Articles
The New York Times: The Intelligence Cover-Up
03/16/2008
March 16, 2008
For more than two years now, Congress, the news media,
current and former national security officials, think tanks and academic
institutions have been engaged in a profound debate over how to modernize the
law governing electronic spying to keep pace with technology. We keep hoping
President Bush will join in.
Instead, the president offers propaganda intended to scare
Americans, expand his powers, and erode civil liberties — and to ensure that no
one is held to account for the illegal wiretapping he ordered after 9/11.
Consider last Thursday’s performance, as the House debated a
sound bill that closes some technology gaps in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act and gives government agencies new flexibility to eavesdrop,
but preserves constitutional protections against unreasonable searches. Mr.
Bush distorted the contents of the bill and threatened to veto it.
He accused House leaders of “putting in place a cumbersome
court approval process that would make it harder to collect intelligence on
foreign terrorists.” Actually, the bill merely ensures that special judges
continue to supervise surveillance of American citizens. The “cumbersome
process” is really a court that acts swiftly and has refused only a half-dozen
of more than 21,000 wiretap requests in its nearly 30 years of existence.
What Mr. Bush wants is to be able to listen to your
international telephone calls and read your international e-mail whenever he
wants, without a court being able to prevent it or judge the legality of his
actions.
Mr. Bush said the House bill would “cause us to lose vital
intelligence on terrorist threats.” But he has never offered credible evidence
of any operation that was hobbled because officials had to request a warrant.
The law already allows the government to eavesdrop first and then seek a
warrant. As for that technology gap, Congress fixed it last year. The authority
has expired, but wiretapping operations started under it can continue.
Finally, Mr. Bush said it was vital to national security to
give amnesty to any company that turned over data on Americans without a court
order. The purpose of this amnesty is not to protect national secrets — that
could be done during a trial — but to make sure that the full damage to
Americans’ civil liberties is never revealed. Mr. Bush also objects to a
provision that would create a committee to examine his warrantless spying
program.
Mr. Bush wanted the House to approve the Senate’s version of
the bill, which includes Mr. Bush’s amnesty and does not do nearly as good a
job of preserving Americans’ rights. We were glad the House ignored his
bluster. If the Senate cannot summon the courage and good sense to follow suit,
there is no rush to pass a law.
The president will continue to claim the country is in grave
danger over this issue, but it is not. The real danger is for Mr. Bush. A good
law — like the House bill — would allow Americans to finally see the
breathtaking extent of his lawless behavior.