WSJ on the Wiretapping Debacle

Although I am not that old, history demonstrates taht for the most part of American history, politics stopped at teh water's edge, that political battles over forieng policy and in particular national security were not the subject of partisan pickering. Sure, there would be disagreements over approach, but generally, those battles would be civil. But the political battle surrounding intellligence and wiretapping in teh war on terror has received a massive setback because of the partisan bickering over wire tapping. The Wall Street Journal has the case:

President Bush approved this terrorist surveillance not long after 9/11, allowing intelligence officials to track terrorist calls overseas, as well as overseas communications with al Qaeda sympathizers operating in the U.S. The New York Times exposed the program in late 2005, and Democrats and antiwar activists immediately denounced it as an "illegal" attempt to spy on Americans, à la J. Edgar Hoover.

Democratic leaders were briefed on the program from the first and never once tried to shut it down. But once it was exposed, these same Democrats accused Mr. Bush of breaking the law by not getting warrants from the special court created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. Mr. Bush has rightly defended the program's legality, but as a gesture of compromise in January he agreed to seek warrants under the FISA process.

This has turned out to be an enormous mistake that has unilaterally disarmed one of our best intelligence weapons in the war on terror. To understand why, keep in mind that we live in a world of fiber optics and packet-switching. A wiretap today doesn't mean the FBI must install a bug on Abdul Terrorist's phone in Peshawar. Information now follows the path of least resistance, wherever that may lead. And because the U.S. has among the world's most efficient networks, hundreds of millions of foreign calls are routed through the U.S.
That's right: If an al Qaeda operative in Quetta calls a fellow jihadi in Peshawar, that call may well travel through a U.S. network. This ought to be a big U.S. advantage in our "asymmetrical" conflict with terrorists. But it also means that, for the purposes of FISA, a foreign call that is routed through U.S. networks becomes a domestic call. So thanks to the obligation to abide by an outdated FISA statute, U.S. intelligence is now struggling even to tap the communications of foreign-based terrorists. If this makes you furious, it gets worse.

Our understanding is that some FISA judges have been open to expediting warrants, as well as granting retroactive approval. But there are 11 judges in the FISA rotation, and some of them have been demanding that intelligence officials get permission in advance for wiretaps. This means missed opportunities and less effective intelligence. And it shows once again why the decisions of unaccountable judges shouldn't be allowed to supplant those of an elected Commander in Chief.

At the time, I thought, you know, getting court approval would be a good thing. But in retrospect, I am coming to think that the "compromise" that Bush Administration handed the Democrats in appeasement has become more of an intelligence barrier rather than a civil liberty boon.

Also in restrospect, I should have expected the Democrats to make a political issue out of the matter rather than respecting the President's authority in national security matters. Why I thought so is my blunder and given the current nature of the Democrats absolute loathing of the President, I should have known better. But once again, Idiot Leahy is doing his damnedest to live up to my label.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy is holding any wiretap legislation hostage to his demand for Administration documents related to the program. This is part of the Democrats' political exercise to claim that Mr. Bush has somehow broken the law by allowing the wiretaps. Backed by grandstanding Republican Arlen Specter, in short, Mr. Leahy is more interested in fighting over how the program began than in allowing it to continue today.

As I have said a couple of times this week, executive privilege is greatest when dealing with foriegn affairs and national security. Idiot Leahy has no hope of getting those documents, so it is yet another political battle he can't win. But unlike the subpoenas in the U.S. Attorney matter, the political posturing is not only wasting taxpayer money, it is putting U.S. national security at risk--for nothing more than political points among a liberal base.

I don't expect Democrats to roll over and let the President do what he wants, nor should they. But giving the President a little leeway is not without precedent or need.