Bush Asked The NY Times To Bury Wiretap Story?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in The War On TerrorismPersonally, I find this sort of behavior from Bush kind of sad.
We’re talking about the fourth estate here and they can run whatever they like.
From Newsweek:
…Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important storyâ€â€?which the paper had already inexplicably held for a yearâ€â€?because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.â€Â? But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary forceâ€Â? in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.
I know many of you have expressed that the WOT has changed the game. Fair enough. But how far is too far? Because it seems like along with finding legal arguments to kidnap random people from anywhere in the world, detaining them without counsel for years and torturting them, it also seems like we’re open to okaying surveillance on anybody and everybody in the United States.
And all in the name of freedom?
Well, if the very tenets of freedom that you and I hold so dear are willfully being violated by our government day in and day out, then what does that say about our freedom?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 20th, 2005 and is filed under The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:05 am
Maybe you should read The Belmont Club’s “The tightrope” today. I always squirm when he points out Coventrylike details. You are then left with the “What would you do?” scenerio.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:35 am
I don’t know, why don’t you ask Denise. She seems to have some strange ideas about freedom.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
IF the wiretap program was legal, and it was helping in the WOT, and it was classified; then why wouldn’t he ask them to surpress the story?
The Times (and apparently, most people here) have jumped to the conclusion that something illegal has happened. I’m not convinced of that yet. Something that was probably helping in the WOT has been compromised thanks to the press.
Even though we would all like to know everything that the govt is up to, it doesn’t mean that we NEED to know. I imagine many of you people would’ve imploded during WWII when there was a Dept of Censorship. Guess what, when it wasn’t needed anymore, it went away. There is such a chasm between the parties now, that the Dems would never let a Republican idea stand for very long (and visa versa).
December 20th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
Or maybe you should read today’s Wall Street Journal Featured opinion article:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703
Among the highlights:
“What we really have here is a perfect illustration of why America’s Founders gave the executive branch the largest measure of Constitutional authority on national security. They recognized that a committee of 535 talking heads couldn’t be trusted with such grave responsibility. ”
“The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal “court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.” And further that “we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.” ”
“The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President’s power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it.”
I would add that if Bush HADN’T broken protocol to catch a terrorist, he’d be grilled even harder for the inaction.
“But everyone should note the irony that both the Times and Washington Post claimed to be outraged by, and demanded a special counsel to investigate, the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity, which did zero national security damage. By contrast, the Times’ NSA leak last week, and an earlier leak in the Washington Post on “secret” prisons for al Qaeda detainees in Europe, are likely to do genuine harm by alerting terrorists to our defenses.”
December 20th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
Obviously I don’t agree with Denise, but I think her sentiments are shared by many in this country who would willfully give up their freedom for some supposed level of safety that isn’t measurable.
And ford, if you’re not convinced that Bush hasn’t done something illegal yet, just read this column by George Will.
To sum the column up, Bush violated the law, unless you think that the President has a right to do whatever he or she wants in order to secure our safety. Personally, I don’t think Bush does since it’s unknowable whether or not this type of spying has helped us be safer. That’s the Catch 22 with all of these tactics, and I’d much rather err on the side of keeping our civil liberities intact, since it seems like there are many more common sense ways to combat terrorism both here and abroad.
And what bothers me is that it seems like you’d be okay with a Department of Propaganda in our current day Ford. But let me ask you this…how far would you go? And how do you justify something that you can’t measure?
December 20th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
The problem now is no one knows what was really done. Everything that has been released so far is for spin, and it will probably be that way for some time since everything is classified. Until more is known, anyone reaching a conclusion now is at best doing so prematurely, but most likely trying to play political games.
The only thing I know for sure is whoever leaked this is guilty. Unless security clearances are vastly different now from when I had mine.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
A question …
What is your definition of “freedom?”
December 20th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
Dept of Propaganda?????
I just can’t seem to see everything in absolutes. There has to be some lattitude in what is necessary. If they had been wiretapping everyone that had said the word “Allah”, I would be complaining as loudly as everyone else here. But, based on the context that it was used, and since there is yet no evidence of abuse, I see no problem with it. I don’t feel this has effected my freedom in any way. We’re nowhere near big brother yet.
It just seems to me that many people want W to break some law, so that they can bring him down. While W has done much to piss me off too, I don’t agree with the way the left want’s him to do away with him at any cost.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
I agree that some do. I don’t. And I don’t agree with the way the left acts either. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. This isn’t a matter of left v. right. That’s the way it’s being portrayed, but this is actually a matter of right v. wrong.
