HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

I start my return to blogging with a story that is so unbelievable its almost impossible to comprehend - except, of course, for the fact that we now have 5 years of behavior to prepare us for something like this. President Bush has decided that he no longer needs warrants to investigate US citizens. In Bush's post-9/11 world the constitution is a "quaint document" that no longer applies when national security is at stake. No no, instead his signature is enough.

The story first broke in Thursday's NYT and continued the next day, and is shocking on so many levels I hardly know where to start. First off it shreds - and I do mean shreds - some of our most basic and fundamental constitutional protections. Second, the spying was conducted on dozens of occasions by the NSA, a group that until now had been limited to overseas activities. There's a reason we have ALWAYS had a firewall between domestic and international surveillance efforts, but without any advice, discussion, or consultation, this administration decided to do away with that on its own. Never mind the fact that doing so is explicitly forbidden by US law. Third, the Times admits to sitting on this story for over a year at the request of the administration. They claim national security, but please... time and time again this administration has made clear it sees no difference between governing and campaigning, so its simply illogical to believe that election year politics did not loom large in their request. Why the Times went along with their request for so long is simply beyond me.

But all that said.... after reading the initial stories I assumed that the administration would immediately backtrack on the policy, admit it had made a mistake, claim post-9/11 national security hype, and attempt to move on. Yes, I did, despite the fact that until recently this administration had never admitted to making any mistakes at all. And my reason was that this behavior was so blatantly unconstitutional and illegal that I thought they would have no choice. But every time I think they can't surprise me, they do:

President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and he lashed out at those involved in publicly revealing the program. "This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security," he said in a radio address delivered live from the White House's Roosevelt Room. "This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States," Bush said.[...] "I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups," he said.

Not only is he not admitting it was a mistake, he claims he'll continue to do it as he sees fit.

So before I go on, for the record, Amendment IV to the United States Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And if that's not enough for you, guest blogger Hilzoy over at Washington Monthly has compiled a list of the specific statues that have been violated by the president with this policy. As Hilzoy points out, there are numerous ways this surveillance could have been conducted both legally and secretly. But that would have been inconvenient. So rather than obey the law the president chose to break it.

Which begs the question: how can anyone possibly defend this behavior? How? In a world filled with shades of gray, this is so black and white its almost painful. The law was willfully and purposely broken. The president has admitted it. And he says he will do it again in the future as he sees fit. So excuse me for sounding hysterical for a moment, but if this isn't a constitutional crisis I don't know what is.

The president of the United States has declared himself above the law. Openly. Publicly. And without apology.

Let me say that again so that it has time to sink in.

The president of the United States has declared himself above the law. Openly. Publicly. And without apology.

In the incredibly long line of stupid things this administration has done, this is hands down the most baffling. They've given themselves no political cover on this. I mean none whatsoever. Sure, there will be some Republicans out there who rush to the administrations defense, no doubt. But as the recent filibuster of the Patriot Act reauthorization shows, at least some conservative Republicans remember that one of the basic tenants of conservatism is a mistrust of government authority. And after 5 years of "trust us" government, it seems that at least some on the right are finally seeing what many of us over n the other side have known for years - not since Nixon has there been a group in the White House less worthy of trust.

But apparently Bush isn't going to be deterred in his quest to endlessly expand executive authority:

"In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment," the president said in a live broadcast from the White House of his weekly radio address. Senate Democrats, with the aid of a handful of Republicans, succeeded Friday in stalling the bill already approved by the House. The vote to advance the measure, 52-47, fell eight votes shy of the 60 votes required to end debate. "That decision is irresponsible and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics and the Senate must reauthorize the Patriot Act," Bush said.

Two thoughts. First of all, I don't see why he cares about the Patriot Act, given that its clear he has no intention of following the laws that are in place to curtail government surveillance. Ah, but then again, it does give those far, far below him in the executive wide grants of power, so perhaps on closer examination it does indeed make sense. Second, and more to the point, this takes the "boy in the bubble" meme to a new extreme. The man is losing his country AND his party and he doesn't seem to have the faintest idea that it is happening at all. On the same day the story breaks about illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of US citizens personally approved by the president himself, he's upset that Senators might want to give the Patriot Act a second look? How on earth can any one human being be so out of touch with the world around them? How?

And lest we forget, all of this comes on the heels of the long debate over the president's authority to order the torture of detainees held outside of the criminal justice system. Just two days ago I was preparing to give Bush some credit for finally doing what is right and agreeing to sign McCain's amendment. But then this?

