It's hitting the fan

I have this routine every day online: check the WaPost, then the NY Times, then CNN.com. If there’s a headline that is on just one, it may turn into something down the road, but won’t be that explosive. If on two, it’s big. If it’s all three, it’s going to be very big.

Today is one of the rare instances when the same topic headlines all three websites:

The Post: Call Tracking by NSA Sparks Alarm on Hill

NY Times: Bush Says U.S. Spying Is Not Widespread

CNN: Bush: We're not trolling your personal life

The topic is nothing new, and those of us who have followed this from the beginning always assumed that the program was bigger than what was being disclosed (I mean, once it was justified legally in the mind of the White House staff, then why NOT make it a huge program?).

I've seen lots of reaction on talk shows. Bush supporters are pissed because they feel this is just to screw up the CIA director nomination (he was a key architect of the NSA program) and it reveals methods to terrorists (so!?!?). You can be certain that this is going to get bigger. Like I said in the past, we just scratched the surface. Bush is only acting in a manner that is consistent with his interpretation of executive powers in times of war. What did you expect?

There are two stories here worth following: the first is the discovery of the program's breadth, which I believe we're only beginning to explore, and second how the manner in which the program is being executed affects the governance process. The first is going to be important to the press and may even affect the upcoming elections. But, this first issue on the program’s breadth is largely a matter of preference: how much do you want your government to do in its efforts to protect you? The second issue about the effect on the legislative process, checks & balances, etc, is most troubling to me. This is where I think we'll see a long-lasting effect on our country. Bush's actions here, along with his unprecedented abuse of signing statements (750 of them), fundamentally alter the way government functions in this country—in a way that puts our constitutional protections in danger (e.g., separation of powers).

When Gonzalez last "testified" in front of the Judiciary Committee, he spoke without being under oath. He told our congress that the program was "narrowly tailored", which we now know not to be true (and always suspected). This is important, and Democrats are starting to call them on it. Today, Leahy rightly declared "shame" on congress for not doing its duty to oversee this program properly, shamed that this story had to be uncovered by the press rather than by Congress who has held FOUR HEARINGS ON THE TOPIC!!! Our congress is complicit in the quick breakdown of what we all want to be a stable system of checks and balance. (Having said that, I don’t think the Democrats will find a proper solution if given power in Congress.)

You'll hear a lot in the next day or two about how Americans don't mind being tracked as long as it saved lives but that this is going too far. In my view, that's debatable. Maybe it is too far, maybe not. I happen to think it is, but I admit not to have the strongest arguments against tracking phone numbers called (as opposed to eavesdropping), but the important issue is how we are going to respond to the manner in which the program is being performed, which is without proper oversight and firm legal standing. Will Congress continue to roll over? If lawsuits are brought to the Surpreme Court for those who feel they were wrongfully spied on, will they hear the cases? In the noise of this "in my back yard" controversy, the real effect on our system may be missed or limited to C-SPAN covered-only discussions. If these important discussions are missed because people only want to get their news from Fox, local stations, or neighbors, then they deserve to be spied on because they're as complicit in the destruction of our system of government as any anti-American terrorist.