More On The FISA Fold
Dan Eggan of the Washington Post looks at yesterday’s about-face by the Bush Administration on domestic surveillance:
The Bush administration said yesterday that it has agreed to disband a controversial warrantless surveillance program run by the National Security Agency, replacing it with a new effort that will be overseen by the secret court that governs clandestine spying in the United States.
The change — revealed by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee — marks an abrupt reversal by the administration, which for more than a year has aggressively defended the legality of the NSA surveillance program and disputed court authority to oversee it.
Under the new plan, Gonzales said, the secret court that administers the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, will oversee eavesdropping on telephone calls and e-mails to and from the United States when “there is probable cause to believe” that one of the parties is a member of al-Qaeda or an associated terrorist group.
Under the previous approach, such intercepts were authorized by intelligence officers without the involvement of any court or judge — prompting objections from privacy advocates and many Democrats that the program was illegal.
Administration officials suggested that the move was aimed in part at quelling persistent objections to the NSA spying by Democrats who now control Congress and that it is intended to slow or even derail challenges making their way through the federal courts. The Justice Department immediately filed a notice with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit yesterday informing the panel of the new program and promising to file papers “addressing the implications of this development” on pending litigation.
So we see that elections DO matter (this wouldn’t have happened if the Democrats hadn’t regained Congress), and depending on what side of the fence you’re on, that’s both a blessing and a curse. Ultimately, though, it’s proof that our systems works, and all the handwringing we’ve seen from the Progressive Left over the ‘fascist imperialist neocon theocon’ direction America has taken under Bush is just so much hot air…but you knew that already, or you wouldn’t be reading this blog, I suspect…
I am troubled and discouraged at how GWB has rolled on this issue, especially given, as others have noted, the highly principled stand the Administration took on the question. I suppose I should have known better, we’ve seen this behavior before, i.e.; Steel tariffs, Affirmative Action, No Child Left Behind, National Drug Benefit, and Campaign Finance reform. I suspect this is the substance behind my extreme discomfort with the “Compassionate Conservative” philosophy, as practiced by the President.
Yes, incompetence and ineffectiveness are indeed exculpatory evidence against charges of fascism.
What will Snidely Whiplash try next?
I hear ya…I’m still trying to digest a few details before I settle on my opinion, but at first glance, as my post title indicates, it looks like they mucked their hand…
Andy, no, willingness to compromise with your political opponents is a defense against charges of fascism…
But nothing changed besides the Democratic control of Congress. I can’t help but think that, in retrospect, it makes the whole warrantless wiretapping thing look like nothing more than a naked assertion of executive power. A sort of “because I can, that’s why” thing.
Sure, if you consider a boxer backing off to avoid a punch “compromise.”
They’ve conceded nothing of substance. They consider the decision to take wiretapping out of the FISA court and to put it back in entirely the executive’s prerogative. I doubt they care much about the Democrats. They do want to avoid a court precedent; it’s no accident this happened two weeks before the various lawsuits were set to be argued.
This is a strategic retreat. As Jack Balkin points out, if the debate was truly about FISA, the administration could have got everything it wanted years ago without fuss, and would still have its way today. But that would have meant conceding that Congress has a role to play. This was merely a proxy, as are the fights over torture and detainees.
The real issue is the Cheneyites’ radical interpretation of Article II. I personally wouldn’t call it fascist. Bonapartist might be closer. But the fight ain’t over by any means.