Today's Article
American history
proves that you can't
trust the president
with absolute power.
proves that you can't
trust the president
with absolute power.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Ex-Surveillance Judge Criticizes Spying On America
By Cliff Montgomery - July 8th, 2007
A federal judge who previously authorized government wiretaps in possible espionage and terrorism cases
recently criticized George W. Bush's decision to order warrantless spying on citizen and non-citizen alike after
the attacks on Sept. 11th, 2001.
"We have to understand you can fight the war [on terrorism] and lose everything if you have no civil liberties left
when you get through fighting the war," Royce Lamberth, a U.S. District Court judge in D.C. and former
presiding justice of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), pointed out during a speech at the
American Library Association's yearly convention in June.
Lamberth, a Reagan federal branch appointee, clearly isn't speaking out of partisanship. The good judge has
enough common sense and experience to know that no one man, be he president, king, or tyrant, should ever
possess exclusive right to decide who will be spied upon by their government. Actions in the name of "security"
make no one secure when the outcome destroys liberty.
"What we have found in the history of our country is that you can't trust the executive," said Lamberth.
"Judges understand the war has to be fought, but it can't be at all costs," declared Lamberth at the
Washington Convention Center.
"We still have to preserve our civil liberties. Judges are the kinds of people you want to entrust that kind of
judgment to more than the executive," he added.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which Lamberth headed from 1995 to 2002, is a rather shadowy
and secretive institution in its own right.
Under secret reviews, FISC rules on applications from the National Security Agency, the FBI and other
American spy agencies. Each application vies for wiretap and/or search warrants for citizen and non-citizen
alike, whom the agency thinks is engaging in 'suspicious activity'.
Does it protect liberty? It's all done in secret, so only the participants really know--we just have to take their
word that it does.
As a presumed "check" on a system so clearly open to abuse, each application needs the signature of the
attorney general--but in his previous administration job as legal council, current Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales once told this president that the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions should now be
considered quaint and "obsolete", in that order.
And how often has the court questioned any spying demands of this administration, which may have included
requests to spy on Americans whose only 'suspicious activity' was to engage in a public protest of the Bush
Presidency? Almost never; FISC has granted more than 99 percent of Bush spying requests.
Just after the Sept. 11th attacks, Bush clearly decided that if he were going to "preserve, protect and defend"
the Constitution, he would have to destroy every last bit of it. Considering liberty a weakness, and tyranny his
only strength, he authorized the NSA spying program, which allowed the agency to spy on phone calls
between people in America and 'suspicious people' abroad without warrants.
Our new Duce then claimed he needed to move more quickly than either freedom or the checks and balances
of the surveillance court would allow. And in a final gluttony of gall, he added that he has "inherent authority"
under the Constitution to destroy every citizens' rights recognized by the Constitution, including those
recognized by the Fourth Amendment, which outlaws "unreasonable search and seizure".
Such absurd ramblings could only provoke laughter in any thinking lover of liberty, if the claims hadn't actually
worked. Such is the error of substituting fear for reason, or "security" for liberty.
The simple truth? The Constitution doesn't have the authority to create rights--not for the career politician in
the White House who thinks he's a king, or for any other citizen.
Laws and parchments cannot create rights; they can only recognize them.
And in America, as in every other freedom-loving country, the rights naturally belong with the people, not with
the politicians. That was the very point of the American Revolution, and of every revolution fought in the name
of liberty and natural right.
Serving in the people's name--whether as president, or in any other capacity--is instead a privilege, allowed only
as long as the politician doesn't begin to believe he's the one with the inherent rights, rather than the people.
Such rights therefore remain with the people--especially when they're in danger, and most need the freedoms
they naturally possess, and the checks and balances of government they rightly deserve.
The NSA program eventually became public knowledge and was fought in court; Bush put the program under
court supervision earlier this year.
But he still claims the natural right to spy on anyone he likes, for any reason that pleases him. And so a tyrant
he remains.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
By Cliff Montgomery - July 8th, 2007
A federal judge who previously authorized government wiretaps in possible espionage and terrorism cases
recently criticized George W. Bush's decision to order warrantless spying on citizen and non-citizen alike after
the attacks on Sept. 11th, 2001.
"We have to understand you can fight the war [on terrorism] and lose everything if you have no civil liberties left
when you get through fighting the war," Royce Lamberth, a U.S. District Court judge in D.C. and former
presiding justice of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), pointed out during a speech at the
American Library Association's yearly convention in June.
Lamberth, a Reagan federal branch appointee, clearly isn't speaking out of partisanship. The good judge has
enough common sense and experience to know that no one man, be he president, king, or tyrant, should ever
possess exclusive right to decide who will be spied upon by their government. Actions in the name of "security"
make no one secure when the outcome destroys liberty.
"What we have found in the history of our country is that you can't trust the executive," said Lamberth.
"Judges understand the war has to be fought, but it can't be at all costs," declared Lamberth at the
Washington Convention Center.
"We still have to preserve our civil liberties. Judges are the kinds of people you want to entrust that kind of
judgment to more than the executive," he added.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which Lamberth headed from 1995 to 2002, is a rather shadowy
and secretive institution in its own right.
Under secret reviews, FISC rules on applications from the National Security Agency, the FBI and other
American spy agencies. Each application vies for wiretap and/or search warrants for citizen and non-citizen
alike, whom the agency thinks is engaging in 'suspicious activity'.
Does it protect liberty? It's all done in secret, so only the participants really know--we just have to take their
word that it does.
As a presumed "check" on a system so clearly open to abuse, each application needs the signature of the
attorney general--but in his previous administration job as legal council, current Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales once told this president that the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions should now be
considered quaint and "obsolete", in that order.
And how often has the court questioned any spying demands of this administration, which may have included
requests to spy on Americans whose only 'suspicious activity' was to engage in a public protest of the Bush
Presidency? Almost never; FISC has granted more than 99 percent of Bush spying requests.
Just after the Sept. 11th attacks, Bush clearly decided that if he were going to "preserve, protect and defend"
the Constitution, he would have to destroy every last bit of it. Considering liberty a weakness, and tyranny his
only strength, he authorized the NSA spying program, which allowed the agency to spy on phone calls
between people in America and 'suspicious people' abroad without warrants.
Our new Duce then claimed he needed to move more quickly than either freedom or the checks and balances
of the surveillance court would allow. And in a final gluttony of gall, he added that he has "inherent authority"
under the Constitution to destroy every citizens' rights recognized by the Constitution, including those
recognized by the Fourth Amendment, which outlaws "unreasonable search and seizure".
Such absurd ramblings could only provoke laughter in any thinking lover of liberty, if the claims hadn't actually
worked. Such is the error of substituting fear for reason, or "security" for liberty.
The simple truth? The Constitution doesn't have the authority to create rights--not for the career politician in
the White House who thinks he's a king, or for any other citizen.
Laws and parchments cannot create rights; they can only recognize them.
And in America, as in every other freedom-loving country, the rights naturally belong with the people, not with
the politicians. That was the very point of the American Revolution, and of every revolution fought in the name
of liberty and natural right.
Serving in the people's name--whether as president, or in any other capacity--is instead a privilege, allowed only
as long as the politician doesn't begin to believe he's the one with the inherent rights, rather than the people.
Such rights therefore remain with the people--especially when they're in danger, and most need the freedoms
they naturally possess, and the checks and balances of government they rightly deserve.
The NSA program eventually became public knowledge and was fought in court; Bush put the program under
court supervision earlier this year.
But he still claims the natural right to spy on anyone he likes, for any reason that pleases him. And so a tyrant
he remains.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!