J. Edgar Hoover... McCarthy...Bush - the Axis of Unconstitutionality

[GaYellowDawg]

Who would think we'd ever see the day when a sitting President would get up in front of the nation and state that he had the authority to deny American citizens their 4th Amendment rights? At the same time that the NSA sent a letter to Congress stating that they had the right to wiretap U.S. citizens if they thought there was any kind of link with Al-Quaeda, you've got the FBI spying - at Bush's behest - on PETA, Greenpeace, and Quakers. Now, granted, PETA uses some really radical rhetoric. However, that's where they stop. I'd consider the people who advocate bombing abortion clinics to be a greater threat to domestic security than PETA. Somehow, they escaped wiretapping. Greenpeace? Chain yourself to a tree and you're an Al-Quaeda operative? And, for goodness sakes, Quakers? You mean to tell me that a church group that holds nonviolence as a bedrock principle is a domestic terror threat? And where are the wiretaps on militia types? After all, it was a right -wing loony who parked the truck in Oklahoma City. Somehow, the Bush administration missed that little observation. But I digress.

The NSA states that "Under Article 11 of the Constitution, including in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the responsibility to protect the Nation from further attacks, and the Constitution gives him all necessary authority to fulfill that duty." Well, maybe so, but when did Greenpeace, PETA, and the Quakers carry out an attack on the country? When did they become "affiliated terrorist groups"? The NSA also said that "the Supreme Court has said that warrants are generally required in the context of purely domestic threats, but it expressly distinguished foreign threats." Again, how are the Quakers a foreign threat? And do the Quakers really ring up Osama bin Ladin and ask him out for lunch? Come on.

But here's the really chilling part. The NSA said, "As Justice Byron White recognized almost 40 years ago, Presidents have long exercised the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes, and a warrant is unnecessary "if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable." Well, it appears that George W. Bush's standard for "reasonable" is "anyone who dares disagree with me publicly." So the arbiter of reason here is George W. Bush - because, let's face it, the Attorney General isn't going to buck the boss. That's a one-way ticket out of D.C. And with the arbiter of reason being W., I don't feel too comfortable with the standard.

The NSA also went on to say, "Foreign intelligence collection, especially in the midst of an armed conflict in which the adversary has already launched catastrophic attacks within the United States, fits squarely within the "special needs" exception to the warrant requirement." Again, I wasn't aware that PETA, Greenpeace, and Quakers fit into this. I don't recall hearing that the planes drove into the World Trade Center with the pilots screaming, "Meat is murder!" or "No drilling in ANWR!" or "No more war!" Nevertheless, they're getting spied on.

Another gem: "Intercepting communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al Qaeda in order to detect and prevent a catastrophic attack is clearly reasonable. Reasonableness is generally determined by 'balancing the nature of the intnision on the individual's privacy against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.' " So, PETA, Greenpeace, and the Quakers are linked to Al-Quaeda? I find that hard to believe, and so would any reasonable person.

And I love this one: "The fact that the NSA activities are reviewed and reauthorized approximately every 45 days to ensure that they continue to be necessary and appropriate further demonstrates the reasonableness of these activities." Depends on who reviews and reauthorizes, doesn't it? Who wants to bet that there's not a single, say, Democrat reviewing this?

Let's face it. This is a return to the worst of the J. Edgar Hoover and Joseph McCarthy days. The only differences are that the surveillance is more sophisticated, and "terrorism" has replaced "Communism" as the rationale for a naked power grab. This makes two Amendments in the Bill of Rights that the Bush administration has violated; Amendment 6, the right to a speedy trial, and Amendment 4, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Who's to say that the Bush administration, citing national security, might not decide to suspend Article II, Section I, and do away with those inconvenient Presidential elections?

[BuyingThyme]

1. kcik

[H2O Man]

2. I think that the Constitution

does imply emergency powers for a president. It is unlikely that many people would be upset if in the 72 hours after the 9-11 attacks, intellience agencies such as the NSA had listened to specific conversations without a warrent. What is interesting is that, even in this context, they could have gone back and gotten the needed warrent, or judicial review.

The problem with the current behaviors is that they go far, far beyond any emergency powers implied by the Constitution, and certainly beyond the scope of the congressional confirmation that the president could use force against those who attacked on 9-11.

[Octafish]

3. Bush Crime Family spans Hoover - Harriman - Dulles - McCarthy - Nixon

Those are dots that need connecting.



Your post goes a long way to making the puzzle clear, GaYellowDawg.



Wish I would've seen this post sooner.

I'd K&R.

I'll forward to friends.