And I apologize…I meant Dept of Censorship like you said. However, the two things do kind of go hand in hand, no?
December 20th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
In this context, freedom to me is not having to worry about whether or not somebody is illegally looking in on my life. Just because our government runs the country does NOT mean they have the right to get any information about anybody whenever they want.
And listen, I’m not talking about some sort of ideal here, but I am talking about a reasonable expectation given current laws that we have in this country because of past bad behavior by our government.
How do you define freedom?
December 20th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
Frankly I think Bush has done WAY more than enough for impeachment. His conduct and entire agenda in office are in my opinion criminal, though of course few of his policy decisions violate any specific laws except those of human decency and intelligence.
I’m hoping that 2006 will change the Senate to about even, and reverse the Republican majority in the House, and then impeachment will have a chance.
Much like the Republican congress was guaranteed to impeach Clinton on any tiny little thing they could come up with (after HOW many millions of dollars of investigation into a blowjob?), it would be inconceivable for this yes-man Congress to impeach Bush, no matter how egregious and disgusting the illegal activities he has been involved in.
http://www.impeachbush.org has over 600,000 signatures supporting impeachment. A recent poll says 53% of Americans would support impeachment if the president falsified intelligence to mislead us into the Iraq war (which of course he did). That poll was prior to the wiretapping scandal.
In addition, much uproar has occurred because some of the targets of investigation by the FBI are obviously political opponents with no history or evidence whatsoever of any violent or terrorist leanings. Gay activist groups, environmental groups, anti-poverty groups, even some Catholic peace organization have all been targeted (source is a DailyKOS article and 365gay.com)
A terrifying and in my opinion entirely accurate article at MyLeftWing discusses parallels between the actions and media control of this administration and that of Nazi Germany in the 1930’s – it is not too far off. And of course parallels to the 1950’s McCarthyism witchhunt have been valid and obvious for years.
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=34A8DB61D5C009D18F44E71E4DF23B77?diaryId=4728
December 20th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
I’m disappointed that number is as low as it is. If it could be proven that he deliberately falsified intelligence to justify the war, he should be impeached. It shows how little the people think of the govt anymore.
Apparently, 47% are ok with the president lying to them.
Note that I used the word “IF” above. I haven’t seen proof of deliberate lying yet. But I’d rather not start another BUSH LIED debate.
It’s all so tired and worn out.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:01 pm
Justin,
Actually, Dept of Opportunism might be an even better descriptor for the Times deciding to publish this story now.
Evidently, there’s a new book coming out in a few days by this Times reporter with more to munch on politically.
Seems like the Times might be looking to go hand in hand with publishing profits?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:41 am
President Bush adamantly declares that placing wire taps on phones without any court’s approval is legal. Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney state that having this story in the media has hurt the government’s efforts to catch terrorists, and has given the upper hand to those that wish to commit terrorist attacks on the US.
If this is indeed true, that our War On Terror has taken a hit, then I ask this of the President:
Provide the American public with precise instances, and even names, of those people that have been caught planning attacks — people who were stopped due directly to his wire-tapping program.
We have the ability to find the names of all the people who were killed in the attacks on 9-11. We also have the ability to find the names of those persons who orchestrated the attacks on that day. All of these names are available on the internet. Simple Yahoo searches can find them.
So, don’t just tell us that this program is saving lives by stopping attacks. Don’t just use the over-used scare tactics of terror and increased attacks. Don’t just tell us the program is for our own good.
The story is out… phones were tapped… so what were the results? Do the wire taps snuff out a REAL terrorist attack, and if so, when? And by whom? Or is that a matter of so-called “national security”?
December 26th, 2005 at 4:30 am
We will have to wait and see about the legality.
Certainly Bush and company had some pretty bright legal minds working on the Patriot act.
What concerns me is — with Rove’s history where did the eavesdropping end? Am I supposed to believe they didnt spy on democrat opponants?
And seriously, look at the little lefty groups they were spying on- what was it- something like Grannies for Justice?
I dont know.
Not surprising is the recent ed/op in Barrons, Bush’s real base, wall street turning against him. Afterall, we know all the corruptions, inside trading etc. that takes place here and they arent going to like this administration listening in and getting the goods on them. It switchs from Bush being beholding, to them- being afraid.
December 26th, 2005 at 7:23 am
Yes, this is interesting…
Trust me, insider trading is a norm in this country And I can’t help but think that many in this country are going to pay the price for it in some small way with more tax cuts in the new year…