Media malaise

What did you expect him to say?

President Bush again defended his program of warrantless surveillance Thursday, saying "there's no doubt in my mind it is legal." He suggested that he might resist congressional efforts to change or expressly endorse it.

"The program's legal, it's designed to protect civil liberties, and it's necessary," Bush told a White House news conference.

Democrats have accused the president of breaking the law in allowing eavesdropping on overseas communications to and from U.S. residents, and even some members of his own party have questioned the practice.

OK, once again so even Congress and news editors are clear: The law says that if the NSA is going to spy on Americans, it needs warrants. Bush has authorized the agency to conduct its eavesdropping without bothering to get warrants, as the law requires. That makes what the NSA is doing and what Bush authorized it to do -- say it with me -- ILLEGAL.

The fact that Bush is hammering this point daily should point out how shaky it really is. (Remember how many times he said "We do not torture"?) Plus he's telling us that a program in which the federal government secretly (until recently) spies on Americans is "designed to protect civil liberties," and even came up with a catchy new name for his program: The "terrorist surveillance program."

Considering that the NSA is spying on Americans, I guess Bush considers us all terrorists. But the new name is about as ridiculous and inappropriate as the names the administration has dreamed up for mant of its other damaging programs, such as "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests."

Attention news media: Stop pretending there are complicated legal questions here. The law requires warrants from the FISA court. Bush has sidestepped the court. What's complicated about that?

And I don't care that Bush is confident that his illegal program is legal. He may also be confident that the Tooth Fairy plays golf on alternate Saturdays with the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and Elvis, but that doesn't make it so. News outlets that run headlines like "Bush confident warrantless wiretaps legal" without pointing out that the law requires warrants are doing a disservice to the public they purport to serve.

Here's an example of how to respond when confronted with something ridiculous (ironic that it comes from the AP, birthplace of the offending headline and story referenced above):

"Officials here learn information about plotters and planners and people who would do us harm," Bush said, reading from note cards. "Now, I understand there's some in America who say, 'Well, this can't be true there are still people willing to attack.' All I would ask them to do is listen to the words of Osama bin Laden and take him seriously." ("So I don’t know where he is. Nor – you know, I just don’t spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I ... I truly am not that concerned about him." -- George Bush, March 13, 2002. I guess Bush takes bin Laden seriously only when it suits him to do so. -- Dr. S)

However, no one in the political debate over the war on terror or the NSA program has suggested that terrorists no longer want to attack the United States. Rather, Bush's critics have argued that the law requires him to get permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to eavesdrop on communications involving Americans.

When confronted with something ridiculous, you don't just throw it out there without context, you point out why it's ridiculous. You're journalists, not stenographers.