Administration Spin, Unaddressed by the Media
What Bush Said, in response to the recent Court ruling on his warrantless surveillance program:
Exactly the opposite of what the President directly implied to the America people, FISA DOES allow us to spy on al-Qaeda when it calls into the U.S., and more. While to ensure oversight it requires what -- in every single instance the administration is claiming the program is being used for -- would be an easily procurable warrant, it doesn't even require the warrant to be procured beforehand, if time is an issue. And, although FISA has been in existence, and has worked extremely well (with almost no applications ever denied) for almost thirty years, the current President signed it again, as Amended under the USA Patiot Act signed in the wake of September 11, 2001, tweaking and granting some expanded powers under it to make it procedurally compatible with our perceived post Sept. 11 needs.
Yet the administration, instead, on its own, and secretively, simply ignored FISA, and instituted a sweeping program to spy on citizens -- unchecked and with no oversight -- in direct contravention of it; thereby also directly violating Articles I and II of the Constitution, and raising several potential Bill of Rights issues as well.
In the Bill of Rights, several Amendments are relevant to the issue of covert spying by the government upon its own citizens: The First Amendment's right to unfettered free speech, the Fourth's right against unreasonable searches of papers and effects, the Fifth's guarantee of due process, and the Ninth and Tenth's reservation of any powers not specifically enumerated, to the states and people.
The issue originally before the country was, can the Executive, despite all these Amendments, merely take it upon itself to eavesdrop on, wiretap, and intercept communications of U.S. citizens at its sole discretion, or, even, ever?
Certainly the Executive could not, consistent with any of the aforesaid provisions, spy on U.S. citizens solely at its own discretion with no checks or oversight. But in certain instances, for explicitly laid out and genuine reasons (such as, "we think these may possibly be connected to those involved with al-Qaeda," for example), and with some type of record, the government could engage in eavesdropping upon specific American citizens, and not violate the Bill of Rights. So Congress passed a law, FISA (updated Post September 11), laying out the manner in which such spying could be conducted, to make sure that it was not done willy nilly or without any checks or oversight.
While Congress exists to pass our laws, the Executive Branch exists to administer them. Article I of the Constitution states that ALL laws enacted, shall be passed by Congress. Article II states that the President take care that they be faithfully executed.
The current President, although he signed the Amended FISA which explicitly laid out the requirements for covert eavesdroping on U.S. citizens, nevertheless decided to both ignore it, and create a program in direct contravention of it.
The President "contends" that under the "Commander in Chief" clause of Article II, that he has the power to do whatever he wants to promote "national security." Yet there is no such power, either stated or implied, in that clause. It merely assigns him that role when specifically calling up the armed forces for engagement, as, they need someone to command them, and at most might give him some quasi legislative authority related to commandeering our armed forces, in the absence of any specific legislation on the matter.
Essentially the President of the United States is claiming that any laws that specifically prohibit a certain type of government intrusion without oversight, or any Bill of Right's considerations that render such an intrusion of highly questionable constitutionality EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH LAWS, are irrelevant in the event that the Executive branch unilaterally decides that a program or intrusion is "warranted" in the interests of national security. Under this line of reasoning, nothing, not the will of the people expressed through Congress or the laws that they pass, nor even the other provisions of the Constitution of the United States, can prevent the Executive from doing what it wants in the name of national security.
This not only directly violates the first two Articles of the Constitution, but undermines what was perhaps the document's most basic purpose in the first place; to establish a limited government and system of overlapping checks and balances, with no open ended and unchecked powers.
Once again, none of this was covered or even hinted at by the CBS story, which instead simply provided another quote or two in order to provide a "different perspective."
According to the CBS article, ACLU Director Richard Romero, whose organization brought the suit, stated: "At its core, today's ruling addresses the abuse of presidential power and reaffirms the system of checks and balances that's necessary to our democracy."
This is true, but it does not explain why.
Because there are no underlying facts provided by CBS, not only does the issue falsely come off as sounding like a "reasonable debate" between two legitimate but differing perspectives, but it is one in which, to many, a false choice is presented.
CBS also included a statement by Romero that actually helped the President's argument, spin wise; calling the opinion, according to CBS, "Another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror."
Romero's technical use of the term "legal" and other nuances is largely lost here. As a result, the statement, although presumably not intentional, comes off almost exactly the way that the adminstration is trying to incorrectly frame the issue; that is, that "Democrats are trying to prevent us from combatting terrorism."
