Igor Volsky
Marist College
Bush’s Ideological Power Grab: Admin To Spy on Americans Before 9/11

bush_angry2.jpgThe Washington Post reveals that “the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon.” Previously, the Bush administration and the GOP maintained that the NSA eavesdropping program was put in place in response to the 9/11 attacks.

President Bush: After September the 11th, I vowed to the American people that our government would do everything within the law to protect them against another terrorist attack. As part of this effort, I authorized the National Security Agency to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. In other words, if al Qaeda or their associates are making calls into the United States or out of the United States, we want to know what they’re saying. [White House, 5/11/06]

Former Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman: “This is authority the president does have. It’s authority that is consistent with protecting our Constitution and our civil liberties, and it’s an authority that is critical to learning the lessons of 9/11.” [CNN, 1/16/06]

But this latest revelation exposes the Bush administration’s post 9/11 power grab for what it is: an ideologically driven attempt to expand the power of the executive. Because the administration focused on implementing a neoconservative ideology in the wake of 9/11, rather than meeting the unique security needs of the nation, they increased the terror threat. They allowed ideology to trump reason.

Rather than pursue Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora, the administration dusted off pre-9/11 invasion plans for Iraq and diverted resources from Afghanistan to Iraq. Rather than disrupting specific terror plots through reasonable and legal intelligence gathering methods, the administration instituted warrantless wiretapping, overwhelming intelligence agencies with useless information.

While Democrats should amend FISA to allow for warrantless wiretapping of foreign to foreign communication, they must ensure that intelligence agencies do not target Americans without first securing individualized warrants.

As “more than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret eavesdropping program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips” that resulted from the warrantless wiretapping of Americans, “led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.” [NYT, 1/17/06]

America’s response to terror should be tailored to meet the terror threat. Unfortunately, the Bush administration applied an ill-conceived neoconservative template to the very real threat of international terrorism. Today, we live with its consequences.

Comments (12)

[…] the Body Politik’s Igor Volsky points out that President Bush has claimed that the program was put in place in response to 9/11:” After September the 11th, I vowed to the American people that our government would do […]

Careful dude or they will kill your Internet connection
www.curlydog.com/blog

LT

Why should there EVER be warrantless wiretapping in a democracy that values the rule of law? That’s just an invitation for abuse. If our government needs to do legal, appropriate wiretapping they should never have a problem getting a warrant. The FISA court already allows for “after the fact” warrants in emergency situations. They have only turned down a handful of warrant requests since the court was created in the Nixon era. Nobody has ever claimed they had a problem getting a FISA warrant. Ever. Warrantless wiretapping has no place in a democracy. Remember this: Democracies die behind closed doors. Just like ours is dying right now - right in front of our eyes. As we do…nothing.

Metagg is tracking this post…

Find out what Social News Sites are discussing this post over at metagg.com…

Mantrari Damacy

You have to read Bush’s statement very carefully. You have to read ALL of Bush’s statements very carefully. It is an art that you may not be familiar with. You say truthful things. But you use them in a way that gives an impression of something completely different.

There are a number of points here which I could play, but the main one is that he didn’t actually say that he authorized it after 9/11. His words were crafted in order to give that impression. “As part of this effort” refers to an effort to protect Americans, not 9/11 itself. Nice, eh?

You can find a number of other misdirections in there. “Second, the government does not listen to domestic phones calls without court approval.” Again, completely true if you have the same context as the president. A domestic phone call originates and terminates within the United States. It does not mean the same as “a phone call with a domestic participant.” Oooops!

“Fourth, the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities.” One could say that this sentence hangs on the word “ordinary”. Or perhaps it is ‘fiercely protected’ because a domestic spying operation would not be publishing its findings. It is protected “in all our activities”, meaning, it does not escape outside of their activities.

I really need to make a website that tells people how to decode the common wordplays that politicians, business and legal professionals use. “The rumor that we will fire 500 people in September is false”. (Actual story: We’ll fire 450 in September.)

Jan Sumisu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-tCPSfHA

Why Democrats are too scared to impeach Bush: He would declare martial law, attack Iran and cancel elections.

Fred

The Washington Post did NOT make this claim. This claim was made by a convicted felon trying to use it as a basis to overturn his conviction on 19 insider trading charges.

Norman

So Bush lied about something else; is anyone surprised?

The only question I have; Why is impeachment “off the table”?

Nancy Pelosi needs to go.
/Can I has new House Speaker?

d.k.villa

this whole senerio is out of a bad screenplay. it has to be, because no one in his right mind would ever subcribe to it…

TheDecider

These idiots have been planning this since 1998, only the village idiot wasn’t involved in PNAC. This whole assministation is behind ALL the terror attacks in Iraq. They did 9/11 to us. And for all you non believers just ask yourself whatever happened to the 2.3 TRILLION dollars that went missing 09/10/01. Google Pentagon Sept 10th 2001. And how come we don’t see more video at the Pentagon on 9/11. Pentagon has thousands of camera’s there. This is nothing compared to attacking your own people. It’s all wrong, and Bush is wrong again.

nikolai

The bu$h administration longs to go back to the days of J. Edgar Hoover and Joe McCarthy when gov’t officials could do exactly as they pleased and the 99.999% of the citizenry never questioned a thing. The ones who did were blackmailed (or jailed) by Hoover or blacklisted (or labeled a commie) by McCarthy, or simply disappeared. Ah, those were the days…

Leave a Reply