Isaiah Z. Sterrett
Bush's wiretaps are legal
By Isaiah Z. Sterrett
As it turns out, contrary to the mournful screams of liberals, "Bush's wiretaps" were (and remain) completely justified by law. It's true that this country's record of civil liberties during wartime is hardly one in which we can take pride, but this current episode is not an example of a wartime abuse. It is an example of a national security success.
First, a question: Was I the only one who had a hard time deciphering actual law and legal commentary from left-wing, and then right-wing, spin? When a debate about law is taking place in which neither side immediately brings up the law itself — in this case the U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive — we have a problem.
USSID, enacted in July of 1993, creates the following, as described by The American Spectator's Jed Babbin:
Under Section 4 of USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court...; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."
USSID 18 goes on to allow NSA to gather intelligence about a U.S. person outside the United States even without Attorney General sanction in emergencies "when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because...the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security."
Babbin further reports that FISA, misrepresented by liberals far and wide, allows the Attorney General to bypass the FISA court. This obviously makes sense, since it would be virtually impossible for the government to go before the FISA court every time a terrorist made a telephone call in which someone in the United States was a participant.
These facts are terribly simple. As Babbin summarizes, "[e]veryone who is ranting and raving about illegality has neither the facts (most of which we don't know) or the law and regulations (which weigh heavily in favor of legality) on their side."
Knowing this, however, liberals continue to kvetch about nonexistent violations of civil liberties. "The shocking revelation that Bush has personally ordered secret wiretaps for years without court approval," columnist Errol Louis sniffed, "are part of a White House policy of placing the President above the law." Louis cites FISA but references only the provisions convenient to his point. He totally ignores USSID 18 (abovementioned), which justifies — at least in part — the actions of President Bush, the NSA, and Attorney General Gonzales.
One hates to whine about Clinton given that his successor is well into his second term, but I think liberals have abandoned their credibility when it comes to "the President [placing himself] above the law." As one Senator suggested, the best reason to oppose the PATRIOT Act is that we may someday have President Hillary Clinton to abuse it.
I note further that hallucinatory Democrats did not bring up the Fourth Amendment when the Clinton-Reno Justice Department invaded a house on United States soil, shoved machine guns in the faces of the Americans who lived there, stole a member of their family (who happened to be six-years-old), and surrendered him to Castro's Cuba.
Would Elian Gonzalez prefer to live under Communism, as Bill Clinton hoped, or live in the United States under the risk of "Bush's wiretaps"?
Attorney General Reno actually defended her use of U.S. Marshals to kidnap a child, noting that such force had to be used as a result of the fact that "[t]here was information that it might be possible that there were guns in the crowd or in the home." When asked if there were actually "guns in the crowd or in the home," Reno coolly answered that the Marshals "weren't looking for the weapons. They were looking for the child, and they got the child."
I guess the "right to privacy" isn't so "fundamental" when we're talking about children who've been born, as opposed to those still in the womb.
"Democrats have done worse" is not the best argument — but it's true, nonetheless, and we should not forget it. We should also not forget to read laws before we accuse people of breaking them.
© Isaiah Z. Sterrett
As it turns out, contrary to the mournful screams of liberals, "Bush's wiretaps" were (and remain) completely justified by law. It's true that this country's record of civil liberties during wartime is hardly one in which we can take pride, but this current episode is not an example of a wartime abuse. It is an example of a national security success.
First, a question: Was I the only one who had a hard time deciphering actual law and legal commentary from left-wing, and then right-wing, spin? When a debate about law is taking place in which neither side immediately brings up the law itself — in this case the U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive — we have a problem.
USSID, enacted in July of 1993, creates the following, as described by The American Spectator's Jed Babbin:
USSID 18 goes on to allow NSA to gather intelligence about a U.S. person outside the United States even without Attorney General sanction in emergencies "when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because...the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security."
Babbin further reports that FISA, misrepresented by liberals far and wide, allows the Attorney General to bypass the FISA court. This obviously makes sense, since it would be virtually impossible for the government to go before the FISA court every time a terrorist made a telephone call in which someone in the United States was a participant.
These facts are terribly simple. As Babbin summarizes, "[e]veryone who is ranting and raving about illegality has neither the facts (most of which we don't know) or the law and regulations (which weigh heavily in favor of legality) on their side."
Knowing this, however, liberals continue to kvetch about nonexistent violations of civil liberties. "The shocking revelation that Bush has personally ordered secret wiretaps for years without court approval," columnist Errol Louis sniffed, "are part of a White House policy of placing the President above the law." Louis cites FISA but references only the provisions convenient to his point. He totally ignores USSID 18 (abovementioned), which justifies — at least in part — the actions of President Bush, the NSA, and Attorney General Gonzales.
One hates to whine about Clinton given that his successor is well into his second term, but I think liberals have abandoned their credibility when it comes to "the President [placing himself] above the law." As one Senator suggested, the best reason to oppose the PATRIOT Act is that we may someday have President Hillary Clinton to abuse it.
I note further that hallucinatory Democrats did not bring up the Fourth Amendment when the Clinton-Reno Justice Department invaded a house on United States soil, shoved machine guns in the faces of the Americans who lived there, stole a member of their family (who happened to be six-years-old), and surrendered him to Castro's Cuba.
Would Elian Gonzalez prefer to live under Communism, as Bill Clinton hoped, or live in the United States under the risk of "Bush's wiretaps"?
Attorney General Reno actually defended her use of U.S. Marshals to kidnap a child, noting that such force had to be used as a result of the fact that "[t]here was information that it might be possible that there were guns in the crowd or in the home." When asked if there were actually "guns in the crowd or in the home," Reno coolly answered that the Marshals "weren't looking for the weapons. They were looking for the child, and they got the child."
I guess the "right to privacy" isn't so "fundamental" when we're talking about children who've been born, as opposed to those still in the womb.
"Democrats have done worse" is not the best argument — but it's true, nonetheless, and we should not forget it. We should also not forget to read laws before we accuse people of breaking them.
© Isaiah Z. Sterrett
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