Why those who do not support the administration's policies -- which tend to be democrats, although, increasingly, republicans, though the latter often feel constrained by party loyalty in what they can say -- not only often fail to make the correct case, but sometimes even hurt their own cause, is a separate, but important, side question. Perhaps some clues are found in this largely overlooked comment, perhaps not?
_________
The third of the President's three basic assertions, as noted above, was that Americans who "support" what was a blatantly cut and dry legal decision, "do not understand the world we are in today." Yet this is not necessarily correct either:
I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live.
We strongly believe it's constitutional and if al Qaeda is calling into the United States we want to know why they're calling. (emphasis added)Here is what was left out of the CBS story that covered this:
Exactly the opposite of what the President directly implied to the America people, FISA DOES allow us to spy on al-Qaeda when it calls into the U.S., and more. While to ensure oversight it requires what -- in every single instance the administration is claiming the program is being used for -- would be an easily procurable warrant, it doesn't even require the warrant to be procured beforehand, if time is an issue. And, although FISA has been in existence, and has worked extremely well (with almost no applications ever denied) for almost thirty years, the current President signed it again, as Amended under the USA Patiot Act signed in the wake of September 11, 2001, tweaking and granting some expanded powers under it to make it procedurally compatible with our perceived post Sept. 11 needs.
Yet the administration, instead, on its own, and secretively, simply ignored FISA, and instituted a sweeping program to spy on citizens -- unchecked and with no oversight -- in direct contravention of it; thereby also directly violating Articles I and II of the Constitution, and raising several potential Bill of Rights issues as well.
Again, the President clearly implied that the program was necessary to spy on al-Qaeda calls into the U.S.; an implication which, as noted above, is blatantly untrue.
There was nothing in the CBS article to indicate these facts above, or even indicate what FISA does, why it exists, or even that it exists.
________
The President also asserted (along, according to the same CBS article, with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales) that "we strongly believe [the previously clandestine program] is Constitutional." As adamant as both the President and the Attorney General were and have been about the unchecked surveillance program's constitutionality, they both phrased this as a matter of "belief."
But belief is, by its very nature, subjective. Technically one can't mislead if one is merely relating what they "believe," can they? Asserting that this is their belief, or even convincing themselves of it, also avoids having to address the basic, unambiguous, and clear fact:
Unless the document is suddenly interpreted inconsistently with the way it has been interepreted for over 200 years; unless that document is interpreted in ways that go against the most basic principles upon which our democracy and government -- with its system of limitations and overlapping checks and balances -- was built; unless that document is interpreted in a way that goes against the clear language of the document itself; it is not an issue of belief. It is an issue of fact. The program is unconstitutional.
In the Bill of Rights, several Amendments are relevant to the issue of covert spying by the government upon its own citizens: The First Amendment's right to unfettered free speech, the Fourth's right against unreasonable searches of papers and effects, the Fifth's guarantee of due process, and the Ninth and Tenth's reservation of any powers not specifically enumerated, to the states and people.
The issue originally before the country was, can the Executive, despite all these Amendments, merely take it upon itself to eavesdrop on, wiretap, and intercept communications of U.S. citizens at its sole discretion, or, even, ever?
Certainly the Executive could not, consistent with any of the aforesaid provisions, spy on U.S. citizens solely at its own discretion with no checks or oversight. But in certain instances, for explicitly laid out and genuine reasons (such as, "we think these may possibly be connected to those involved with al-Qaeda," for example), and with some type of record, the government could engage in eavesdropping upon specific American citizens, and not violate the Bill of Rights. So Congress passed a law, FISA (updated Post September 11), laying out the manner in which such spying could be conducted, to make sure that it was not done willy nilly or without any checks or oversight.
While Congress exists to pass our laws, the Executive Branch exists to administer them. Article I of the Constitution states that ALL laws enacted, shall be passed by Congress. Article II states that the President take care that they be faithfully executed.
The current President, although he signed the Amended FISA which explicitly laid out the requirements for covert eavesdroping on U.S. citizens, nevertheless decided to both ignore it, and create a program in direct contravention of it.
The President "contends" that under the "Commander in Chief" clause of Article II, that he has the power to do whatever he wants to promote "national security." Yet there is no such power, either stated or implied, in that clause. It merely assigns him that role when specifically calling up the armed forces for engagement, as, they need someone to command them, and at most might give him some quasi legislative authority related to commandeering our armed forces, in the absence of any specific legislation on the matter.
