Surprise! Democrats Losing Framing Battle

There has been much discussion about the successful labeling of the NSA program as international antiterrorism surveillance rather than domestic spying. Polls revealed on this morning’s talk shows show that framing the program in terms of terrorism protection affects the attitudes about the program favorably. I expected the labeling to be cleverly and aggressively pursued by the President. The Democrats cannot win this fight and shouldn’t try to. They cannot argue against the value of surveillance to prevent terrorism.

But President Bush has failed to justify why warrants hamper the government’s ability to protect Americans and continues to authorize a program that needlessly circumvents our tools of accountability. Americans lack the means to ensure that the NSA is spying only on known terrorists as claimed by the White House. Democrats must publicly ask the following of the President: how do we know that you’re only spying on known terrorists? They must ask this loudly and frequently. They've not done so to date.

Despite shameful attempts to mislead people into believing that briefing 8 members of Congress ensure protections against executive abuse--and this is one of the most dishonest, dispicable moves I've seen from this president so far--I believe that people will respond to this threat to our constitutional right to checks and balances. The question is will Democrats be successful in reminding them that it is at risk.

Spying Motives

Forgetting, for now, the legality of executive surveillance of American citizens without oversight, I’m intrigued by the motives for circumventing the FISA law. Rather than choosing any of these alternatives, he chose secrecy. Why? Assuming domestic eavesdropping is necessary—and I believe that to some degree it is—the only legitimate reason I can think of is that the NSA program’s needs didn’t fulfill the FISA requirements. Specifically, it’s reasonable to think that he could not meet the following criteria: 1) limiting eavesdropping to those with known terrorist ties, 2) eavesdropping on those showing probable cause. Both thoughts are scary, especially since the secrecy inherently involves lack of oversight. Who is he spying on and why?—is the central question here in regards to his motives for evading the secret court. Some say that the NSA methods of eavesdropping involve vast sweeps of networks, which means spying on several non-terrorists is inevitable—a method that the FISA court may have opposed. And Atty. Gen. Gonzales has said that they want to use a ‘reasonable basis’ for spying rather than probable cause. Reasonable basis a much easier standard of proof. As I’m writing this and looking up the definition for ‘reasonable basis to insert here, I’ve come across this interesting article:

Excerpt:
…In briefing reporters Monday, Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales said that President Bush's 2002 order allowed for surveillance in cases in which officials had "a reasonable basis" to conclude that one of the parties to the communication had terrorist links. Those judgments were made not by a court, as the law provides, but by shift supervisors at the National Security Agency.

Some experts said that easier-to-satisfy "reasonable basis" standard probably was a key reason for the administration's decision. "It is certainly different than probable cause," said Michael J. Woods, a Washington lawyer and former head of the national security law unit at the FBI. "That, in my mind, is a much more likely reason why they maintained this" surveillance program.

So, it brings us to the next question: why not seek an alteration of the FISA court standards? Could it be because Congress would have rejected the proposal? Could it be because it would have required knowledge of the program prior to the Presidential election?

Bush: Don't Use Iraq in 2006 Campaigns

It's amazing how Bush takes an element of truth--that we should make an honest analysis of the prosecution of the war--and then completely disregards his own one-sided, manipulative rhetoric on the war while rejecting any merit for arguing the cause and method of invasion. The connections between political debate and troop morale creates a link between opposition to the war and lack of support for our troops.

Excerpt from Whitehouse transcript:
We face an added challenge in the months ahead: The campaign season will soon be upon us -- and that means our nation must carry on this war in an election year. There is a vigorous debate about the war in Iraq today, and we should not fear the debate. It's one of the great strengths of our democracy that we can discuss our differences openly and honestly -- even in times of war. Yet we must remember there is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate -- and it's even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas.

The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

When our soldiers hear politicians in Washington question the mission they are risking their lives to accomplish, it hurts their morale. In a time of war, we have a responsibility to show that whatever our political differences at home, our nation is united and determined to prevail. And we have a responsibility to our men and women in uniform -- who deserve to know that once our politicians vote to send them into harm's way, our support will be with them in good days and in bad days -- and we will settle for nothing less than complete victory. (Applause.)

We also have an opportunity this year to show the Iraqi people what responsible debate in a democracy looks like. In a free society, there is only one check on political speech -- and that's the judgment of the people. So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account, and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy -- not comfort to our adversaries.

Support for the mission in Iraq should not be a partisan matter...

A Quandary for Democrats

Democrats have many problems. Among them, they’re losing the framing battle over the NSA spying issue. While the media has been giving substantial attention to the issue of legality, the President has aggressively framed the argument in terms of the program’s impact on national security.

Emphasizing that he is acting within the law without specifying exactly how so, he has narrowly focused his argument: individual liberties should come second to collective security. In a brilliant move to reinforce this frame, the Dept. of Justice has launched an investigation to see who leaked information about the program to the New York Times. The message is clear: we’re not even questioning the legality of the program, so we’re turning our attention to the effectiveness of the program. The program can’t be effective if its classified, secretive nature is disturbed, and someone is going to pay for compromising the program. (This message, by the way, serves as a convenient message to current government officials that the leaking—I call it whistle-blowing—must stop or they’ll be sorry.) Missing from this frame is the virtue of separation of powers.

What are the democrats to do? Should they press hard and step up the rhetoric on the issue of legality—a position that the press seems eager to discuss? I would try to reframe the issue in terms of the constitutional and legislative questions it raises, as opposed to the usefulness of the program. But in doing so, would they be left vulnerable to loud attacks of being soft on terror? Don’t forget that they have to make this argument while the Patriot Act is being debated in an election year.

The Democrats are already lost on this issue. Some Democrats agree the program is essential, some think it is solely an issue of separation of powers, and some think that the President committed an impeachable offense. Here’s my take on this. The Democrats can’t win when it comes to the War on Terror. The public sees the President as being stronger. We learned this in the last election. We also learned that there is a perception that the Democrats lack conviction, and my guess is most people feel that Democrats in their hearts are against the NSA program. So Democrats need to uniformly redirect the frame of this argument to issues of legality. This must not be blended with the issue of the Patriot Act and fighting a war on terror. A blending of this sort indicates that the Republicans have successfully framed the argument.

When the Democrats speak out for congressional or judicial action against the executive branch, the response from Republicans will be swift and severe, claiming that democrats are helping the terrorists. They must find a way to limit the debate to the issue of legality. In doing so, the Democrats will be able to limit criticisms of being soft on terror while demonstrating to their constituents (e.g. me) that they’re not pussies.