Domestic Spying

The central idea behind domestic terrorist strategy is to demonstrate to a select population that their government is powerless to protect them from random death and destruction. At the same time, terrorist attacks force the government to protect itself, generally by creating an extensive security apparatus, and using hastily conceived and ill advised measures that the population considers repressive. The citizenry, under threat of attack and greatly inconvenienced by security measures, eventually turns against a government it sees as increasingly impotent and incompetent. By this means the terrorist hopes to use public pressure to force the government into changing its policies to whatever it is that the terrorist finds desirable. Or at least that’s the theory.

In our war on terror, the United States has yet to see this problem in more than a few peripheral ways. The United States has suffered only one major terrorist attack here at home, admittedly a rather spectacular one, and yet in the wake of 9/11 we somehow managed to get both Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. But as the conflict continues we may rest assured that in the name of national security our government will find more ways of catching suspected terrorists, and not incidentally irritating the daylights out of people like me.

I’m quite well aware that the only effective weapon we have against terrorism is reacting to timely and accurate intelligence. Intelligence that is going to be very difficult to gather and analyze due to the highly secretive nature of the enemy, and to the congressional emasculation of the CIA a few years back. Unfortunately, in this day of high-tech communications, a lot of that intelligence information will be in electronic format, which by its nature is a fleeting target for interception. The easy answer to that problem is of course a more or less permanent system of monitoring those electronic communications, and as the media is so prone to telling us, looking for “keywords”. It works to some extent, but the ready availability of effective computer encryption makes me wonder just what information is actually being intercepted. However, aside from the fact that I object to it on principle, I also have serious doubts about the legality of this “domestic spying” currently being carried out by the US government.

Article IV of the Bill of Rights protects us against unreasonable search and seizure. It requires that warrants be issued on a case by case basis, describing what is to be searched, and what is to be seized. I would take this to mean information in my e-mail as well as physical objects in my car, home, or business.

However, President Bush has, on his own authority, authorized the interception of international phone calls and e-mail to and from American citizens. Mr. Bush and his legal advisers claim the president is free to ignore the 1978 law requiring warrants for such wiretaps, as well as the Constitution, because the war on terror gives him commander-in-chief powers. But the administration also knows that the Supreme Court may not endorse this particular bit of political nonsense. So the administration has agreed with the Senate Judiciary Committee on a bill that is a mockery of American judicial process. Under the proposed bill, President Bush would have the option, but not an obligation, to ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to decide whether his spying program is constitutional. The surveillance court was created solely to review applications for surveillance warrants, and is certainly not the place to make a judgment of constitutional powers.

The case would be heard in secret, and only the governments case would be made because no one would be there to argue against it. There is not even a requirement that the final judgment be made public. Worst of all, if the government lost in the secret court, they could appeal. But if they won, there would be no appeal and the case could never go to the Supreme Court. Thus the spying could continue with congressional blessings.

America's courts are the only line of defense against this administrative assault on the balance of powers in the U.S. government, as Congress not only lacks the spine to stand up to the President, but is usually eager to accommodate him. In recent decades the administration has been steadily assuming more and greater power, slowly taking the reins of government away from both the Legislative and Judicial branches, which not only severely weakens our constitutional system of checks and balances, but quietly gives the US President dictatorial powers!

No, I don’t really think that this is some sort of “secret conspiracy” to take over the government. Rather I believe it’s the inevitable result of many factors which include a bad case of complacency on the part of the American voter, coupled with congressmen ignoring their proper duties, engrossed as they are in a continuous mad scramble to get re-elected. Perhaps they would be better engaged with jealously guarding the powers granted to congress by the constitution, rather than meekly handing those powers over to the administration.

In general I think that President Bush is probably doing about as well as can be expected under very trying circumstances. I also think that he and his advisors should read the history of the Roman Republic, and the means by which the Roman Senate managed to turn themselves into a rubber stamp for Caesar, thereby creating the Roman Empire, the most bloodthirsty and rapacious dictatorship the world has ever known.

Humm… Perhaps Roman history should be required reading for prospective legislators as well.