The Comey Testimony
This is all too believable, but it needs some further explanation.
First, as many of you may be aware, I favor the NSA's data-mining operation. As I understand it, it works like this: it's a front-end computer program that is used to detect patterns of phone calls or emails coming into the US from known terror suspects overseas. If we arrest Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the program finds a pattern of calls from his cell phone to, say, a number in New York--and, further, that the recipient of the calls is his stockbroker, then the NSA can go to FISA court and ask for a warrant to check out the stockbroker's private records to see if KSM was selling Spanish stocks before the Madrid bombings. The problem was that all the front-end activity--monitoring thousands of calls (but not tapping them, as I understand it)--was illegal under existing FISA law, mostly because it was new technology that the law hadn't anticipated.
Now, what would a reasonable President do? He would ask for a revision of the FISA law to include data-mining. Not Bush. He insisted--to the outrageous extent described by Comey--on his Executive Privilege to declare data-mining legal. Why did he do this?
Because he believed the power of the President had been eroded and he had to make a firm Executive Privilege stand? Perhaps, initially. But ultimately this was politics: He and, no doubt, Rove figured the Democrats would make a civil liberties squawk and they'd be able to make the soft-on-terrorism argument in the 2006 elections, diverting attention from Iraq and all the other failures on his watch.
They tried in 2006, you may recall. But it didn't work. The story became "illegal wiretapping" in media shorthand (somewhat inaccurately), and it's in the American DNA, conservative and liberal, to be sensitive about such things. Quietly, with the election past in January, Bush put the NSA operation under the control of the FISA court.
I continue to believe in the importance of a carefully monitored, legal data-mining operation. I suspect most Americans would, too, if it were described to them in detail. But in this case, as in almost every case, the Bush Administration chose to play politics with a matter of national security, further dividing the country. What a plague he has been.
Add Your Comment:
Most Popular »
- Best of the Decade: Sci-Fi Movies
- Is Harry Reid Burning Out?
- How Will Obama Pay For Stimulus 2.1? (or 3.0, 3.1, whatever you want to call it)
- "How Will Dave Ever Make Fun of Sex Scandals Again?"
- Why Wells Fargo isn't paying back TARP
- CNN Poll: Man Made Global Warming Takes a Hit
- The Health Reform Abortion Wars, Part Deux
- War of the Supermen: Q&A With Matt Idelson
- Quinnipiac: Obama Gets Bump on Afghanistan
- Economists Growing More Wary of the Senate Health Bill
- The Truth Behind the Leaked Climate-Change E-Mails
- Mexico Witness Protection: Corrupt Program, New Killings
- Tiger Woods Must Face His Fans' Moral Outrage
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Taiwan: World's Lowest Birthrate Could Affect Society
- Creating Jobs: Can Obama Government Boost Employment?
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
- Time to Give Up the Ghost on bin Laden
- Humanure: Goodbye, Toilets. Hello, Extreme Composting
- Study: Parents' Sex Talks with Kids Happening Too Late













RSS