Domestic Spygate

Let me begin by saying I have no problem with the government using wiretaps to catch bad guys. This has been going on forever and allows for some pretty creative law enforcement (especially for fans of the excellent HBO drama, The Wire). But, I'm still firmly atop my civil liberties high-horse, and therefore oppose the arbitrary way in which these wiretaps have been implemented by King George II. I have problems with their justification on the following fronts:

1. Speed. They claim that they have to circumvent the existing laws because of speed. However a special court has been set up precisely to address this concern (FISA court). According to reports, this court is generally able to turn around a warrant in a matter of hours. If the need is more urgent than that, the NSA is allowed to pursue the wiretap provided they notify the court later. This court almost never refuses a wiretap and certainly wouldn't refuse a wiretap on someone who's supposedly linked with Al Qaeda. I think this sufficiently bollixes King George's argument about speed.

2. Unchecked Executive Power. King George claims he has sworn to defend the country and that his powers as commander-in-chief allow him the latitude to do what needs to be done in this pursuit. Consider the Congress emasculated because the president is in charge. Can't he then pretty much do whatever he wants under the guise of "protecting Americans." Take for instance the Patriot Act. Most of the provisions of the Patriot Act are responsible measures necessary to prosecute the war on terror (how I hate that phrase). If King George is so pissed at the Senate for not making permanent the Patriot Act because one or two provisions have nasty civil liberties implications, why doesn't he just declare these provisions necessary to protect the country based on his commander-in-chief powers? Govern by executive fiat.

3. He's briefed congress. I think King George's defense that he's "briefed congress" is the biggest red herring of them all. I say, "so what?" The law says you need a warrant from the courts to wiretap someone domestically. So he tells Congress? Shame on them for not raising a stink, but they're separate from the main point here. His notification of Congress just spreads out the blame a little bit.

4. International calls. Oh, hey, don't worry...these were all international calls. Since when is there a wiretap just for international calls? I'd like to trust the NSA to look at an incoming or outgoing number and upon seeing an international country code, put on their headphones. But really. They've made it quite clear that the goal of these taps is to prevent attacks. What's stopping a zealous wiretapper from listening to all calls hoping for a juicy nugget? I wish I could I say I trusted the government to do the right thing, but they've shown nothing but scorn for the law with respect to intelligence, torture, rendition, and political opponents (and probably lots of other things that we'll be learning about soon).

They don't have a cogent rationale for their actions circumventing law. Given that the existing law wouldn't have required much of an effort for compliance, it appears that they just thought it to be a hassle (or maybe quaint, in their parlance for the Geneva Conventions).

Update: And to take it to an Orwellian doomsday syllogism... We know that our own military has been spying on protesters in the name of national defense. The military claims that these protesters were a threat to military personnel or equipment, and this, therefore, justified their surveillance.

So, now it's obvious that there are those in the government/military that feel that criticizing the government endangers the military.

The president has the virtually unlimited power to do anything, including spying on Americans, against threats.

Therefore, if you criticize the government, you're fair game for wiretapping and surveillance.