I Know What You Did Last Summer
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
20-27 August 2007 Issue
I hate to sound melodramatic about it, but while everyone was at
the beach or "The Simpsons Movie" on the first weekend in
August, the U.S. government shredded the Fourth Amendment to the
Constitution, the one requiring court-approved "probable cause"
before Americans can be searched or spied upon. This is not the
feverish imagination of left-wing bloggers and the ACLU. It's
the plain truth of where we've come as a country, at the behest
of a president who has betrayed his oath to defend the
Constitution and with the acquiescence of Democratic
congressional leaders who know better. Historians will likely
see this episode as a classic case of fear - both physical and
political - trumping principle amid the ancient tension between
personal freedom and national security.
Congress had good reason to amend the 1978 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA). After the shift from satellites to
fiber-optic cable for most international phone calls, the
statute was as out of date as disco. With Congress, the courts
and President Bush squabbling over his illegal wiretapping
program, the government was actually conducting less
surveillance of foreign nationals than before 9/11, which was
crazy. We had to do more listening in, especially with scary new
intelligence "chatter" suggesting an unspecified attack on the
U.S. Capitol this summer. Congressional sources who attended the
late-July classified intel briefings, but won't talk about them
for the record, say these threats didn't sound like spin. After
all, we're not talking here about trumped-up Iraqi WMD, but Al
Qaeda terrorists who have already tried to kill us.
So members of Congress are legitimately afraid that they and
their families will get blown up this summer. Fair enough. But
then they lost their heads and sold out the Constitution to
cover their political rears while keeping the rest of us mostly
in the dark. The reason we don't know more about what happened
is that the United States has moved sharply in recent years from
legitimate secrecy - regarding sources and methods - to the
bogus kind the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and others
warned will wreck democracies. For instance, the abstract legal
arguments used by the shadowy FISA court to strike down Bush's
surveillance program are secret. Why? Because they might be
politically embarrassing.
Here's what we do know. We know that the Democratic leadership
rightly conceded to Adm. Michael McConnell, the once widely
respected director of National Intelligence, to allow
eavesdropping on foreigner-to-foreigner communications routed
through American phone companies (no biggie; we've always spied
on foreigners). We know that the Democrats thought they had a
deal until McConnell, who is supposed to be nonpartisan, went
back to the White House and got fresh marching orders to squelch
reasonable judicial oversight by the FISA court. And we know
that the administration's new position was that the attorney
general (the disgraced Alberto Gonzales) should have the sole
authority to spy without a warrant on any American talking to a
foreigner, even if it's you and the guy from Mumbai fixing your
printer.
Then the Democrats said: "Wait a minute! That's
unconstitutional!" Right? Actually, no, they didn't. Even
liberals like Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee, argued in two heated, closed-door meetings on Aug. 3
that the Democrats might as well cave. Otherwise, they would be
pounded during the August recess for ignoring national security
and destroyed as a party if the country were actually attacked.
Even though the leadership and 82 percent of House Democrats
voted against the bill, they did not block it, delay the recess
and hold the Congress in session. The private excuse was that
the liberal base wouldn't be satisfied no matter what they did,
and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid couldn't make the
more conservative Senate go along anyway. Apparently, there's
always an excuse for leaving for vacation on time.
Afterward, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said publicly that many
provisions were "unacceptable" and the House would revisit the
newly signed legislation "as soon as possible." Democrats
obtained a sunset clause that requires the whole thing to be
reauthorized in six months. But real damage has been done. At a
minimum, we have suspended the Fourth Amendment for the time
being. Doing so might conceivably be excusable if we're likely
to catch terrorists this way. But with a tiny number of Arabic
speakers asked to translate thousands of transcripts, there's
little chance we'll find a needle in the haystack. If our
snooping technology were so terrific at nabbing bad guys, we'd
brag to Al Qaeda about it as a form of deterrence instead of
keeping it secret. "Secrecy is for losers," Moynihan liked to
say, in a time before we began losing freedom and security
simultaneously.
-------
$$$$ A MUST WATCH FOR ALL AMERICANS $$$$