You are herecontent / George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably

George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably


By John W. Dean, FindLaw.com

Both claimed that a president may violate Congress's laws to protect national security

On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

It was a long story loaded with astonishing information of lawbreaking at the White House. It reported that sometime in 2002, Bush issued an executive order authorizing NSA to track and intercept international telephone and/or email exchanges coming into, or out of, the U.S. - when one party was believed to have direct or indirect ties with al Qaeda.

Initially, Bush and the White House stonewalled, neither confirming nor denying the president had ignored the law. Bush refused to discuss it in his interview with Jim Lehrer.

Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense.

There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.

These parallel violations underscore the continuing, disturbing parallels between this Administration and the Nixon Administration - parallels I also discussed in a prior column.

Indeed, here, Bush may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope. First reports indicated that NSA was only monitoring foreign calls, originating either in the USA or abroad, and that no more than 500 calls were being covered at any given time. But later reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows.

In sum, this is big-time, Big Brother electronic surveillance.

Given the national security implications of the story, the Times said they had been sitting on it for a year. And now that it has broken, Bush has ordered a criminal investigation into the source of the leak. He suggests that those who might have felt confidence they would not be spied on, now can have no such confidence, so they may find other methods of communicating. Other than encryption and code, it is difficult to envision how.

Such a criminal investigation is rather ironic - for the leak's effect was to reveal Bush's own offense. Having been ferreted out as a criminal, Bush now will try to ferret out the leakers who revealed him.

Nixon's Wiretapping - and the Congressional Action That Followed

Through the FBI, Nixon had wiretapped five members of his national security staff, two newsmen, and a staffer at the Department of Defense. These people were targeted because Nixon's plans for dealing with Vietnam - we were at war at the time - were ending up on the front page of the New York Times.

Nixon had a plausible national security justification for the wiretaps: To stop the leaks, which had meant that not only the public, but America's enemies, were privy to its plans. But the use of the information from the wiretaps went far beyond that justification: A few juicy tidbits were used for political purposes. Accordingly, Congress believed the wiretapping, combined with the misuse of the information it had gathered, to be an impeachable offense.

Following Nixon's resignation, Senator Frank Church chaired a committee that investigated the uses and abuses of the intelligence derived from the wiretaps. From his report on electronic surveillance, emerged the proposal to create the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Act both set limits on electronic surveillance, and created a secret court within the Department of Justice - the FISA Court - that could, within these limits, grant law enforcement's requests to engage in electronic surveillance.

The legislative history of FISA makes it very clear that Congress sought to create laws to govern the uses of warrantless wiretaps. Thus, Bush's authorization of wiretapping without any application to the FISA Court violated the law.

Whether to Allow Such Wiretaps Was Congress's Call to Make

No one questions the ends here. No one doubts another terror attack is coming; it is only a question of when. No one questions the preeminent importance of detecting and preventing such an attack.

What is at issue here, instead, is Bush's means of achieving his ends: his decision not only to bypass Congress, but to violate the law it had already established in this area.

Congress is Republican-controlled. Polling shows that a large majority of Americans are willing to give up their civil liberties to prevent another terror attack. The USA Patriot Act passed with overwhelming support. So why didn't the President simply ask Congress for the authority he thought he needed?

The answer seems to be, quite simply, that Vice President Dick Cheney has never recovered from being President Ford's chief of staff when Congress placed checks on the presidency. And Cheney wanted to make the point that he thought it was within a president's power to ignore Congress' laws relating to the exercise of executive power. Bush has gone along with all such Cheney plans.

No president before Bush has taken as aggressive a posture - the position that his powers as commander-in-chief, under Article II of the Constitution, license any action he may take in the name of national security - although Richard Nixon, my former boss, took a similar position.

Presidential Powers Regarding National Security: A Nixonian View

Nixon famously claimed, after resigning from office, that when the president undertook an action in the name of national security, even if he broke the law, it was not illegal.

Nixon's thinking (and he was learned in the law) relied on the precedent established by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. Nixon, quoting Lincoln, said in an interview, "Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation."

David Frost, the interviewer, immediately countered by pointing out that the anti-war demonstrators upon whom Nixon focused illegal surveillance, were hardly the equivalent of the rebel South. Nixon responded, "This nation was torn apart in an ideological way by the war in Vietnam, as much as the Civil War tore apart the nation when Lincoln was president." It was a weak rejoinder, but the best he had.

