Casual Causality
Hesiod tips me to an interesting Seattle Post-Intelligencer Report regarding FISA, the Bush Administration and domestic spying. The paper went over Justice Department reports to Congress and found that the special FISA Court acted uncannily like an independent oversight body - its statutory role - toward Bush Administration wiretap requests, rejecting or modifying (mostly the latter) 179 of them since 2001. Interestingly, the Post-Intelligencer reports that 173 of the 179 modifications came in 2003 and 2004, which leaves only 6 closer to the period four years ago in which the Administration was actually setting up the new FISA-bypassing surveillance program. The article and James Bamford (whom it quotes) suggest that the program caused the tinkering more than the tinkering caused the program - the FISA Court tightly monitored warrants because of its displeasure with whatever the Bush Administration had the NSA doing.
This fits with previous reports about FISA concerns that it might be approving warrants based on “tainted” (unapproved) surveillance. It makes the timing of Judge James Robertson’s resignation curious though. It seems likely that the FISA Court knew or suspected about the illegal program for most of its duration. Did Robertson really only find out about the expanded domestic spy program with this month’s repo rts? Was the public reporting the last straw somehow? What was his actual calculus last week and over the last four years?
What it shows, I think, is what you already suspected: just how inadequate the “checks and balances” are that we learned about in high school. We know a few members of Congress knew something about what the Executive was doing. We know a few members of the judiciary knew something about what the Executive was doing. We know a few members of the press knew something about what the Executive was doing. We know that none of them either stopped it or, for the longest time, publicized it. We know we missed our “accountability moment” because of the press - the not-just-useless but actively harmful New York Times especially.
What we don’t know would, of course, make a longer list.
Comment by Michigan Frog —
December 29, 2005 @ 1:52 pm
It’s about time somebody looked hard at the whole ”checks and balances” thing. I remember, in my younger days, being angered by the POTUS being called ”The Most Powerful Man in the World.” But, but… the entire US system was devised with checks and balances to ensure that no one man could wield power that way, or so I argued at the time.
I’m increasingly dismayed at the attitude of the jingoists who see no problem with the president acting extra-legally for the supposed safety of the nation, yet mock those of us who worry about the erosion of civil liberties. America is far from a fascist state, but I don’t think it’s sane to argue that it could never happen here, while at the same time allowing some of the basic checks against facism to be nibbled away.
Comment by Mr. Obscura —
December 30, 2005 @ 12:10 am
I’m with you, MJF. However, for those of you who really do believe ”it can’t happen here”, I refer you to the very long alternate history penned by Harry Turtledove. It starts with the book How Few Remain and runs through 8 (so far) more books in 3 trilogies, ”The Great War”, ”American Empire”, and ”Settling Accounts”. In the first the USA loses the Civil War (War Between the States for my southern friends; War of Northern Agression for my deep southern friends). The series paints a fascinating portrait of just how nearly the US has missed developing fascist tendencies, and informs my deep unease with the course of the current (and preceding) administration’s approach to civil liberties.
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
December 30, 2005 @ 10:55 am
I’ll check those out, Mr. Obscura. I did recently read ”The Plot Against America” by Philip Roth, which mines similar territory. Charles Lindbergh defeats FDR and the US sides with the Axis in WWII and antisemitism becomes official policy. It reads like a memoir, which makes it especially plausible.
Comment by Jeff —
December 30, 2005 @ 4:06 pm
Knowing what we know now, and knowing how easily we could have been made aware of it all prior to the election (and being left to speculate just what additional horrors await our discovery over the next three years), Bush’s talk of his ”accountability” moment makes my head explode. It was an irritating statement to begin with, but the fact that he KNEW what stories had been kept under raps by a useless press makes it all the worse.
Comment by Ravi —
December 31, 2005 @ 1:07 am
I think Judge Robertson waited until he could announce *why* he was resigning. Until the program was public he couldn’t explain his resignation - which pretty much defeats the purpose of a resignation on principle