"You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you'd like to have in the future" - Donald Rumsfeld
"You go to war with the Laws you have, not the Laws you'd like to have in the future" - Chris Austin
Right wing talking points are now bouncing around in defense of President Bush's decision to ignore federal law by allowing the NSA to illegally eavesdrop on taxpaying Americans, that invoke an idea that Clinton essentially did the same thing and how the press gave Clinton a pass as opposed to what the NYTimes did to Bush by breaking the story. To the true-believer this will suffice, but in fact, all this argument aims to do is trick us into viewing this three story colonial house as only a one story bungalow.
Righties justify their rationale that Clinton did exact ally what Bush did by invoking memories of the ECHELON program, with its roots originating during WW2 under Truman, and its branches still growing today. The urban legend that if you were to say the words 'assassinate president' or 'bomb' over the phone, that the feds would be breaking down your door a day later, is only partially right. The truth is, if you happened to utter a word the ECHELON computers were programmed to flag, the conversation in which you said those things would most likely be reviewed by the NSA. Keep in mind though, that this is a process that discriminates based on what is said, rather than who said it. Once analysis confirms you're someone whose up to no good, a warrant allows for further surveillance.
Whether or not the program is legal has never (to my knowledge) been seriously challenged by Democrats or Republicans since its inception, but as with any capability like this, the opportunity for corruption is of course quite real. For this reason, in 1999 Republican congressmen Bob Barr and Porter Goss requested reports detailing whether or not safety measures were sufficient to prevent the ECHELON program from being subverted by national leaders for non-official, commercial or political purposes. Why did they want to know this? Well, quite simply, because that's Congress's job! In their capacity as federal lawmakers, the two Republicans rightly inquired about whether Americans' 4th Amendment rights were being violated.
Keep in mind that neither Barr nor Goss were labeled 'traitors' or accused of 'aiding the enemy' throughout this entire inquiry. As they may or may not have known, the governments involved had used the program for both commercial and political purposes in the past. Kissinger used it to spy on an active Secretary of State, Margaret Thatcher used it to spy on members of parliament, Reagan used it to spy on Congressman Michael Barnes, Lockheed Martin used it to spy on Congressman Strom Thurman, Clinton used it to spy on Brazil and Japan for economic purposes, etc.
The difference between these transgressions and Bush's of course is what the information is used for. Whereas political or economic spying cheats the system, criminal spying without a warrant, like information extracted through the use of torture, basically undercuts the ability of prosecutors to later charge and convict whoever's breaking the law. Already we've seen signs that closing cases built upon illegal evidence gathering is next to impossible within our justice system. So the government may be able to apprehend someone dangerous, but once it comes time to prosecute, judges are obligated by law to throw the cases out.
It's in this way that Bush's system can potentially create more problems than it solves. For the former administrations that illegally wiretapped, once they had the information, the end they sought was achieved. Whereas Bush's illegal wiretapping represents merely the first of many steps still left to come before the end he (and the American public) desires is realized. If the captured suspect is foreign, they can classify him as an enemy combatant and hold them indefinitely, baring the intervention of foreign governments that bring enough heat to convince the Bush administration that further detention of a specific detainee is a political liability. Typically this has happened when the detainee is either innocent or can prove that they were tortured, news of which hits the local papers in their nation of origin.
As for American citizens, it's obvious for whoever's following the case of Jose Padilla, that when corners are cut, the taxpayers lose their right to expect the justice they deserve. In Padilla's case, the courts allowed the Bush administration to classify him as an enemy combatant, yet proving that he actually was became an uphill battle they apparently no longer have the stomach for. Why? Because the information they used to apprehend Padilla was provided by a detainee while being tortured. The Bush administration is forced to return to reality, and with reality being the monster that it is, they attempt to remove his enemy combatant status and instead prosecute him through the criminal courts. The judges who approved the enemy combatant status are having none of it, and in real time the short-sightedness of Bush's methods are playing out right in front of us.
Take the Padilla case and the cases of every single other American detained based on information gathered using illegal wiretaps, and ask yourself an important question: What now? The Constitution will not allow the government to hold them forever without a charge, and knowing that once a charge is brought, a judge will be forced to throw it out based on 'how' the government found out what they did, who actually wins in the end? A person who very well might be guilty of the crime they're charged with ends up walking. As counter-productive as that sounds, it's exactly what Bush has brought upon us, all for the simple luxury of not having to get a warrant within 72 hours.
So in the end, anyone attempting to claim that Clinton's use of the NSA was equal to or worse than Bush's, is ignoring not only a mountain of facts, but reality itself for the sake of a ridiculously optimistic political gambit. What this reasoning requires is a set of very large blinders that block out all news of Padilla and every other detainee the Bush administration lets walk to save face politically. The 'true-believer' in this case must somehow be able to assume that our justice system will suddenly decide that centuries worth of legal precedent can and will be tossed in the garbage for the sake of a single President, out of the many we've had since Washington, who thought warrants were as 'quaint' as the Geneva Convention statutes.
To me and probably a good number of other taxpayers, the wiretapping in and of itself isn't the offensive element here, but rather the fact that it could have been done legally with relative ease. For the sake of establishing a lower level of restraint on this executive and those to follow him, the United States justice system has been turned into a petri dish, used for experiments rather than it's actual purpose. That being a tool for the President to utilize in locking up dangerous people who are plotting to kill you and I. How inappropriate a time to challenge the very lifeline to which you must rely on to get the job done.
Like a carpenter trying to build a house without tools, through the thoughtless execution of this crucial piece of the war on terror, every one of us must now live with the fact that while all the materials have been purchased, building permits obtained, the house may never be safe enough to live in. Instead of a hammer and nails, the walls are held up by duct tape and bungy cords. Why? Because the man in charge considered the tools of a carpenter 'quaint'. His apprentice informs the family paying for the house, that in this day and age, old-fashioned methods, tools and planning are simply unnecessary. As a support beam comes crashing down the family gasps, staring at it all and feeling bewildered, the carpenter walks over with his right hand extended. "Don't worry about that there, I've got this under control. Trust me."
http://deadissue.com/...