"the Bush Administration engaged in these illegal acts not accidentally, but based on its extraordinary and plainly tyrannical view '

Saturday, December 17, 2005
The New York Times' complicity in Bush's illegal eavesdropping

Link here

The more I think about the revelation yesterday that the Bush Administration eavesdropped on the communications of American citizens in clear and deliberate violation of the Foreign Intelligence Security Act -- based on its expressly stated view that the President is not bound by the law in times of even undeclared war because the President is the law -- the more I think this will be the most lingering and significant story of the Bush Administration, and perhaps its undoing. It almost has to be, for the reasons I set forth in the post below.

But almost as staggering is the fact that The New York Times knew about these illegal acts on the part of the Administration for a full year and kept its mouth shut until yesterday because the Administration asked it to. There is absolutely no justification at all for the Times covering up these illegal acts on the part of the Government for a full year.

It is not, of course, uncommon for newspapers to learn about government secrets but refrain from publishing those secrets where their disclosure would: (a) serve no journalistic purpose and promote no public pood and (b) endanger national security. If, for instance, a newspaper learns about imminent troop movements in a time of war, almost every newspaper would refrain from publishing that information, as it should, because there is no value in publishing it and its dislcosure would endanger American soldiers.

But neither of those circumstances which justify concealment of information by a newspaper -- namely, the lack of a legitimate public interest or harm to national security -- even arguably applies here.

The significance of this story is not that the Bush Administration was eavesdropping on the communications of suspected terrorists -- of course it was doing that. The huge story is that it was doing so illegally by failing to first obtain judicial approval and/or complying with FISA procedures for when a warrant is unnecessary. And, worse, the Bush Administration engaged in these illegal acts not accidentally, but based on its extraordinary and plainly tyrannical view that it is not bound by Congressional restrictions when it acts with regard to the nation's national security.

It is not even theoretically possible that disclosure of the illegal nature of the eavesdropping could endanger national security such that the Times was warranted in helping the Administration to conceal this patent law- breaking. Everyone, presumably including terrorists, assumed the Administration has been eavesdropping on conversations of those whom it suspects of engaging in terrorism.

That the Government eavesdrop is not news because the Government is permitted to eavesdrop provided that it complies with the provisions of FISA. Just like the Government is not permitted to come to your house and break down your door and search through your house unless it has a warrant from a court allowing it to do so, so, too, is the Government barred from eavesdropping on such conversations unless it first obtains judicial approval or complies with FISA provisions for those circumstances in which it need not do so.

The Times would never publish a story simply reporting that the Government has been eavesdropping on suspected terrorists because to do so is simply to state the obvious. The newsworthy component of the story here is not that the Government was doing these things, but that it was doing them illegally and in violation of FISA because it believes it has the right to do so. What possible justification exists for the Times to sit on that story for a year, allowing the Government to deliberately engage in illegal behavior against American citizens while the Times says nothing?

Once the Times finally re-discovered its journalistic purpose and published this story yesterday, they apparently realized that they never had any excuse for waiting a year to do so.

Continues.... Must Read