More Ridiculousness from the Democrats

The Democrats have been complaining lately that Bush authorized surveillance of people with known al Qaeda ties without first obtaining a warrant from a FISA court. This is yet another example of the dems playing politics with intelligence and our national security.

First, they constantly repeat that Bush is "spying" on American citizens. This, naturally, is something that would upset people. However, they usually neglect to mention that this only occurs when part of the communication involves a known al Qaeda operative, or someone with known ties to al Qaeda. This, by contrast, does not upset most people.

Second, they argue that the FISA courts are quick and efficient. This is not true. The 9/11 Commission even agrees. It is true that once the matter is before the court, it does not take long to get the warrant. However, setting up the court and preparing evidence for it can take weeks.

Third, this is another instance of the Dems thinking that terrorism is simply a matter of law enforcement. As has already been shown, the law enforcement approach does very little to avoid terrorist attacks. Terrorism prevention calls for a more proactive approach that cannot be hindered by traditional law enforcement hurdles.

Fourth, they ignore that the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that national security is the duty of the executive, not merely a power that can be exercised at its discretion. That is to say, the executive does not have the option of pursuing national security, it has the obligation, and the requirement, even. Moreover, take the 1972 Keith decision (United States v. Sinclair), for example, in which the Supreme Court struck down warrantless surveillance for domestic crime prevention, but explicitly stated that they were not addressing warrantless surveillance for national security matters. Or, more recently, a FISA Court of Review opinion in 2002 stated that the president had constitutional authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security.

Fifth, they ignore that, since the creation of the FISA courts, both democrat presidents (Carter and Clinton) have retained the power to use the same warrantless surveillance that Bush is using.

Sixth, the idea that Bush is acting outside the law of this is ludicrous in view of the fact that FISA courts were not created until the Carter administration, and warrantless surveillance for national security purposes predates that by a longshot, and had been held to be legal.

Seventh, the idea that this is some sort of power grab by Bush doesn't hold up; national security has always been the purview of the executive and a strong case could be made that the roadblocks set up by Congress were a power grab by that institution.

Eighth, check out this list of warrantless searches of Americans for matters not related to national security that have been held by the Supreme Court to be acceptable.

Ninth, look at the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the would-be "20th hijacker" of 9/11. He was caught prior to that and the FBI wanted to search his laptop, but lacked enough evidence to petition a FISA court for a warrant. History could have been radically altered.

Admittedly, this was all written in a hurry, and is not as comprehensive or persuasive as I would like, but I wanted to get something up. So, I'll throw up a few quick links to stuff that was better prepared:

Byron York on Clinton and warrantless searches
Byron York on Clinton and warrantless searches, part 2
Byron York on problems with FISA courts
James Robbins on surveillance and the NSA
Wall Street Journal write-up on wiretapping
Defense of wireless wiretaps by John Schmidt, Associate Attorney General in the Clinton Justice Department