Domestic wiretapping: President Bush and the rule of law

Last updated on: February 26, 2006 at 2:38 pm by Hesham Hassaballa

Domestic wiretapping: President Bush and the rule of law 2006-02-26T14:38:00-04:00 Hesham Hassaballa

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Stop watching me

It was a devastating attack that took the United States completely by surprise and forever awakened Americans from the slumber of confidence that the two seas protected them from harm. Within days of the attack, Congress passed a resolution authorizing the President to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against those responsible for the terrorist attack, namely Al Qaeda. Soon afterwards, American warplanes bombarded Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda was being sheltered by the soon-to-be-ousted Taliban regime.

Yet, also soon afterwards – and unbeknownst to the American people – the National Security Agency (NSA) began to spy on Americans without a warrant as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Streams of emails, telephone numbers, email addresses, and names of possible suspects were sent to the FBI by the NSA, and FBI agents were sent to check out the tips. This domestic spying program only came to the attention of the American people after it was publicly disclosed by the New York Times late last year, and it caused an uproar among politicians and ordinary American alike.

In fact, U.S. District Judge James Robertson, a federal judge who served on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court that reviews government requests for secret eavesdropping to gather intelligence on potential U.S. enemies, quit in protest over the Bush Administration’s domestic surveillance program. The New York Center for Constitutional Rights said in a statement, “Apparently Judge Robertson did not want to aid and abet criminal NSA electronic surveillance.”

Bush Administration officials, for their part, have vigorously defended the program. They have said that the program is limited to eavesdropping on U.S. residents in contact with individuals overseas suspected of having links to Al Qaeda. President Bush has characterized the program as a “vital tool” against terrorism, and Vice President Dick Cheney, who was actively involved in the creation of the NSA program, has defended it as “critical to the national security of the United States.” National Intelligence Director John Negroponte told a congressional panel on Feb 2: “This was not about domestic surveillance. It was about dealing with the international terrorist threat in the most agile and effective way possible.”

Moreover, Republicans are planning to use this program as a political tool against the Democrats this election season. At the winter meeting of the Republican National Committee, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove said: “At the core, we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security. Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview.” He criticized Democrats for “wild and reckless and false charges” against President Bush on the issue of domestic spying, and RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman asked, “Do Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean really think that when the NSA is listening in on terrorists planning attacks on America, they need to hang up when those terrorists dial their sleeper cells in the United States?”

Such rebuttals against the criticisms of the domestic spying program are misplaced, if not misleading. None of the critics of the NSA’s surveillance program – including myself – have criticized the goals of the program. As an American citizen, I expect my government to be spying on those individuals – American citizens or otherwise – who are plotting terrorist attacks against my country. I expect my government to detain any individual – American citizen or otherwise – who is in my country with plans to harm her citizens. I expect my government to interrogate terrorist suspects who are picked up anywhere in the world, so that ongoing or future terrorist plots against my country are foiled. Failing to do any of these tasks would be nothing short of criminal.

Yet, I expect my government to do said tasks within the framework of the law. It seems that the domestic surveillance program failed to do so. A report by the Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress, concluded that warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments. According to the report, Congress expressly intended for the government to seek warrants from a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before conducting such surveillance when it passed legislation creating the court in 1978.

What I am saying, therefore, is not that spying against Americans colluding with terrorists is wrong, quite the opposite. I am simply saying that the government should get a warrant to do so. And obtaining such a warrant is not that difficult. Last year, according to a report to Congress, the FISA court received 1,758 warrant requests, and it approved all but four. Thus, why the Bush Administration would choose to bypass the court and spy on Americans without a warrant is utterly perplexing.

The same goes for the detention and interrogation of terror suspects. I am not saying we should not detain those who may do harm to our country. No. All I am saying is that we should not indefinitely detain those individuals without charge. I am not saying that we should not interrogate terror suspects. No. All I am saying is that we should not torture said suspects, or export them to other countries to do the torturing for us.

This is because we are a nation that lives by the rule of law. It is the foundation of our country, our society, and our values. We are not like our enemy, who has absolutely no respect for neither the rule of law nor the value of human life. If we compromise on our values simply because our enemy is brutal and inhuman, then everything America stands for, everything that has been done on behalf of America will have been for nothing. America is much too valuable to let that happen.

At a recent Senate Intelligence Committee meeting, Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) suggested that Democrats are more focused on civil liberties than threats from terrorists: “I would only point out that you really don’t have any civil liberties if you dead.” Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV), ranking member of the Committee, responded that he was “strongly for the goals” of disrupting domestic terror plots, as every American is. Yet, he also added – and this is the crux of my argument – that he wants “it to be done under the law. And so should you. That’s what keeps our country together.”

Hesham A. Hassaballa is a Chicago physician and writer. He is the co-author of “The Beliefnet Guide to Islam,” published by Doubleday in 2006. His blog is at godfaithpen.com.

Commentary

Hesham Hassaballa

Previous Post

February 24, 2006

Dubai Ports controversy: Irrational fear, your ship has come in

Next Post

February 26, 2006 Muslims in the US: Why is Halliburton building internment camps?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2012 Elections 30 Dayd 30 Writers (2017) 30 Days 30 Writers 30 Days 30 Writers (2015) 30 Days 30 Writers (2016) 30 Days 30 Writers (2018) 30 Days 30 Writers 2017 Ali Asadullah Ali Eteraz Alper Bilgili Arthur Richards Asides Asma Uddin Black History Month Briefings Charles Turner Commentary Cyrus McGoldrick Eman H Aly Fatimah Popal Hajj Hajj and Dhul Hijjah Hesham Hassaballa Hisham Hellyer Ibrahim Abusharif Inas Younis Irfan Yusuf Jalal Baig Junaid Afeef Laila Alawa Laila Alwala Mas'ood Cajee Muqtedar Khan Nakia Jackson Newsmakers Parvez Ahmed Podcasts Rabia Chaudry Rafia Zakaria Ramadan Reviews Safiyyah Ally Saud Inam Shahed Amanullah Svend White The Opinionated Oncologist Visions Wajahat Ali Zahed Amanullah Zahir Janmohamed Zainab Khan

Select a Month November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Golgotha" mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Place of the Skull Valley of Death House of Bread Mountain of God