The Fog of False
Choices
EDITORIAL, NYTimes on
the Web. December 20, 2005
After five years, we're used to
President Bush throwing up false choices to defend his policies. Americans
were told, after all, that there was a choice between invading Iraq and risking
a terrorist nuclear attack. So it was not a surprise that Mr. Bush's Oval
Office speech Sunday night and his news conference yesterday were thick with
Orwellian constructions: the policy debate on Iraq is between those who
support Mr. Bush and those who want to pull out right now, today; fighting
terrorists in Iraq means we're not fighting them here.
But none of these phony choices were as absurd as the one Mr. Bush posed to
justify his secret program of spying on Americans: save lives or follow
the law.
Mr. Bush said he thwarted terrorist plots by allowing the National Security
Agency to monitor Americans' international communications without a warrant.
We don't know if that is true because the administration reverts to top-secret
mode when pressed for details. But we can reach a conclusion about Mr.
Bush's assertion that obeying a 27-year-old law prevents swift and decisive
action in a high-tech era. It's a myth.
The 1978 law that regulates spying on Americans (remember Richard Nixon's
enemies lists?) does require a warrant to conduct that sort of surveillance.
It also created a special court that is capable of responding within hours to
warrant requests. If that is not fast enough, the attorney general may
authorize wiretaps and then seek a warrant within 72 hours.
Mr. Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales offered a whole bag of logical
pretzels yesterday to justify flouting this law. Most bizarre was the
assertion that Congress authorized the surveillance of American citizens when it
approved the use of "all necessary and appropriate force" by the United States
military to punish those responsible for the 9/11 attacks or who aided or
harbored the terrorists. This came as a surprise to lawmakers, who thought
they were voting for the invasion of Afghanistan and the capture of Osama bin
Laden.
This administration has a long record of expanding presidential powers in
dangerous ways; the indefinite detention of "unlawful enemy combatants" comes to
mind. So assurances that surveillance targets are carefully selected with
reasonable cause don't comfort. In a democracy ruled by laws,
investigators identify suspects and prosecutors obtain warrants for searches by
showing reasonable cause to a judge, who decides if legal tests were met.
Chillingly, this is not the only time we've heard of this administration using
terrorism as an excuse to spy on Americans. NBC News recently discovered a
Pentagon database of 1,500 "suspicious incidents" that included a Quaker meeting
to plan an antiwar rally. And Eric Lichtblau and James Risen write in
today's Times that F.B.I. counterterrorism squads have conducted numerous
surveillance operations since Sept. 11, 2001, on groups like People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals, Greenpeace and the Catholic Workers group.
Mr. Bush says Congress gave him the power to spy on Americans. Fine, then
Congress can just take it back.
|