Nixon took the same stance when he responded to interrogatories proffered by the Senate Select Committee on Government Operations To Study Intelligence Operations (best know as the "Church Committee," after its chairman Senator Frank Church). In particular, he told the committee, "In 1969, during my Administration, warrantless wiretapping, even by the government, was unlawful, but if undertaken because of a presidential determination that it was in the interest of national security was lawful. Support for the legality of such action is found, for example, in the concurring opinion of Justice White in Katz v. United States." (Katz is the opinion that established that a wiretap constitutes a "search and seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, just as surely as a search of one's living room does - and thus that the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements apply to wiretapping.)

Nixon rather presciently anticipated - and provided a rationalization for - Bush: He wrote, "there have been - and will be in the future - circumstances in which presidents may lawfully authorize actions in the interest of security of this country, which if undertaken by other persons, even by the president under different circumstances, would be illegal."

Even if we accept Nixon's logic for purposes of argument, were the circumstances that faced Bush the kind of "circumstances" that justify warrantless wiretapping? I believe the answer is no.

Is Bush's Unauthorized Surveillance Action Justified? Not Persuasively

Had Bush issued his Executive Order on September 12, 2001, as a temporary measure - pending his seeking Congress approval - those circumstances might have supported his call.

Or, had a particularly serious threat of attack compelled Bush to authorize warrantless wiretapping in a particular investigation, before he had time to go to Congress, that too might have been justifiable.

But several years have passed since the broad 2002 Executive Order, and in all that time, Bush has refused to seek legal authority for his action. Yet he can hardly miss the fact that Congress has clearly set rules for presidents in the very situation in which he insists on defying the law.

Bush has given one legal explanation for his actions which borders on the laughable: He claims that implicit in Congress' authorization of his use of force against the Taliban in Afghanistan, following the 9/11 attack, was an exemption from FISA.

No sane member of Congress believes that the Authorization of Military Force provided such an authorization. No first year law student would mistakenly make such a claim. It is not merely a stretch; it is ludicrous.

But the core of Bush's defense is to rely on the very argument made by Nixon: that the president is merely exercising his "commander-in-chief" power under Article II of the Constitution. This, too, is a dubious argument. Its author, John Yoo, is a bright, but inexperienced and highly partisan young professor at Boalt Law School, who has been in and out of government service.

To see the holes and fallacies in Yoo's work - embodied in a recently published book - one need only consult the analysis of Georgetown University School of Law professor David Cole in the New York Review of Books. Cole has been plowing this field of the law for many years, and digs much deeper than Yoo.

Since I find Professor Yoo's legal thinking bordering on fantasy, I was delighted that Professor Cole closed his real-world analysis on a very realistic note: "Michael Ignatieff has written that 'it is the very nature of a democracy that it not only does, but should, fight with one hand tied behind its back. It is also in the nature of democracy that it prevails against its enemies precisely because it does.' Yoo persuaded the Bush administration to untie its hand and abandon the constraints of the rule of law. Perhaps that is why we are not prevailing."

To which I can only add, and recommend, the troubling report by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, who are experts in terrorism and former members of President Clinton's National Security Council. They write in their new book The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting It Right, that the Bush Administration has utterly failed to close the venerable loopholes available to terrorist to wreak havoc. The war in Iraq is not addressing terrorism; rather, it is creating terrorists, and diverting money from the protection of American interests.

Bush's unauthorized surveillance, in particular, seems very likely to be ineffective. According to experts with whom I have spoken, Bush's approach is like hunting for the proverbial needle in the haystack. As sophisticated as NSA's data mining equipment may be, it cannot, for example, crack codes it does not recognize. So the terrorist communicating in code may escape detection, even if data mining does reach him.

In short, Bush is hoping to get lucky. Such a gamble seems a slim pretext for acting in such blatant violation of Congress' law. In acting here without Congressional approval, Bush has underlined that his Presidency is unchecked - in his and his attorneys' view, utterly beyond the law. Now that he has turned the truly awesome powers of the NSA on Americans, what asserted powers will Bush use next? And when - if ever - will we - and Congress - discover that he is using them?

--------

John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Wow!!! This was an incredible piece from John Dean and John Dean definitely knows this Patriarchal Fascist game of "The End Justifies The Means" double-standards.

