issues and nobody who is minimally honest and has a working brain
will claim otherwise. The only two federal judges to address those questions in the past rejected Bush's theories and found
the NSA eavesdropping program illegal. More importantly, the Supreme Court, in its 2006 Hamdan ruling that Bush lacked
the power to order military commission without Congressional authorization, rejected the exact theories of broad
executive power used by Bush to justify the NSA program.
In fact, Andrew McCarthy himself, in the wake of the Hamdan ruling, wrote an article for National Review arguing that the
Supreme Court's Hamdan ruling constituted a definitive rejection of the Bush administration's excuses for violating FISA.
The article was entitled: "Dead Man Walking: Hamdan sounds the death knell for the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance
Program":
The Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is a national-security disaster. . . . Hamdan is a
disaster because it sounds the death knell for the National Security Agency’s Terrorist Surveillance
Program (TSP), . . .
On its face, Hamdan is a case about military commissions, not electronic surveillance. Yet, its facts are
saliently analogous to those of the TSP. . . .
Under Hamdan’s logic, even if the president starts out with inherent Article II authority, that power —
constitutional power — can now be rescinded by statute. . . .
In any event, if the Kennedy theory takes root — as it seems to have in Hamdan — it is impossible to
see how the TSP survives.
In the wake of Hamdan, McCarthy then added about his defense of Bush's NSA eavesdropping program: "My own rule of
thumb is to try to fight hard but fight fair, and admit when I’ve lost. I’ve lost."
That -- as anyone paying even minimal attention knows -- is what the NSA scandal has been and still is about: whether
George Bush had the power to break the law, to violate FISA, in how he eavesdropped on Americans. The FISA decision
they are celebrating today doesn't even touch on that question. How could it? Its only concern is whether the
eavesdropping authorized by Congress transgresses Constitutional limits. Quite obviously, it has nothing to do with the
power of the President to violate Congressional limits on eavesdropping.
But this is what has been happening with the FISA controversy -- and, for that matter, all of these lawbreaking scandals --
from the start. Right-wing Bush followers spout total falsehoods. Reporters who cover the story (such as Lichtblau), to say
nothing of cable news talking heads, are too slothful, ill-informed and/or just dumb to understand why these right-wing
claims are so factually false.
So they, at best, report what "both sides" are saying, or -- as will be the case here, I predict -- the immediate storyline that
"the FISA court vindicated Bush's spying and ruled it legal" immediately settles in (it has the advantages of simplicity and
power-worshipping, an irresistable one-two punch for Beltway media stars), and then, no matter how many facts are
marshalled or energy is expended to uproot it, it stays entrenched forever, rotting away and further infecting our discourse
and distorting our collective actions with regard to our government's chronic lawbreaking. Today's orgy of ignorance is a
nice little case study of the last eight years.
* * * * *
Part 2 of my Los Angeles Times debate/discussion with American Spectator Editor Jim Antle is now available, here. Antle
makes several arguments with which I disagree but (in stark contrast to the above-referenced individuals) makes them
quite well and reasonably. Part 1 is here.
Page 4 of 4
UPDATE: The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen also documents: "Several far-right blogs insisted today that Bush has
been 'vindicated' and was 'right all along.' That's simply not what happened." Perhaps this myth can be extinguished
before taking root if enough people stomp on it quickly and forcefully.
UPDATE II: Conservative Tom Maguire notes the immediate reaction to news of this decision ("Cool - Bush vindicated") but
then stops and thinks about it for a second and then asks:
But wait: . . . I am not a lawyer, but if the question before the court was the constitutionality of the
2007 act, why would they have been also opining on the President's separate conduct?
That's a good question. He should pose it to the Right's leading "legal expert," Andy McCarthy, whose complete ignorance
about the ruling did not stop him (as usual) from pedantically opining on it and declaring (as usual) that it vindicated
the President.
UPDATE III: The misleading headline on the Associated Press article -- "Court ruling endorses Bush surveillance policy" --
predictably caused that headline to appear in newspapers across the country, but at least the article contained this clear
and accurate statement:
The decision does not address the legality of an earlier warrantless surveillance program that the
Bush administration secretly put in place without legislation from Congress, and which The New York
Times exposed in 2005. The 2007 law that was the focus of the court ruling expired in 2008, but
intelligence gathering efforts that it authorized remained in effect.
Maybe Eric Lichtblau and his editors should intensely study that paragraph before writing about this topic again.
Also, one can't help but notice how Supreme Court decisions that find Bush policies to be illegal and unconstitutional -- such
as the 2006 Hamdan ruling which invalidated his military commissions and his assertion that the Geneva Conventions are
inapplicable to Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, or the 2008 Boumediene ruling which held that Guantanamo detainees
cannot be constitutionally denied habeas corpus -- are illegitimate and irrelevant when assessing the legality of Bush's
actions and should be ignored. But intermediate court rulings which the pro-Bush Right thinks are favorable -- such as
yesterday's finding that the Protect America Act is constitutional -- are deemed infallible and conclusive vindication for
the President.
UPDATE IV: For the article in today's print edition of The New York Times, James Risen has joined Lichtblau on the byline
and the article is substantially improved, noting:
The ruling came in a case involving an unidentified company’s challenge to 2007 legislation that
expanded the president’s legal power to conduct wiretapping without warrants for intelligence
purposes.
But the ruling, handed down in August 2008 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review
and made public Thursday, did not directly address whether President Bush was within his
constitutional powers in ordering domestic wiretapping without warrants, without first getting
Congressional approval, after the terrorist attacks of 2001.
Several legal experts cautioned that the ruling had limited application, since it dealt narrowly with the
carrying out of a law that had been superseded by new legislation.
As Armando notes, the article is still far from perfect, but at least it now contains this vital point.