George W. Bush is throwing a hissy-fit.
It isn't.
The subject of his boo-hoo du jour is the recent decision by Congress to allow the disingenuously-named "Protect America Act" (read: the act that lets G.W. spy on anyone, any time, anywhere with zero oversight by anyone) to expire.
I should back-track a little here: it is news that Congress allowed this act to expire. It's the first truly significant act of bravery by this legislative body since it was formed after the 2006 elections, and as a result of it, those of us who voted Democratic in that election can finally begin to feel something akin to pride at having done so.
What is -- sadly -- not news is the display of juvenile histrionics dressed up as a press announcement that Mr. Commander-in-Chief put on a day or so ago.
So the media reports that the president claims the nation is now in grave peril as a result of Congress' not giving him exactly what he wants, when he wants it.
Oh, the humanity!
But does the media also report what supposedly crucial eavesdropping-techniques our intelligence agencies are purportedly being deprived of out here in the real world as a result? It would be very amusing if they did!
Because, in effect,
they don't lose anything. Once the Act in question expires, we revert back to the same intelligence-gathering rules we had in place for some
thirty years before the PAA: the old FISA court rules. The
same system that got us through
the Cold War (which was
at least every bit as serious and volatile as the "war on terror" is now). The
same system that has already authorized
thousands upon thousands of emergency surveillance warrants -- and, contrary to what Bush's whining would suggest,
in 30 years has refused precisely as many requests as you can count on one hand. In fact, most people who have worked with the supposedly "restrictive" FISA system are actually quite taken aback at how
surprisingly permissive the old system
already is: for government officials who need to obtain an emergency warrant, they can do so
on a moment's notice, at all hours of day or night. And what's more,
a warrant isn't even necessary -- you can obtain one
up to 72 hours after the fact. If, in the wake of the Administration's wounded crowing, that sounds unlikely or improbable --
why, you might say,
wouldn't the media report that the removal of oversight Bush wants is completely unnecessary, dangerous, even unconstitutional? -- well
don't take my word for it. Just Google the writings of any (credible,
non Bush-administration)
constitutional law expert. (Really, if there's one thing the Bushies do well, it's
exploiting the shortcomings of the mainstream media, but most often all it takes to break through the smokescreen is a little healthy skepticism and a few minutes of online footwork.)
Ah, but here's the real rub: The only plausible reason Bush would ever need to cut around the FISA court is to cover up the misdeeds of his own administration. Among those who follow this story faithfully (and honestly), this is a truth so widely held as to be self-evident. The FISA law doesn't prevent Bush from using any high-tech, science-fiction-style methods for spying on terrorists that he could have used under the now-defunct PAA law. To make it perfectly clear: the only difference -- the only difference -- between what Bush wants and what's already standing law in this country is that he doesn't want to have to tell anyone outside his tiny circle of loyal accomplices who he's spying on and who he wants to imprison. Anyone who tries to tell you different is either
- selling you a line of B.S., or
- misinformed, and therefore talking out of you-know-where.
What's worse, it's already a matter of public record that before the PAA was even drafted, Bush was already trampling the Constitution by engaging in domestic spying (i.e. spying on American citizens) without anything resembling any kind of warrant -- for reasons we can only assume were illegal, since he made a point of refusing to let any judge (even the sworn-to-secrecy kind we used in the Cold War) review them. And yes, regardless of the fact that he is "the President," he broke the law by doing so. And that's the story that's being overlooked - that this makes our president a criminal, plain and simple.
Because in a nation of laws, no president is above the law.
...
Coda: An afterthought...
Another thing that makes this the-Democrats-don't want-us-to-be-able-spy-on-the-terrorists claptrap so insulting to anyone that hears it: none of us -- either "liberal" or "conservative" -- has ever questioned the need for our intelligence agencies to spy on terrorists. Anyone who implies otherwise is being uncivil, dishonest, immature, ... and -- really? -- probably a disciple of Mr. Limbaugh. Enough said.
Obviously, what the Congress is saying by letting this lamentable piece of legislation die is that removing judicial oversight -- in effect, stripping American citizens of their basic civil rights -- even if it were to bring us some kind of (as-yet-unproven) security benefit -- is a step in the direction of a Soviet-style Big-Brother system of Government, and as such, I'd hasten to add, is patently un-American.
We've all become familiar with that boilerplate cliché the Bush administration has trotted out on so many occasions:
"If you ______, the terrorists win!"
Heard that one before, right? Well, that statement cuts both ways. Instead of
"If you don't support the war in Iraq, the terrorists win!"
or
"If you question the president's leadership in a time of war, the terrorists win!"
well how about this:
"If you allow a small group of maladjusted individuals to scare the Greatest Nation in the History of the World into depriving its citizens of the very rights that make it great, ... the terrorists win."
I think we can probably all agree: the former two statements express little more than mental laziness. I would personally take it a bit further and say they reveal a basic cowardice, a fear of taking responsibility for our country's mistakes, but most importantly a willingness to hide behind the authority of a pseudo-presidential daddy-figure rather than stare our nation's truly troubling circumstances dead in the face.
On the other hand, the final one resonates with a greater truth -- and it expresses a sentiment that was understood well by the framers of our Constitution, who knew better than anyone else at the time that a nation's government must have a sacred system of checks and balances like our Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches in place to prevent greed, corruption, or hysteria from allowing any one branch to run said nation into the ground.
But more than anything, the whole, "if x, the terrorists win"-line of thinking is just ... embarrassingly ... juvenile, and we all really know it's not becoming of an intelligent discussion. Instead of going down that path, I prefer to think in terms of the bravery required of a nation that dares to remain free, in spite of all the countless ways the ugly, scary outside world tries to bully us into reverting to the barbaric ways of old. I think a better rallying cry to throw in the faces of our aggressors is
"Give me liberty or give me death!"
Ever heard our infamously draft-dodging President quote that one? Not @$%-ing likely.
A
favorite author of mine once wrote that it is far more important to be free than it is to be happy. I would argue that
it is more important, even, to be free than it is to be secure. And I'm sure
that is something the founders of this country believed fervently. Remember - it was one of our
most revered founders who said:
"Those who would sacrifice liberty to gain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
(Ben Franklin)
... and there seems to be a lot of chatter going around about whether we should be offended that Barack Obama's ex-pastor and close family friend once said some things that are pretty critical of the U.S. of A.
Now, completely setting aside the fact that it's perfectly OK in my book, even patriotic, to criticize one's own country - -a lot of us, in fact, were taught that its our duty -- lets look at what they're really shocked by: that Obama's ex-pastor's comments sounded kind of anti-white.
There's a whole discussion we could have about whether it's OK to say the things the Reverend said, but what's really at issue is this idea that Senator Obama should or shouldn't have gone to that reverend's church if he held such controversial ideas.Is there anyone else out there who finds this whole discussion kind of petty?
I, for one, make an effort to keep those friends who I disagree with. I grew up in Texas and a lot of my friends are hard-core right-wingers who believe a lot of things I find absolutely deplorable — but what am I supposed to do? Judge them? Cut them off?
If I did that, not only would I lose perfectly good friends, but that would end any discussion I had with them about politics, and both they and I would retreat into our separate divisions of the political discussion. (Which, tangentially, is exactly the problem with America right now, if you ask me — nobody’s talking to people they disagree with.)
And while we’re talking about religion, wasn’t it Jesus himself who championed the cause of “mixing it up” by advocating hanging out with sinners and tax collectors and loving your enemies?
Maybe I’m biased because at this point I believe he’s the best candidate, but Obama strikes me as the kind of guy who would do the same.