The Yin and Yang of Domestic Surveillance

American constitutional bible says -- thou shall not spy on the Americans thru either the CIA or NSA -- thou shall do it thru the FBI -- and only after obtaining the court order -- if you break the commandment you have broken the LAW -- of a country that is ruled by RULE OF LAW....that is NOT a banana republic......and not at the whims of a wish-I-was-a- dictator....president.

.......the ``complexity`` is more contrived than real.....for any legal gymnastic done to make a patently illegal act look legal under the blanket of fear-mongering and war-mongering....period

Delicate Dance for Bush in Depicting Spy Program as Asset

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 - With a campaign of high-profile national security events set for the next three days, following Karl Rove`s blistering speech to Republicans on Friday, the White House has effectively declared that it views its controversial secret surveillance program not as a political liability but as an asset, a way to attack Democrats and re-establish President Bush`s standing after a difficult year.

Whether the White House can succeed depends very much, members of both parties say, on its success in framing a complicated debate when the country is torn between its historic aversion to governmental intrusion and its recent fear of terrorist attacks at home.

Polls suggest that Americans are divided over whether Mr. Bush has the authority to order the searches without warrants that critics say violate the law and that the president says are legal and critical to the nation`s security.

But as the White House and Democrats are well aware, the issue can draw very different reactions depending on how it is presented. These next few days could prove critical, as both Mr. Bush and Congressional Democrats move aggressively to define what is at stake.

Americans may be willing to support extraordinary measures - perhaps extralegal ones - if they are posed in the starkest terms of protecting the nation from another calamitous attack. They are less likely to be supportive, members of both parties say, if the question is presented as a president breaking the law to spy on the nation`s own citizens.

Viewed from the perspective of the battles over the Homeland Security Act or the USA Patriot Act, this White House holds a tactical edge; it has repeatedly proved highly effective in defining complicated debates against the Democratic Party. Applying the campaign lessons of simplicity and repetition, Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove, his chief political adviser, have systematically presented arguments in accessible if sometimes exaggerated terms, and they have regularly returned to the theme of terrorism since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Mr. Rove`s speech on Friday to the Republican National Committee was a classic example. ``Let me be as clear as I can be: President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they`re calling and why,`` Mr. Rove said. ``Some important Democrats clearly disagree.``

Democrats - and, though Mr. Rove made no mention of this Friday, some Republicans, too - have indeed challenged the administration for eavesdropping without obtaining warrants. They argue, among other points, that the White House is bypassing legal mechanisms established in 1978 that already allow law enforcement agencies to move rapidly to monitor communications that might involve terrorists. Yet it is difficult to think of a Democrat who has actually argued that it is not ``in our national security interest`` to track Qaeda calls to the United States, as Mr. Rove contested; he did not offer any examples of whom he had in mind.

Beyond that tactical edge, the White House enjoys the advantage of its platform. The sheer crush of news media attention to a rare public speech by Mr. Rove could not have been lost on Democrats.

By contrast, there is no single Democrat who stands as the voice of opposition. That difference is likely to become particularly glaring this week, with a speech on Monday by Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the former head of the National Security Agency; a legal defense of the spying program on Tuesday by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales; and a visit by Mr. Bush to N.S.A. headquarters on Wednesday. This orchestrated campaign is the work of the same White House that initially offered a crouched, guarded response to the disclosure of the eavesdropping program last month.

Still, in many significant ways the task the White House faces now may prove more daunting than the battles it has waged on this terrain before.

A number of Republicans have joined Democrats in challenging the surveillance program, pointedly reminding the administration that precedents established today will be in place whenever a Democrat returns to power.

``A lot of Democrats?`` said one prominent Republican supporter of Mr. Bush, who did not want to be identified while being critical of a White House that famously does not brook criticism. ``Democrats, Karl? Republicans, too.``

David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, said: ``A lot of conservatives are very skeptical about it. It is not as clean-cut a political win as the administration thinks that it is.``

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is planning hearings on the surveillance program. And in an interview on Fox News on Sunday, Senator John McCain of Arizona said he did not think the president had the legal authority for this operation, adding that the White House should seek Congressional approval to alter the 1978 provisions if it thinks they are not working now.

Mr. McCain also came to the defense of Democrats in response to Mr. Rove`s suggestion that they were not committed to the nation`s security. ``Do I think that the president`s leadership has been worthy of support of our party and our leadership?`` he said. ``Yes. But there`s too many good Democrats over there who are as concerned about national security and work just as hard as I do.``

Beyond that, one Republican analyst who is skeptical about the White House strategy said Mr. Bush`s position was hardly helped by the fact that his credibility numbers have dropped along with his popularity since his re-election. Mr. Bush may find that, as some Democrats have suggested, the invocations of Sept. 11 do not have the force they once had.

