Currency Lad dismisses the argument by Andrew Sullivan that the Cheneys and Rumsfelds of the world are fighting battles to reinstate the overweening presidential power which reached its peak with Nixon. It could well be argued, as Sullivan does, that the Bushies’ choice not to seek court approval for their domestic spying programme is part and parcel of this agenda – an assertion to the effect that the sovereign need recognise no law but his own word.
Sullivan didn’t query the necessity of the phone intercepts, but only their legality. There’s no doubt that Rumsfeld and Cheney would have formed their attitudes to the relative powers of the executive and legislative branches during their participation in the Nixon and Ford administrations. Perhaps Sullivan used a bit of hyperbole in making his point, but the point itself is surely valid.
This argument is made in more detail by Tom Englehardt:
The “cabal,” as Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s chief of staff at the State Department, has called Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and various of their neoconish pals, stewed over this for years, along with a group of lawyers who were prepared, once the moment came, to give a sheen of legality to any presidential act. The group of them used the post-9/11 moment to launch a wholesale campaign to recapture the “lost” powers of the imperial presidency, attempting not, as in the case of Nixon, to create an alternate national security apparatus but to purge and capture the existing one for their private purposes. Under George Bush, Dick Cheney, and their assorted advisers, acolytes, and zealots, a virtual cult of unconstrained presidential power has been constructed, centered on the figure of Bush himself. While much has been made of feverish Christian fundamentalist support for the President, the real religious fervor in this administration has been almost singularly focused on the quite un-Christian attribute of total earthly power.
If so, that raises two questions:
1) What does the NSA think it’s doing unilaterally starting to spy on its own citizens without at the very least seeking approval of its political masters beforehand? If the Australian equivalent, the DSD, did the same, without telling its minister, it would hypothetically be a huge scandal (though who knows with the complete erosion of ministerial responsibility under Howard?)
2) This doesn’t actually invalidate Sully’s thesis – it just requires a minor modification. It’s just as plausible that, once they were told about this, the Cabal saw it as an opportunity to assert their theory of President-is-Dictator. They could have a) told the NSA to stop what they were doing, b) told them to do so in a way that meets the current law, or c) sought to get Congress to amend the law. But they chose to do none of those things. So instead of deliberately *creating* an opportunity, they might have merely used the first opportunity that came along to push their wacky views of the US Constitution. I don’t see that there’s a huge difference.
The piece by Englehardt is excellent. Thanks for linking.
Robert, the NSA was operating pursuant to standing operating procedures dating from the Reagan era – 1981. Sullivan was wrong to claim that a plan was set in motion by Cheney and Rumsfeld to get square about Nixon or hunt down hippies. His other concern is rendition which was inaugurated by Bill Clinton.
“but Clinton” is not an argument. The Bush Administration is not helpless, they can make a choice to adhere to the US Constitution and not to spy on US citizens. They can also choose not use rendition.
They fail it.
Sullivan’s article sought to explain the recent history of spying and rendition. The whole thing was fabricated nonsense.
C.L., that’s an, um, interesting interpretation of events. According to the NYT article, while the executive order under which the NSA supposedly had the authority to spy on Americans does indeed date from the Reagan era (also a period where US intelligence agencies overreached themselves, notably in Latin America) the new spying was a distinct change in policy, and, on the evidence so far, unprecedented. If you’re going to claim “Clinton did it too” on this one might I direct you to this page from Media Matters which points out that Clinton’s executive orders on the issue specifically noted the exclusion of US citizens from warrantless spying as required by the FISA act. While the content of that executive order has not been disclosed, if it authorises warrantless spying on Americans that doesn’t on the face of it countermand the FISA act; unless, of course, you take the “President-is-Dictator” line. In any case, while the American political system is unlike our own in that it accords considerably more political decision making to government departments, doesn’t this sound a bit sus to you? The NSA, using a more than 20-year-old executive order, instituted such a major policy change, with potentially serious legal mplications, without clearing it with their political bosses first. If you were an American, would you be happy with this?
As to the rendition policy, it’s a disgusting piece of political expediency, whomever is responsible.
CL, How Colbertish of you; Keep your facts – I’m going with the truth.
The Bush Administration has wielded executive power for five years now. They chose to use that power in an absolute and arbitrary manner, ignoring the legislature and judicial. Seperation of powers is a basic foundation of liberal democracy and is established for good reason.
Bush is not a victim. He has the power to avoid giving in to the negative passions and corruptions of executive power. He chose to ignore the constitutional, legislative and judicial requirements on his capability to execute the law. In this instance, he is placing individuals at his arbitrary will, when his will is backed by the coercive power of government. This is the very definition of tyranny.
Bush fails it.
“It could well be argued, as Sullivan does, that the Bushies’ choice not to seek court approval for their domestic spying programme is part and parcel of this agenda – an assertion to the effect that the sovereign need recognise no law but his own word.”
This is all make-believe.