A Time for Open Debate

I'd like to thank Garry for giving me the opportunity to post on his blog. I believe that one of the largest problems with our country's political system is that there is a lack of balanced and civilized debate. I hope that we can have both here on this site.

That being said, I think that most of what I will post on here will be debate topics--open-ended questions that deserve a serious look from both sides. Many of these questions will be posed from a leftist point of view--I am a liberal, of course--to a conservative audience, which I believe I have here.

Here we go with my first question (I'm still amazed that I'm posting on a conservative blog. It's kinda cool):

The following is a direct quote from President Bush in April of 2004:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires a— a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

We now know that this statement by the President was not true. For nearly three years prior to making this statement, the President had been authorizing warrantless wiretaps on people in America, who are protected by the Constitution that the President says he values.

Now, I know the arguments from the right that warrantless wiretaps are okay. I disagree with them for a number of reasons, but that's not the question I want to pose. There are hearings coming at the end of the month that will further this debate, and I will post more about it then.

My question is this: I believe that a certain president was raked over the coals by the Republican party for this untrue statement that he made to the press:

I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time-never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people.

Why were Republicans so quick to demand transparency and accountability from the Democratic president Bill Clinton, but seem very slow to even ask uncomfortable questions of President Bush? Is this a double standard? Why or why not?

As people post comments, I will post replies. I hope that we can have a civil debate and get to the heart of some core issues that are affecting our democracy.

To read more from me, including my latest post on the Cheney hunting accident, visit my blog Confessions of a Mormon Liberal or my homepage, where you can find some of my fiction writing and music.

Cheers,
Jeff


GARRY RESPONDS: Again, a warm welcome to Jeff, and please do visit the links to his blog and his homepage, you'll find them interesting I believe.

Regarding the Bush quote on wiretaps, my friend Jeff's premise is incorrect: the President did not authorize warrantless wiretaps "on people in America" - rather, the targets of these wiretaps were suspected terrorist operatives outside the United States. Given the broad swath of electronic communications that the NSA intercepts from these suspects (about 5,000 - 7,000 are monitored at any given time, according to the original NY Times article on the program), it is not surprising that some of the intercepts will involve a party located within the United States.

But that is certainly not the same thing as making specific persons within the U.S. the primary object of such surveillance; as the NYT piece said, NSA "still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications". Perhaps the President should have been more specific in his statement, and instead of saying "a wiretap requires a court order", should have said "some types of wiretaps require court orders but others do not, and decades of established case law - not to mention legal opinions and executive orders issued by previous presidents - give the executive branch broad authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of electronic intercepts in protecting the nation from foreign enemies." At which point the audience might have fallen asleep, but what the heck.

As to Clinton, I never had a problem with that particular lie in front of the press corps. Politicians lying to the media is as American as apple pie, especially in the realm of sex. If I was ever president, my entire cabinet would be made up of Hooters girls and there'd be White House parties that would make Tailhook look like a Baptist (or Mormon?) church social. The problem was when Clinton lied under oath, induced others to give false testimony under oath, and suppressed evidence sought by the courts.

Questions for Garry:

In the same paragraph that says 5000-7000 overseas persons are monitored, the Times reports that "the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time." How does this fit into your argument that American persons are not the "targets" of the wiretaps? These 500 people are put on a "list" according to the Times, and members of that list are monitored. Wouldn't that mean that they were "primary objects" of warrantless wiretaps?

You claim above that this program is supported by "decades of established case law." In that case, it should be easy to find a Supreme Court case that upholds the President's authority to perform warrantless wiretaps without a court order on persons in the United States since the FISA law was enacted in 1978. Alberto Gonzalez couldn't find one; would you please supply that information for me? I'll even take an appellate court ruling that affirms the same.

I believe that the "executive orders" to which you refer are from Clinton and Carter. Have you read the entire text of both executive orders, or just the snippet that was mis-represented by Drudge and other conservative blogs? If you haven't, you can find a good version of them under number 4 here (You might find the others points interesting as well).

Lastly, I share your cynicism of politicians lying to the media. I would suggest, however, that if President Bush were ever to testify under oath, he might fall victim to the same problems Clinton had. I guess he learned from his ill-fated predecessor.

I look forward to your answers.

Cheers,
Jeff