Checks and Balances = Jihad (aka- Bush Cultists Fail Logic)

President Bush yesterday morning on Thursday's court ruling:
"I would say that those who, um, um, herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live."

That nature being, apparently, that we live under a quasi-monarchical President who alone has the sole authority to decide what laws are relevant, who is a terrorist, and which of its constitutionally-required duties the other branches of government are allowed to undertake. Ohh, he meant the whole terrorism, thing? Well, even ignoring the President's exaggeration of the threats, that is simply irrelevant. Not only did this ruling have no impact on surveillance methods (unless all the FISA judges are on vacation), the 'nature of the world' is not what our judges base their decisions on... it's the rule of law and our Constitution. Perhaps the President needs a refresher course on the 'nature' of our democracy. It is not up for President Bush to decide if his illegal wiretapping is, well, illegal. That is for our courts to decide. And based on the results from a number of federal judges as well as the Supreme Court (in both Hamdi and Hamdan), they see the Bush/Cheney argument as the unamerican bunk it is.

Meanwhile, the hardcore Bush cultists are freaking out over this decision. We are hearing the usual rants- this is a terrorist victory, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor was appointed by Carter and did civil rights work (and is therefore a leftist radical), etc... Tim Grieve has a good roundup of some of these in Salon's War Room, featuring quotes from the National Review, Wall Street Journal, and Rush Limbaugh. But, surprise surprise, one of the most nonsensical rants came from Rupert Murdoch's NY Post (*). Let's take a look-

#1-

The American people are suddenly less safe today - thanks to a presumptive and overtly political ruling by a left-wing Michigan federal jurist.

Right off the bat- fearmongering and the personal smearing of the judge. How exactly a court decision on constitutional issues makes anyone 'less safe' is unimportant to the Post; all that matters is that the ruling dared to question the President and that makes the judge another "Michael Moore or George Soros".

#2-

The fact is, though, the program has been effective - and doubtless is a major reason why America has not yet suffered another major terrorist attack since the Twin Towers were destroyed.

Once again, another opinion by the Post, not backed up by facts. The administration has offered no proof that this program has been effective (to the contrary, numerous government agents have worried it may be counterproductive, leading "to dead ends or innocent Americans"); the program is secret; even most members of Congress have not been briefed on it. So what proof does the Post for such an assertion? None; they know no more about it than we do.

But here is the main point and a question I would demand every Bush defender answer: What is the difference in terms of success between legal wiretapping and warrantless wiretapping? Contrary to the spin which even the media is regurgitating, this ruling has NO impact on wiretapping abilities. The President always had the authority to wiretap suspected terrorists and still does... with a court-approved warrant as required by the '78 FISA law and Fourth Amendment. Going outside this system is unnecessary, as FISA allows for emergency wiretapping to begin sans warrant, as long as one is filed for within 72 hours (15 days in 'wartime'). The administration has yet to offer a valid reason why this wasn't good enough, other than an off-hand remark by Attorney General Gonzales in January that the paperwork was too 'cumbersome'. Feel safer now?

The obvious conclusion is that there is no difference between the wiretapping approved with a FISA warrant and that done in secret without one in terms of results. The real answer is that they did it simply because they wanted to, based on the Cheney doctrine of unlimited executive power.

#3-

Or as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said of the program earlier this year: "We have to collect the right dots before we can 'connect the dots.' " This program, he said, "provides the United States with the early-warning system we so desperately needed on Sept. 10."

Speaking of connecting the dots and September 10... in regards to the latter, we did intercept a communication on that date warning of the next day's attacks, but it wasn't acted on because they simply didn't have anyone to translate it. And in regards to 'connecting the dots', as that example illustrates, the pre-9/11 problem wasn't a failure to collect the dots, but to connect them. Doing so is a question of intelligence; not sure how warrants and court oversight impede that.

#4-

As for the president's power to authorize warrantless surveillance, it was eloquently defended back in 1994 by Jamie Gorelick, then the Clinton administration's deputy attorney general and later one of the more blatantly anti-Bush members of the 9/11 Commission:

"Case law," she told Congress back then, "supports that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes, and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the attorney general."

We don't recall outraged Democrats yelping about the threat to civil liberties at that time.

Perhaps not- but I do remember Republicans yelping about that (how things have changed). By the way, bold added by me... notice how they try to morph wiretapping with physical searches? At the time of Gorelick's statement, warrantless physical searches were not illegal under FISA law. The subsequent outrage about this from conservatives luckily prompted a revision of FISA by Congress (working with Congress- what a concept!), who made such searches illegal. But the Post doesn't disclose those pesky details in their attempt to insinuate that Clinton (or any other President post-FISA) authorized warrantless wiretapping, for which no evidence or accusations have been made.

#5-

That's because this is all about partisan politics - and ideology.

So says the Post right before engaging in a partisan attack on Judge Taylor.

#6-

With luck, the judges hearing those cases will appreciate that any threat to the civil liberties of Americans pales next to the danger posed by the jihadists intent on destroying them.

Translation- Take my liberty if you spare me death! Go America!

In the end, though, only one point is needed... the President of the United States does not have the power to break the law or Constitution, in secret, on his say-so. That the Bush cultists would rather engage in a false debate on terrorism over the real issues surrounding this case is expected, but sad. This issue is too important to be dragged down to the Rove level of gutter politics.

Finally, more bad news for the President... his terror scares aren't helping his sagging approval ratings.

[PS- See also the following for more info on this saga:
-AP: Bush defends surveillance program
-AP: Feds appeal ruling on surveillance
-AP: Hard to predict 6th Circuit's NSA ruling

Editorials from NY Times and Washington Post (with rebuttals to the latter here and here).

*See also previous NY Post insanity- here, here, here, and here.]