For their part, Democrats said they have learned from their repeated defeats by this White House. The Democratic presidential candidate of 2004, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, said in an interview on Sunday that Mr. Rove and the White House were willfully distorting the Democratic position.

``He`s playing an old game,`` Mr. Kerry said. ``Every time they have a problem, they play the 9/11 card.``

``We all support surveillance - that`s where they are playing word games again,`` Mr. Kerry said. ``You can protect the safety of the American people and you can protect the Constitution.``

The political complexity of the issue was reflected in remarks by Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, a Republican, who, like Mr. Kerry, is considering a run for president. Speaking by telephone on a trip to Iowa, Mr. Romney at first offered full support for the president`s surveillance program.

``The eavesdropping is a big matter on the coasts for people who are inclined to dislike the president,`` Mr. Romney said. ``The great majority of Americans think it is the president`s first responsibility to protect the lives of the American citizens in an urgent setting where there is a threat of terrorism.``

But Mr. Romney called back a few moments later to make clear that he would have a different view if the program were found to be unlawful.

``I would never suggest that the president should break the law,`` he said. ``My guess is, my assumption is, he did not break the law. The president has a responsibility to follow the law, which I believe is likely to be found, but he also has a primary responsibility to protect the American people.``

David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting for this article.


(From New York Times, January 23, 2006)

only a man with less and less legal intelligence will need more and more illegal intelligence.....intelligence is like sex -- legally acquired makes it wholesome family matter -- illegally, illegal prostitution....and the man a criminal and a John

#24 by Urstruly on January 22, 2006 3:20pm PT


I`ve got all basis covered.


You`ve got the basis covered but Dubya owns the umpires..

Don`t worry I have legally changed my name to Thiruverubaradanbandarparsad. I`ve got all basis covered.

#22 by Urstruly on January 22, 2006 10:21am PT


on anonymous websites.


You`re not anonymous to the feds...

heck..your name is S Mohammad and you live in MI? Going by that, there`s a 1 in 3 chance that your name is Sadeq, Shukur or Srood//

#21 by arjun_m

Yes, and that is the reason, from now on, my perfect cover would be to adopt nick like arjunm or bandarparsad and post anti-Muslim, anti-Pak posts on anonymous websites.

#20 by Urstruly on January 22, 2006 9:14am PT

Bottom line: big brother is watching(you)...

Is that why you`ve reserved comment on the US bombign the cr@p out of paki citizens on paki soil?

#19 by arjun_m

President has bypassed the requirement of a subpoena thru a written Executive Order. Whether that EO was constitutional or not is all the bitching & moaning is about. The current deFacto and dejure status is that these agencies do not need subpoena to do demestic surveilence because of the EO, unless Supreme Court interferes and overturns the EO the surveilenece goes on. The agencies don`t stop doing what they do just because there is too much bitching and moaning in media, but they act on EOs or Supreme Court orders.

#18 by Urstruly on January 22, 2006 7:46am PT


They don`t need a subpoena to do that


Nope..the FBI needs a subpoena...the NSA needs a court order..whether the president will actually bother to get a court order is what`s being discussed..

#17 by arjun_m

They don`t need a subpoena to do that - Isn`t it what we are discussing here.

#16 by Urstruly on January 21, 2006 7:11pm PT


The only way to kill the beast is to understand the beast first.


Since the beast you`re referring to in your interact is probably America, I wouldn`t be surprised if chowk or netscape.net got a subpoena from the feds for their logs..or the NSA could just install some keylogging software on your PC directly...

#13 by arjun_m

The only way to kill the beast is to understand the beast first. For an American the word ``freedom` means riding a Harley Davidson and other man, the propaganda machinery, however, projects a false image just to misguide people of the third world.

hamidm2:
Thanks for your feedback which goes to the heart of my article. I am not a republican nor a hard-boiled democrat but the views that you have expressed in your feedback are very appropriate; I do easily relate to them. Recognition of the fundamental human values makes this country great and different (in the good sense) from many others. This recognition differentiates the ``yin`` from the ``yang`` in a way of speaking. Regards,
Mohammad Gill

...........even though i am an unashamed republican and would like to see bush take out osama, the ayatollahs in iran and the robed fools in riyadh, i think he is getting carried away by his enthusiasm ........ as maureen dowd points out :``It was hard to know which story yesterday was scarier: Osama bin Laden, still alive and taunting the U.S., or the Justice Department`s trying to force Google to turn over a suspiciously broad array of information on millions of users` searches and Web addresses, supposedly to investigate online crime involving pornography.``

............ as somone said, if you give in to irrational fear and start doing silly things like this, the terrorists win .........

#12 by Urstruly on January 20, 2006 7:41am PT

Where`s the real urstruly and what`ve you done with him?