Democrats on the NSA wiretaps

The American Prospect article is a week or so old, so the reference is a bit out of date, but the issue is still pressing. The issue of the NSA wiretaps is NOT a question of National Security or Civil Rights. This is a question of National Security AND Civil Rights on the side that the Democrats are taking vs. a false SENSE of security while actually reducing our security, the Republicans' position.

The only reasons anyone needs to have complete freedom of action with no oversight, the powers being claimed by George Bush, are 1) the individual is incompetent and does not want that discovered or 2) the individual is up to something illegal, and does not want it discovered. Oversight and review are needed to get competent results, they are essential to get top notch results. Removing the oversight on wiretaps and prevalence will only result in wasted time and effort on false leads and pursuing innocent citizens. If we want our national security to be the best it can be we need to restore the kinds of oversight and review that have been in place for the past several decades.

Some folks, see Kevin Drum are starting to see this. Now if we can get the Democratic leadership to make this case we might be in good shape.

As a post script I would add that granting someone these extraordinary, absolute powers has never in history lead to the possessor of the powers using them to protect the nation. The possessor inevitably uses them to protect himself. The Democrats are for the president to have the powers and the motivation to protect the United States, the Republicans are for the president to have powers and motivations to protect himself and the Republican leadership.

NSA Wiretaps and Posse Comitatus

The stance that this administration is taking with regard to the NSA wiretapping scandal reminded me of something from a few months back. Back during the immediate aftermath of Katrina, when attention was focused on the administration's failure to act promptly, the right wing argued vigorously that President Bush could not possibly have sent in military personal to help out because of the Posse Comitatus act. Now the Posse Comitatus act is a piece of legislation past by congress after the Civil War which forbids the military from performing police functions within the US. See Dadahead for a list of right wingers insisting that this act of congress prevented Bush from acting. As Bob Barr put it, "A frustrated President Bush could only stand by and watch as the horror unfolded until he received the request for help." because to do otherwise would violate federal law. Now as Dadahead correctly points out the right wing argument was nonsense at the time. Federal law does indeed prevent the president from using military personnel for police functions, but it in no way prevents the use of military personnel for other functions, with or without the request of the governor.

What strikes me now, however, is the fact that all the time that the right wing was insisting that the President could not act because federal law barred his action, the President was violating the terms of the FISA statute on the basis of his claim that he has near absolute authority to act. His claim that congress has no power to restrict his actions. Does this not mean that according to the President he was not in any way prevented from using the military at the time of Katrina? That even if the Posse Comitatus restricted his actions in the way he claimed, that by his standards he could have simply ignored it?

We have here what I am coming to see as a standard part of conservative thinking. Namely that one is free, as far as conservatives are concerned, to assert both a statement and its contradiction.

The Need for Oversight

he administration, and their right wing supporters, is trying to portray the NSA wiretap issue as a matter of acting in the interests of national security. Indeed they are now claiming that the President has absolute authority to act in any manner he wishes, with no oversight at all. This position is absurd. As many others have pointed out, it is clearly at odds with the constitution and our values of democracy, freedom, and civil rights. But it is absurd in a more concrete and common sense way. There is no human activity of any sort, in which the outcomes are improved by removing all oversight. Consider your accountant, a home contractor you hire, an employee, a babysitter, or any other field at all. In every case, if you remove all oversight you can predict, with confidence, that you will get disastrous results. Indeed the only reason any of these people would object to you checking up on their performance periodically and that their actions be subject to review is that they know their performance is substandard or incompetent and they don't wish to be caught. And that is clearly what we are seeing with this administration.