Watergate, The Sequel
Forget all of the 'gates' that the US media has coined since Nixon's impeachment. I believe we have found our true 2nd Watergate. As reported in last week's New York Times, Bush had personally authorized the espionage of Americans. This included the surveillance of Vegans. Yeah, they're a scary bunch. They hate cheese! Also in that report, the New York Times revealed that they were asked by the Bush administration to postpone their report by a year. Last week was a year later. While I find that almost as disturbing as the espionage revelation, I'm glad that the New York Times finally came clean.
Jonathan Alter writes in this week's issue of Newsweek "Bush was so desperate" for the New York Times to 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."
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. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” Again, another fear mongering justification for his illegal behavior. As Alter writes, "rather than the leaking being as Bush called it- " a shameful act,” it is more likely another leaker in his administration once again "trying to stop a presidential power grab."
"The truth is 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. "
Now to the actual law that Bush broke: the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. FISA 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. Alter continues: "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."
Alter concludes "the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason—and less out of genuine concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story." This is what makes me believe that this surveillance had nothing to do with Al Quaeda, but more to do with opponents and protesters of this administration. This is how the Republicans conduct themselves by lying and cheating. Don't agree with me? You can read the articles of impeachment brought against Nixon. The Republicans have no plan other than what benefits their biggest donors, like the contracts dolled out in the country that didn't attack us on September 11th.
The good news: both Democrats and Republicans in Congress want hearings upon their return from their winter recess.
Jonathan Alter writes in this week's issue of Newsweek "Bush was so desperate" for the New York Times to 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."
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. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” Again, another fear mongering justification for his illegal behavior. As Alter writes, "rather than the leaking being as Bush called it- " a shameful act,” it is more likely another leaker in his administration once again "trying to stop a presidential power grab."
"The truth is 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. "
Now to the actual law that Bush broke: the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. FISA 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. Alter continues: "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."
Alter concludes "the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason—and less out of genuine concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story." This is what makes me believe that this surveillance had nothing to do with Al Quaeda, but more to do with opponents and protesters of this administration. This is how the Republicans conduct themselves by lying and cheating. Don't agree with me? You can read the articles of impeachment brought against Nixon. The Republicans have no plan other than what benefits their biggest donors, like the contracts dolled out in the country that didn't attack us on September 11th.
The good news: both Democrats and Republicans in Congress want hearings upon their return from their winter recess.
posted by Lisa @ 1:53 PM
0 comments
