The Ghost of Terrorism Past

When I was a kid, my remarkable (it seemed to me) ability to exculpate myself from any situation in which I was accused of wrongdoing caused my mother often to say to me, “You have an answer for everything.”

The Bush team, like a child trying to squirm out of a difficult situation, seems to have an answer for everything. This past weekend, in response to allegations that he exceeded his powers by authorizing the National Security Agency (N.S.A.) to conduct a domestic spying program, the president acknowledged the existence of the program and admitted to authorizing the N.S.A. to eavesdrop on international phone calls, faxes, and e-mail correspondence of people within the United States without first seeking a warrant.

Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the F.B.I. and the N.S.A. must obtain search warrants from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court before conducting electronic surveillance of people suspected to be terrorists or spies. Since knowledge of the nation’s most secret intelligence gathering program was leaked to the press late last week, it has become a rallying cry of Senate opposition to controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, which is set to expire at the end of the month.

What has been the Bush administration’s response? First, Bush has accused those who oppose the Patriot Act of jeopardizing national security (no surprise there): “[A] minority of senators filibustered to block the renewal of the Patriot Act when it came up for a vote yesterday. That decision is irresponsible and it endangers the lives of our citizens.” Moving on to the domestic spying activities that were the subject of the leak, Bush called the highly classified program “a vital tool in our war against the terrorists.” He went on to say, “In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.” When in doubt, refer back to 9/11. But wait, it gets better.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has chimed in by arguing that the administration believed it needed greater speed and agility in investigating terrorism suspects than would have been possible had the investigation been bogged down by the cumbersome process of obtaining a warrant. She also alluded to “additional authorities granted [the president] in the Constitution” as he goes about his business of discharging his “obligation to detect and thereby prevent terrorist actions inside the United States.” Huh? Additional authorities?? What additional authorities??

Equally troubling is the Bush administration’s claim that domestic surveillance without a warrant does not, in fact, require the renewal of the Patriot Act because domestic spying has already been authorized by Congress, not through the passage of the Patriot Act, but by the resolution passed by Congress after 9/11 granting the president the authority to use military force in the War on Terror. Within the past 48 hours, both Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have defended the N.S.A. by citing not simply the events of 9/11, but the post-9/11 Congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force in Afghanistan. “Our position is that authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11, constitutes that other authorization… to engage in this kind of signals intelligence… We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance,” Gonzales said.

I had naïvely assumed that the Congressional resolution to use military force in Afghanistan was limited to Afghanistan, and was not intended broadly semper et ubique. If, using the Bush administration’s logic, that resolution could be applied to something as far-removed as a covert domestic surveillance program requiring no court approval, then why did the president need to seek Congressional approval to, say, wage war in Iraq? Hasn’t the administration always argued that the war in Iraq is part of the War on Terror? Same war, different front, right? Wasn’t Congressional approval for military action in Iraq superfluous then? By the Bush administration’s own reasoning, hadn’t Congress already given it?

Throughout our nation’s history, there have been many instances when presidential power and authority were expanded in times of war. The War on Terror is different. It is an ongoing, potentially endless struggle. Victory in such a vague and broadly conceived struggle is difficult to define. Many (including myself) would argue that the very way in which the war is waged guarantees its continuation indefinitely, by perpetuating an endless cycle of violence and retribution. In other words, we are making more enemies than we are killing.

The neocons themselves do not shy away from the assertion that the War on Terror is a broadly defined struggle to be waged indefinitely. Nor do they appear to have any problem citing the War on Terror to justify curtailing civil liberties. Have we then become a de facto dictatorship? If the Bush administration succeeds in making a tenuous connection between domestic spying without court approval and the Congressional resolution to go to war in Afghanistan, what’s next? Do they really believe that Congress gave the president carte blanche to circumvent the law back in October 2001? The problem is that clearly they do. Since 9/11 appears to cover a multitude of sins, then all bets are off and anything goes. That is, of course, unless the other two branches of the federal government, together with an informed citizenry, intervene to put on the brakes.