by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright January 23, 2006
All Rights Reserved.

atching flack for domestic spying, President George W. Bush defended the practice, citing the exigencies of fighting the war on terror. After Sept. 11, Bush bypassed Surveillance Court, allowing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on citizens suspected of ties with Al Qaeda or other terror organizations. Ordinarily, Surveillance Court operates at the Justice Department, granting warrants to federal agencies seeking to spy, for national security purposes, on citizens suspected of ties to terror organizations. After Sept. 11, the Patriot Act granted the FBI, and other domestic spy agencies, the power to eavesdrop on individuals and groups with possible ties to terrorism. White House officials felt Surveillance Court interfered with the necessity in a post-9/11 world to respond instantaneously to terror threats, allowing the NSA to fill in dangerous gaps.

      Since the domestic spying story broke Dec.16, 2005, Democrats have attempted to pounce on unauthorized spying as a political scandal and possible grounds for impeachment. So far, the revelation has had weak legs, prompting Bush to go on a PR offensive, preempting possible hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee, headed by Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). Sidestepping Surveillance Court, Bush signed an executive order in 2002, authorizing the NSA to closely monitor phone conversations with terror suspects. Using teams of Defense Intelligence Agency personnel, the NSA spying program performed work typically undertaken by the FBI. “This is as shocking a revelation as we have ever seen from the Bush administration,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, believing that Bush's order and subsequent spying amounted to criminal activity.

      Skirting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires a court order for domestic spying, unless a government agent or agency can show it was “engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized or conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction,” opening up possible ethical and legal breaches when the Senate Judiciary Committee takes up the issue in February. In 2002, Justice Department counsel John C. Yoo wrote a legal opinion granting Bush broad authority to bypass Surveillance Court. Around the same time, Yoo penned a narrow opinion about torture, giving the White House and Pentagon wide latitude on interrogating battlefield detainees, though Yoo's memo was eventually disavowed. Now that red flags have been raised about spying, the White House launched an aggressive PR offensive.

      Speaking to the Republican National Committee in Washington, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told the faithful they should concentrate on defense and national security heading into midyear elections. He knows that angle trumps domestic agenda and has always played well for Bush. Rove finds himself under suspicion for lying to federal prosecutors in the Valerie Plame affair. Whether he's eventually indicted by special prosecutor U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald is anyone's guess. Rove has now taken up the domestic spying scandal, writing new talking points that eavesdropping is assured for the commander-in-chief under the Constitution. Rove found a clever Constitutional loophole to justify spying without court orders. He's now advising the GOP to justify any apparent criminal behavior as sanctioned by overarching national security concerns..

      Bush claims his spying program was aimed at tapping domestic conversations with overseas Al Qaeda operatives. Going to Surveillance Court takes too long, losing potentially life-saving information. “I'm mindful of your civil liberties and so I had all kinds of lawyers review the process,” Bush told 9,000 students, soldiers and dignitaries at Fort Riley, Kansas, failing to mention that Justice Dept. Atty. Yoo wrote the primary legal opinion. Like his chief strategist Rove, Bush hammers away at the dangers of Islamic terrorism, especially Bin Laden's Al Qaeda terror organization. Only last week, Bin Laden warned the U.S. about future attacks, unless the White House changed its ways. “The United States faces a ruthless enemy,” said Rove, justifying the type of spying performed by the NSA, acknowledging after over four years Bin Laden still presents a threat to national security.

      Bush latest PR offensive rationalizes unlawful spying on U.S. citizens, in effect blaming the National Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. If the current system needs fixing, it's up to the White House to lobby Congress to change current laws—not ignore existing statutes. Breaking the law in the name of national security doesn't reduce the threat level or, for that matter, make the country safer. If after spending $500 billion in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last four years the homeland remains threatened by Al Qaeda, it's time for a sweeping overhaul of the White House terror policy. Most citizens side with Bush on issues of national security, including trusting him if he needs more domestic spying. Bush can't have it both ways: Saying, on the one hand, he's making great progress in the war on terror, and, on the other, justify breaking laws because Al Qaeda still poses a serious threat.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.