For the Newbies, The Discovery Channel did a pretty gosh darn good three part series entitled "WATERGATE" in 1995 where you can watch the beginning, middle and end of this Fascist Power Play with the same Machiavellian arguments of pretzel "logic" that the "Grand Old Party" has been using since the time of Lincoln. (Yup, right up there with Dr. "Mushroom Cloud" Rice's "Torture Saves Lives" arguments)

WATERGATE -Discovery Channel
Volume 1 - A Third Rate Burglary
Volume 2 - The Conspiracy Crumbles
Volume 3 - The Fall of a President
(http://www.inetvideo.com/video/detail.cfm?movieid=01-074954)

Most libraries should have it either in VHS or DVD, if you don't mind the "NSA/FBI/HOMELAND_SECURITY spooks watching you" (boooga-booga!!)

You get to see all the players in action. . . Dean, Mitchell, Nixon, Ford, Woodward & Bernstein (back when they were cool). Once you learn the positions of the players in this classic fascist power play, you can match up all the current players (Rumsfeld, Chaney, Rice, Bush) to their previous counterparts. (I'll get you started . . Bush=Nixon . . .lol)

Of course, you never find out who really killed Martha Mitchell or what was in the Democratic Headquarters that Nixon wanted/needed so badly . . . I'm sure it had nothing to do with Dallas in '63, though. . . that's just "crazy" talk. . .

"Do you remember, your president Nixon?
Do you remember, the bills you have to pay
Or even yesterday?"
- Young Americans by David Bowie

peace.

the damn right wing propagandists keep trying to say that CLINTON and CARTER did the same thing. Unfortunately, the popular media is reporting that as fact, unquestioned. the truth is that carter and clinton specifically ADHERED to the law, including certification by the A.G. and filing with the fisa court. i.e. they are accused of USING fisa. george is accused of VIOLATING fisa. not same. opposite. What they don't seem to get through their pea brains is that if george sets the precedent that it's within a president's rights to spy with impunity, they are giving EVERY president from now on this right, not just their hero george. remember, after 9/11, he stated specifically that this war would not be won in our lifetime, possibly not in our grandchildren's lifetimes. so they must ask themselves:" do I want to give hillary clinton the right to spy on her political opponents and anyone else she chooses, unchecked?" because that is what they are doing. they don't seem to grasp this basic fact.

Note that I am not endorsing hillary clinton, I just used her because she's the one that seems to raise rush limbaugh's blood pressure the most.

Greetings All Citizens of Cyber World ~
As one of the ‘haves’ I wish we all had Internet Access to learn from such educated men of courage as Senor Dean. We should not assume we will always have the Internet as we do right now. I am sure wicked ones in high places hate the free flow of ideas, opinions and analyses as we have at this time via the Internet. Circumstances change in time, place and terrain. It should be clear that the Bush Rogue Regime led by the odious Oval Office Cabal has brought about a breakdown of just law and rational order inside the United States. How can we expect others to obey laws that we ourselves do not obey?

Senor Dean has given a good legal analysis of the misdeeds of Puppet-Fuhrer Bush and his futile attempts to masks its illegal wiretapping and surveillance.

Let us hope that the Congress will have the courage to submit Articles of Impeachment against Bush to curtail the flagrant violations of law by the Bushwack Gang. There is only one word to state what is to be done:

Main Entry: 1im·peach
Pronunciation: im-'pEch
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English empechen, from Middle French empeechier to hinder, from Late Latin impedicare to fetter, from Latin in- + pedica fetter, from ped-, pes foot -- more at FOOT
1 a : to bring an accusation against b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
2 : to cast doubt on; especially : to challenge the credibility or validity of
3 : to remove from office especially for misconduct
- im·peach·able /-'pE-ch&-b&l/ adjective
- im·peach·ment /-'pEch-m&nt/ noun

Amerikan Fascism has been ‘in power and secure’ for decades, certainly since the end of World War II. It is sly, subtle and scientific.

Combat Amerikan Fascism!
Peter S. Lopez {aka Peta} ~ Coordinator
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Humane-Rights-Agenda/
http://humane-rights-agenda.blogspot.com/
<+><+><+><+><+><+><+><+><+><+><+><+>

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

CHOOSE LANGUAGE

Support This Site

Donate.

Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.

 

Sponsors:

Speaking Truth to Empire

***

Families United

***

Ray McGovern

***

Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.

 

Ads:

Find the perfect Purple Bridesmaid Dresses for your bridesmaids from Queeniebridesmaid.co.uk

 

*****

 

Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on Ca-Dress.com

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.