As the title of the post suggests, this is no less than a constitutional crisis. The president has declared himself and his administration above the law and above the constitution itself. It honestly does not get any bigger than this. Where will this take us? My friends, I have no idea. I'll be honest. Even I didn't see this one coming. Abramoff. Plame. Torture. Ghost detainees. A war based on lies and distortions. No matter how absurd, none of them had prepared me for something as blatant as this.

Sens. Specter and McCain have already called for an immediate investigation into this and for that they should get our sincere thanks. A congressional investigation is the correct first step. Let's gather the evidence. Let's learn the truth. And then, and only then, let's draw our conclusions and take appropriate actions.

forget the popcorn. This one is far, far too serious for that. This is a story with enormous implications. Document the facts. Present the evidence. We need nothing less than the full truth.

UPDATE: Although there has already been responses from Senators on both the left and the right, I think Sen Russ Feingold looks to be deserving of additional attention. take a look:

"Yesterday morning, Republican and Democratic Senators blocked a flawed bill that extended parts of the Patriot Act that are set to expire without fixing the fundamental problems with the law. Nobody wants these parts of the Patriot Act to expire -- we want to fix them before making them permanent, by including important protections for the rights and freedoms of innocent American citizens. With a few modest but critical improvements, like making sure that when the government seeks library records it has to show that those records have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy, we can give the government the powers it needs while also protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. The President can sign a bill into law tomorrow to reauthorize the Patriot Act if he will agree to the bill that the Senate unanimously passed in July or he could extend the law for a short period so negotiations can continue. The President's shocking admission that he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on American citizens, without going to a court and in violation of the Constitution and laws passed by Congress, further demonstrates the urgent need for these protections. The President believes that he has the power to override the laws that Congress has passed. This is not how our democratic system of government works. The President does not get to pick and choose which laws he wants to follow. He is a president, not a king. On behalf of all Americans who believe in our constitutional system of government, I call on this Administration to stop this program immediately and to fully cooperate with congressional inquiries and investigations. We have had enough of an Administration that puts itself above the law and the Constitution."

And via Atrios, some of the text of a fact speech that accompanied the release, including relevant statues that appear to have been violated.

* FISA makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conduct electronic surveillance except as provided for by statute. The only defense is for law government agents engaged in official duties conducting “surveillance authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order.” [50 U.S.C. § 1809] * Congress has specifically stated, in statute, that the criminal wiretap statute and FISA “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.” [18 U.S.C. § 2518(f)] * The target of a FISA wiretap is never given notice that he or she was subject to surveillance, unless the evidence obtained through the electronic surveillance is ultimately used against the target in a criminal trial.

Its sad but unfortunately true. Congress will often let the president walk all over the American people. But ignore their decrees? That a president does at his peril.

Want more analysis on this? Firedoglake and Talking points Memo are both doing some great work today. Josh has one post in particular that I'd like to highlight. He's right, the basis of the president's claim is that when al Qaeda is involved he can literally do whatever he wants, laws of the land be dammed. And in a second post, Josh just shreds the presidents argument of national security. Apparently all of the surveillance could have been approved quickly, easily, and secretly through the FISA Court system, but the administration decided to sidestep the law nonetheless. Oh, and in case you missed it, the man who created the legal justification for all this? Yup. John Yoo, the same man who designed the legal rationale that brought state sanctioned torture to the United States of America.

UPDATE II: To be a bit clearer on that last update. From today's speech, here is how the president himself justified his actions:

To fight the war on terror, I am using authority vested in me by Congress, including the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force, which passed overwhelmingly in the first week after September the 11th. I'm also using constitutional authority vested in me as Commander-in-Chief. In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks. This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

I can't imagine why he defended himself this way, but by doing it Bush has just made an enormous mistake. Clearly the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force had nothing to do with authorizing illegal wiretaps of US citizens, and neither does his authority as Commander-in-Chief. But he is now on the record with that as his justification. And it simply will NOT fly.

Nothing in the clause designating the president as Commander-in-Chief gives him the authority to break the law and violate the explicit protections of the Bill of Rights. Nothing. And to suggest otherwise is to show a complete lack of understanding of the history of the Constitution itself. From the preamble to the Bill of Rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was added to the constitution out of a fear that some like this would happen. There was virtually nothing the founders feared more than unchecked executive authority, and even after designing an elaborate system of checks and balances many still felt they had not gone far enough to protect individual liberties. It was that fear - and that fear alone - that led Madison to compromise and agree to personally shepherd the Bill of Rights through the first Congress.

Go back and read the text of all ten amendments. They are all, each in their own way, about limiting executive authority and protecting the rights of the people.

And somehow, the president thinks that the Commander-in-Chief clause and a Congressional authorization of the use of force allows him to override all of that with the stroke of a pen? Excuse me?

Hang on to your hats people. This is going to be big.

--------