Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Bush tried his best today to change the subject on the NSA spying scandal. He’s like the Energizer Bunny. If he tried to get his message across unpersuasively and unconvincingly he just changes the rationale a bit and comes back with more baloney. So the new baloney is–the domestic spying program wasn’t that at all. It was a “terrorist surveillance” program.

Why is it that George Bush can’t make a single appearance outside the White House without being draped (or smothered?) by military personnel? These are from Ft. Riley (White House photo/Eric Draper)

This is rich in light of the New York Times recent story quoting FBI and other intelligence sources as saying that of the hundreds or thousands of leads developed by NSA through this program, no source could remember a single one that flushed out a terror suspect. In other words, this is how many terrorists were “surveilled” and discovered by the program: zero, zip nada, nuthin’. Bush claims that Iyman Faris’ alleged plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches (I always love writing that phrase because the concept itself is so preposterous–and keep in mind that Faris himself abandoned the plan telling his Al Qaeda connections that it was unlikely to succeed). But the Times story raised questions about whether the NSA wiretapping played a significant role in the case:

By the administration’s account, the NSA eavesdropping helped lead investigators to Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver and friend of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is believed to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Faris spoke of toppling the Brooklyn Bridge by taking a torch to its suspension cables, but concluded that it would not work. He is now serving a 20-year sentence in a federal prison.

But as in the London fertilizer bomb case, some officials with direct knowledge of the Faris case dispute that the N.S.A. information played a significant role.

Given Bush’s fraudulent and deceitful campaign to gin up support for the war in Iraq, would you prefer to believe him or the “officials with direct knowledge of the Faris case” referenced above? Keep in mind that these are probably senior FBI intelligence officials who are directly refuting their president and vice-president.

Here’s the kicker, though, of Bush’s speech (NPR story–audio) today at Kansas State University:

I’m mindful of civil liberties–so I had all kinds a lawyers review the process. We briefed members of United States Congress, one of whom was Senator Pat Roberts, about this program. You know it’s amazing to me people will say to me: “You know he’s just breakin’ the law.” If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefin’ Congress?

I do understand that at a Bush event in Kansas his threshold of credibility is going to be pretty low. He’s not going to feel he needs to do a whole helluva lot to persuade his audience of his argument. But even at Kansas State, the ones he used were outrageously pathetic. Vetting the NSA with “all kinds of” government lawyers guarantees–what? That you’ve received a full, candid and unbiased legal opinion? Horsecrap.

And his last sentence really takes the cake. Because Dick Cheney snarled at a few members of Congress for a few minutes at a so-called briefing without revealing any significant information about the NSA program–that’s consulting Congress? We all know from those briefed themselves (some of whom complained to Cheney directly) that they felt they could make no judgments about the program based on the paltry information provided by Cheney and his spooks. I view those briefings as a form of plausible deniability. They had them precisely in the event of this type of scandal erupting so they could defend themselves by saying they did the right thing. When in reality, the briefing was an empty shell.

Try again, Mr. President/Energizer Bunny. This attempt fell flat on its face.

Salon carries a story about the only person who may currently have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Bush’s executive spying order. He’s Iyman Faris and he’s not a pretty picture either as a plaintiff or human being. But he has several very important things going for him in terms of providing legal standing to strike back at George Bush’s usurpation of civil liberties in federal court. First, he is one of the only individuals whom government officials explicitly admitted was a victim of the NSA’s wholesale spying operation. Second, it would appear likely that some of the intelligence gathered about him came from these NSA intercepts and was used against him at trial. Third, he’s currently doing time in federal prison after pleading guilty to charges he planned to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches.

Faris’ attorney, David Smith seems to be shopping for a good constitutional lawyer for his client:

“I am sure he would be delighted to sue President Bush,” said Smith, of the law firm English & Smith in Alexandria, Va., who is representing Faris in his criminal appeals. “He may be the only person in the country who can.”

To accomplish this goal, Smith has issued an all points bulletin for civil liberties attorneys and constitutional scholars interested in taking up his client’s case. “If some lawyer would like to sue on behalf of Faris, I would be happy to introduce them,” Smith told Salon Thursday evening. “I’ve got the man here.”

Michael Scherer’s article quotes an American University law professor who provides a rationale for a potential Faris suit:

Legal scholars said that there could be several legal options open to Faris. “The defendant can argue that the search was unlawful so all of the evidence to follow was fruit of the poisonous tree,” said Jamin Raskin, a law professor at American University. Faris may also be able to sue for civil penalties under Title III, the federal wiretap statute, which bars illegal monitoring of electronic conversations. He could also bring a constitutional tort alleging violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, said Raskin.

Without knowing all the details about Faris’ case, I’d guess that a strong case presented by Faris’ attorneys might get his conviction overturned. That would leave just about every major Al Qaeda-related criminal prosecution undertaken by the Bush Justice Department in a shambles. It would also incrementally strengthen the case for impeachment since it’d be another judicial nail in Bush’s coffin.