Essentially the President of the United States is claiming that any laws that specifically prohibit a certain type of government intrusion without oversight, or any Bill of Right's considerations that render such an intrusion of highly questionable constitutionality EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH LAWS, are irrelevant in the event that the Executive branch unilaterally decides that a program or intrusion is "warranted" in the interests of national security. Under this line of reasoning, nothing, not the will of the people expressed through Congress or the laws that they pass, nor even the other provisions of the Constitution of the United States, can prevent the Executive from doing what it wants in the name of national security.
This not only directly violates the first two Articles of the Constitution, but undermines what was perhaps the document's most basic purpose in the first place; to establish a limited government and system of overlapping checks and balances, with no open ended and unchecked powers.
Once again, none of this was covered or even hinted at by the CBS story, which instead simply provided another quote or two in order to provide a "different perspective."
According to the CBS article, ACLU Director Richard Romero, whose organization brought the suit, stated: "At its core, today's ruling addresses the abuse of presidential power and reaffirms the system of checks and balances that's necessary to our democracy."
This is true, but it does not explain why.
Because there are no underlying facts provided by CBS, not only does the issue falsely come off as sounding like a "reasonable debate" between two legitimate but differing perspectives, but it is one in which, to many, a false choice is presented.
CBS also included a statement by Romero that actually helped the President's argument, spin wise; calling the opinion, according to CBS, "Another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror."
Romero's technical use of the term "legal" and other nuances is largely lost here. As a result, the statement, although presumably not intentional, comes off almost exactly the way that the adminstration is trying to incorrectly frame the issue; that is, that "Democrats are trying to prevent us from combatting terrorism."
Why those who do not support the administration's policies -- which tend to be democrats, although, increasingly, republicans, though the latter often feel constrained by party loyalty in what they can say -- not only often fail to make the correct case, but sometimes even hurt their own cause, is a separate, but important, side question. Perhaps some clues are found in this largely overlooked comment, perhaps not?
_________
The third of the President's three basic assertions, as noted above, was that Americans who "support" what was a blatantly cut and dry legal decision, "do not understand the world we are in today." Yet this is not necessarily correct either:
The problem is that Bush does not understand how democracy, or our Constitution (which he was sworn to uphold) works. He also, along with many of his ongoing supporters, seems to believe in unchecked powers, which go against everything this country was founded upon (and which still has not been adequately explained to Americans -- hence the continuing support for several extreme incumbent Senators and Congresspeople).
He also seems to think that unchecked powers, with no one exercising legitimate oversight with respect to how they are used, is somehow the ONLY way to combat terrorism. Thus allowing terrorists to not only "win," but fundamentally change who we are.
In essence, he has said to America, back on September 20, 2001, that, We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them," yet now has violated the most basic principle upon which America was founded, and in its stead says that others "just don't understand."
Why aren't prominent democrats making the case, and saturating America with it by repeatedly showing how; that the President, continuing a repeated pattern (and supported by much of the current far right wing Congress which has done nothing about it) is once again misleading America on the most critical of issues?
Once again, perhaps some clues are found in this comment, perhaps not.
3 Comments:
Once again, great job. you should try to get more readers to your site (maybe post more regularly?)
I don't necessarily agree that democrats are not making the case. I don't think the media is reporting it.
I agree that media presentation is a big part of the issue facing America right now. And that was part of the implicit point of this piece, as reading the CBS piece, a reader is left with a very different impression, and one consistently almost entirely of (in this case highly misleadig) spin, and almost entirely devoid of relevant facts.
But the statement that "democrats are making the case," simply is not true. simply because you can find examples of democrats making the case is not what is required, when cases to the contrary -- misleading or otherwise -- are being made and presented constantly. putting it on a website somewhere, or on the DNC's official site, or sending it in to the media in a press statement fax once or twice, is not making the case.
If you look also at the statements made, they often fail to communicate what needs to be communicated. they tend to be conlusionary in nature, tell voters what to think, what they do think, what they already know, or otherwise are simply designed (even if not intentionally) to appeal to other staunch democrats.
republicans, on the other hand, despite the misleading assumption that they are always trying to "appeal to their base" (maybe on policy, but not on communications) tend to communicate in a way that is designed to appeal to, to reach out to, a broader section of Americans. this is not often seen by leading democrats, because they view these statements as misleading, and so often incorrectly assume that everybody else does as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home