Administration’s Terrorism Fear Tactics Worked Again to Whip Democrats in Line

By Brigitte L. Nacos
After months of showcasing Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales’ unwillingness to tell the truth when testifying before congressional committees or speaking in public, enough Democrats in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House were unwilling to vote against “The Protect America Act of 2007” that expands the administration surveillance power far beyond the parameters of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and expands the surveillance authorization prerogatives of the attorney-general (in tandem with the director of national intelligence) who has serious truth-telling deficiencies. As Aziz Huq writes in The Nation,
The law's most important effect is arguably not its expansion of raw surveillance power but the sloughing away of judicial or Congressional oversight. In the words of former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, the law provides "unlimited access to currently protected personal information that is already accessible through an oversight procedure."
E.J. Dionne Jr. reveals in today’s Washington Post why the Democratic majority—especially in the House—did not stand up to the president but handed him and the Republican minority a victory. According to the Post columnist,
One anxiety hovered over the debate: If a terrorist attack happened and Congress had not given Bush what he wanted, the Democrats would get blamed for a lack of vigilance. "Could something happen over August?" Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.) asked in an interview. "Sure it could. What bothered me is that too many Democrats allowed that fear to turn into a demand for some atrocious legislation."

The spineless Democrats should know by now that they Republicans will criticize them as being soft on terrorism regardless of their votes and regardless whether terrorists manage another strike in the homeland or not. Nor can they justify their yeah votes with the 6-month sunset provision in the new law. According to the Center for National Security Studies,
"This legislation would sunset or expire in six months.  However, the sunset has an exception that would allow any directives by Attorney General Gonzales and Director of National Intelligence McConnell that commandeer access to US telephone and internet companies to remain in effect until their expiration (which is likely to be until the end of the administration since the directives can be issued for up to one year, so could be issued to last for the next six months and then reissued on the eve of the sunset, in January 2008, to remain in effect until this administration is finally over in January 2009)."   

The administration’s clever selection of patriotic names for what it sells as counterterrorism legislation combined with its post-9/11 fear tactics whipped Democrats once again in line. Just as Democrats could not bring themselves to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act, enough of them did not dare to oppose the new Protect America Act—for fear to be perceived as un-American, un-patriotic, and soft on terrorism. 

In his signing statement, President Bush emphasized that the surveillance targets are strictly foreigners but that is not born out by the actual language in the new law. Many commentators object to ambiguous language like “surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United   States. Nor does the text limit the expanded surveillance powers to terrorism-related matters. In an analysis of the legislation before Congress, The Center for National Security Studies wrote,   

"The administration approach would allow the NSA warrantless access to virtually all international communications of Americans with anyone outside the US, so long as the government declared that the surveillance was directed at anyone reasonably believed to be overseas.

There is no requirement that the surveillance be directed at suspected terrorists.

The administration approach would allow massive surveillance of Americans with no meaningful judicial oversight or individualized probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment."

Take the word “would” out of the above sentences. FISA Bill S. 1927 was adopted by both congressional chambers and signed into law as “The Protect America Act.” Yes, the administration deserves criticism—but even more so enough Democrats who should have and could have voted the bill down.

Comments

[Tony Facade]

it is "possible" that Gonz was referring to a slightly different surveillance program than congressional questioners were. We don't have enough info, and we never will. My biggest problem with this is that the Dems were trying to remove G from office, and voted to increase the very powers they were ?ing him about. I'm going Libertarian.

[Brigitte]

Tony: I doubt that Gonzales and congressional Democrats had different surveillance programs in mind--but even if this was the case, in the firing of U.S. attorneys, G. was not telling all he knew about the case.
One way or the other, I agree with you that Democrats cannot have it both ways--telling us that G. is actually not telling the truth and perhaps impeachable on the one hand and yet expanding his surveillance power on the other.