Big Brother Dubya

The New York Times reveals today that in 2002, President Bush authorized the shadowy National Security Agency (NSA) to begin monitoring the e-mail, faxes, telephone conversations, and even individual movements of possibly thousands of Americans with suspected links to terrorism:

Bush Authorized Domestic Spying: "President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.

The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals, has monitored the e-mail, telephone calls and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under the program, the New York Times disclosed last night."

The real rub for me here is not just that such surveillance happened -- it's an ugly reality in an age of terrorism that this kind of intelligence, much like Britain's MI-5 collects, may be necessary -- but the way in which the Administration went about it. See, we have a democratic safeguard in place to make sure that domestic surveillance is undertaken in a fair and accountable manner: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That Act established a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court responsible for issuing authorization for electronic and physical surveillance, as well as searches, of suspected spies and terrorists. This mechanism established a workable compromise between the prerogative of the executive to guard our security, and the need of the public to exercise some check over abuses of that prerogative.

The catch is that the NSA operates outside the jurisdiction of the FISA court. In authorizing the NSA to carry out this operation, then, Bush circumvented the normal procedures and may have broken the law, which states very clearly that domestic surveillance is not to occur without explicit authorization by statute or by the FISA court. This is not just an isolated policy decision, either -- it's consonant with the governing "philosophy" of this Administration that the executive enjoys unbridled and unfettered powers when it comes to any area even tenuously related to national security -- whether it be indefinite and secret detention of American citizens and foreigners, use of torture in interrogations, airline safety regulations, even energy policy. There's clearly a modus operandi at work here. This is, quite simply, a lawless Administration.

One last tidbit worth mentioning in the article:

"The Times said it held off on publishing its story about the NSA program for a year after administration officials said its disclosure would harm national security."

So, last year this kind of revelation would have harmed national security, but now that the election's over and Bush's ratings are in the tank it's OK? What's the explanation for this? Cowardice, a need to appear "balanced" that has now attenuated, some specific authorization from the Administration? None of these makes me feel any better about the Times...