Exodus at the NSA

If I worked for the National Security Agency anywhere near the warrantless surveillance program, I would be uploading my resume to Monster.com just as fast as my fingers could fly.

No matter how much money those people make, it's not enough to pay a Washington D.C. defense attorney for the duration of congressional hearings and perhaps a Justice Department investigation if the Democrats retake control of the House or Senate.

Today in Detroit, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the Bush administration's warrantless wiretap program, or terrorist surveillance program, violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, the U.S. Constitution's limitations on the powers of the president, and a federal law requiring a court's approval of national security wiretaps.

"There are no hereditary kings in America," Judge Taylor wrote, an unfortunately snide remark that will only strengthen the Bush administration's resolve to overturn her ruling on appeal. They will point out (wouldn't you, in their shoes?) that Judge Taylor was appointed to the bench by President Jimmy Carter, a man who this week gave an interview to Der Spiegel defending the right of Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists to take Israeli soldiers hostage because, in essence, Israel had it coming.

"I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon," the former president explained to the German publication, "What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no."

See how easy it is? You could almost win an election just by saying Judge Taylor reflects the views of the man who appointed her, the man who put the "soft" in soft on terror, the man who said he'd never use force when the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and everybody in it was held hostage for four hundred and forty-four days. These Democratic liberal judges, the argument goes, are putting the United States at risk of a terrorist attack, they want to give terrorists Miranda warnings, we're all gonna die if you don't vote Republican.

This is really unfortunate because, in fact, the U.S. Constitution does limit the power of the president. The commander-in-chief powers do not wipe out those limitations in time of war, not to mention the fact that the president doesn't have the constitutional authority to decide when the country is at war and when it is not.

By the way, Israel did not attack "the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza." Israel retaliated against militants who base their operations in civilian neighborhoods. The Israeli Defense Forces dropped leaflets and even called residents of buildings that were targeted to warn the civilians to get out immediately, for their own safety. And Israel did not engage in "massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon." It targeted roads, bridges and infrastructure used to bring weapons from outside Lebanon into the region north of Israel's border. Israel could have turned the country into a crater if it wasn't trying so hard to preserve the Lebanese government and spare civilian lives.

And this is the thanks they get.

If a heavily-armed militant group took up residence in northern Mexico or southern Canada and started addressing its grievances by coming over the U.S. border and kidnapping people, then firing rockets when we responded, would we focus solely on the civilians endangered by our response? Or would we frame the question this way: Who said a heavily-armed militant group has any right to occupy territory next to the U.S. border?

But back to the NSA wiretappers.

The reason they should quit their jobs and get out is that the Bush administration is not going to obey Judge Taylor's order to halt the warrantless wiretapping program. The administration will argue, successfully, no doubt, that the terrorist threat is severe and imminent and the judge's order must be stayed while the government appeals her decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

And all the while, the people who work in the NSA program will be putting their fingerprints on something that might be illegal.

If the Democrats take control of the House or Senate, there will certainly be hearings into the legality of the program. There will be subpoenas. The White House will tell the NSA employees not to comply with the subpoenas while one or another review takes place.

Perhaps the White House will seek a low-level employee to throw to the wolves. "Oh, my goodness," they will tell the New York Times on background, "the president certainly never authorized that."

And then there will be lawsuits against the phone companies that have cooperated with the NSA. There will be discovery. There will be subpoenas.

Perhaps the phone companies will say they were assured by a particular NSA employee that some particular aspect of the program was legal. Perhaps the White House will back that person up. Perhaps not.

Imagine two years of this. Imagine the meter running at five, six, seven hundred dollars an hour. Subpoenas. Depositions. Congressional hearings. Contempt of Congress charges. Leak investigations.

Now that one federal judge has officially ruled the program illegal, the "we thought it was legal" defense is going to become progressively more difficult.

NSA employees have two choices if they want to avoid all this: get out while there's still time, or start listening in on Democrats. If the wiretappers dump enough dirt into enough House and Senate races, the Republicans might be able to hang onto their gavels.

Like they say at the NSA, you heard it here first.


Copyright 2006

.