Domestic Spying (2)

Last week I expressed my views of the ongoing domestic spying case, wherein the NSA has been intercepting international telephone calls and e-mails, as a part of the war on terror. Between writing and press time, as most readers may have noticed, the situation changed somewhat.

Judge Anna Taylor of the U S District Court in Detroit ruled that the National Security Agency's program to wiretap the communications of some Americans without a court warrant violated both the Fourth Amendment and a 1978 law that requires warrants from a secret court for intelligence wiretaps involving people in the United States. She rejected the argument that a 2001 Congressional authorization and the president's constitutional authority allowed the wiretapping program.

"It was never the intent of the framers (of the constitution) to give the president such unfettered control, particularly when his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," she wrote. "The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another."

Since 9/11, congress has been falling all over itself in agreeing to the Presidents every whim, forgetting apparently that we elected them to represent us and execute our wishes, not to make crucial decisions for us without our consent. Forty years ago congress hurriedly passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, giving then President Johnson extraordinary authority for military action in South-east Asia. The result of that misstep was the Vietnam War. Following 9/11 we hurriedly got the Patriot Act, and now domestic spying. Perhaps the members of congress, rather than rubber stamping the administrations bright ideas, should go home and find out just what it is that their constituents desire?

All the weeping and wailing is presently about wiretapping and “national security”. But that is not the primary question. The judges ruling does not deny the president the right to conduct wiretaps. After all, government wiretaps are perfectly legal, and have been so ever since the engineers figured out how to connect a listening device to Mr. Bell’s magic wires. But a wiretap is legal if, and only if, a court order is issued authorizing that tap. I for one have no problem with wiretaps for catching criminals or terrorists, as long as they are conducted in a legal manner. A legal manner means that upon presentation of reasonable evidence the court will issue a warrant allowing the wiretap. Judge Taylor’s decision does not disallow wiretaps for any reason, but it does insist that the proper legal process be followed. It affirms that our government, as well as our citizens, are not above the law.

For the first time in decades I find myself in agreement with the ACLU, shocking as that is. I very certainly do expect the President of the United States to obey our laws! Some of us are old enough to remember when President Nixon forgot that fact, sent his minions to snoop around Watergate, and lost his job as a result. Our constitution is the law of the land, as I’ve previously said. It quite clearly states just what authority the three branches of our federal government have, what authority is reserved to the “several states”, and it also says in no uncertain terms that all other rights are reserved to the citizens of this nation. Thus, if our government wants to spy on us it may do so, but only with our permission. The government does not have the authority to interpret the law for its convenience. Although it often appears otherwise, the law is not a “living document” whose meaning changes on a daily basis! The US government exists as a servant of the people, not as our ruler, not as “big brother”, and certainly not to assume assorted dictatorial powers.

But for now one judge has done what 535 members of Congress have so abysmally failed to do. She has reasserted the rule of law and shown why issues of this kind belong within the constitutional process created more than two centuries ago to handle them. I do not expect her injunction to stand, but now the case will go to the Supreme Court, which is the proper place to decide the limits of presidential authority.

Judge Taylor has reaffirmed that in the United States of America no person or organization is above the law. And it’s high time our runaway government found that out.