Wiretapping

My friend Julian Sanchez had a great op-ed in yesterday's Los Angeles Times about the history of wiretap abuse in the United States before the adoption of FISA and its relevance to the current debate. As Julian says, the issue isn't just the privacy of the ordinary citizen, but the ability of the President of the United States to use wiretaps against his political opponents. What's more, this isn't a theoretical problem, it's the precisely reason the rules were adopted in the first place:

Political abuse of electronic surveillance goes back at least as far as the Teapot Dome scandal that roiled the Warren G. Harding administration in the early 1920s. When Atty. Gen. Harry Daugherty stood accused of shielding corrupt Cabinet officials, his friend FBI Director William Burns went after Sen. Burton Wheeler, the fiery Montana progressive who helped spearhead the investigation of the scandal. FBI agents tapped Wheeler's phone, read his mail and broke into his office. Wheeler was indicted on trumped-up charges by a Montana grand jury, and though he was ultimately cleared, the FBI became more adept in later years at exploiting private information to blackmail or ruin troublesome public figures.

FDR and Harry Truman did some dirt, LBJ did more, and then Richard Nixon took things to such extravagant extremes that he got caught, people got outraged, and restrictions were put in place. But the stuff that had been going on for decades before Nixon was really bad on its own on its own terms. Given the long bipartisan record of wiretap abuse, and given the greater range of possible abuses under modern technological circumstances, it's all-but-inevitable that if we further weaken the restrictions on the White House's ability to act, that abuses will happen.

It's really baffling to me that Republican members of congress -- and all-too-many Senate Democrats -- don't see it this way. Unlimited, unaccountable power will be abused, and not always in ways that Republicans like.

Comments

Do you think if Democrats started arguing for gutting FISA -- and added, "because, after all, we're likely to take the White House this November" -- Republicans would get the point?

I'm not sure. I really can't figure them out anymore.

Posted by Ted | March 17, 2008 8:52 AM

Except the Republicans know that if they were on the receiving end, all of a sudden there would be not only massive outrage in the MSM but Congressional investigations out the wazoo (even if it's controlled by Democrats!) and probably an impeachment resolution. Maybe that's why they don't worry too much?

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 17, 2008 8:59 AM

I find your use of the future tense in this post to be rather charming, as if this abuse of course hasn't happened yet. Because we know the Bush admin is so deferential to the rule of law and wouldn't ever abuse power for partisan gain, right?

Frankly. I'd be completely and utterly shocked if the Bush administration hasn't already grossly abused its wiretapping power.

Posted by Doug T | March 17, 2008 8:59 AM

I find your use of the future tense in this post to be rather charming, as if this abuse of course hasn't happened yet. Because we know the Bush admin is so deferential to the rule of law and wouldn't ever abuse power for partisan gain, right?

Frankly, I'd be completely and utterly shocked if the Bush administration hasn't already grossly abused its wiretapping power.

Posted by Doug T | March 17, 2008 8:59 AM

"Unlimited, unaccountable power will be abused, and not always in ways that Republicans like."

...uhhh??

call them Republicans, Bush Dogs, Blue Dogs, or even not a few plain ol' "Democrats"...they, to paraphrase Matthews, are all Republicans now. just look at the last few years.

Dennis Kucinich (and anything else resembling a dictionary "Democrat") will never have the chance to abuse unlimited, unaccountable power.

well, MAYBE if we burn the Village down. but anything short of that? feh.

Posted by Anna Granfors | March 17, 2008 9:00 AM

For the umpteenth time: Bush has every single person of consequence, ally and foe, surveilled. All of Congress. Every employee of the Executive Branch and Judiciary. Assuredly those collecting and conveying the intelligence to the Oval Office are entrusted with it predicated on betrayal of the scheme resulting in something worse than Hotel Gauntanamo. That and about 17 levels of plausible deniability being built in ensure the White House is walled off. We've already seen breeches of the rules relating to snooping on the public explained away as unfortunate lapses in technology and errant application of the law. A similar shrug of the shoulders and defiant "Fuck you" would greet discovery of more widespread and pernicious spying. What would we do, impeach him? With 8 months left in office? Congress would need double that time to type the paperwork.

Posted by steve duncan | March 17, 2008 9:10 AM

"It's really baffling to me that Republican members of congress -- and all-too-many Senate Democrats -- don't see it this way."

This is going to sound really polemic, because it is, but what makes you think Republicans don't see it this way? What makes you think that they see it is anything other than a way to gain an electoral advantage over the Democrats? Remember that we're talking about a group of people who basically stripped the Democrats of most of their influence on debate and procedure in the Congress besides voting. Remember that we are talking about a group of people who, according to the actions they've taken so far, want to make it harder for minorities and older individuals to vote because they'd vote for the Democrats.

Average, unelected Republicans aren't bad people, nor do all, or even most, Republicans politicians fit that description. But many of the ones in Congress haven't done a whole lot to make me think using spying powers to gain an edge on their opponents is out of the question.

Posted by Brian | March 17, 2008 9:15 AM

Burton K Wheeler was an populist, and as we know they're always bad guys. An isolationist too.

No story here.

Posted by John J Emerson | March 17, 2008 9:45 AM

In terms a wire fan can relate to, I'd say most of the MoC don't mind because "it's part of the game". Sure that wiley LBJ and Hoover used to spy on opponents. Well don't get caught! Spy on them back! That's kinda the ethic you get in most partisan parts of DC these days. The idea that there should be rules that are good on their own and don't simply help one partisan side or the other, doesn't really get much play.

Posted by Shock Mouse | March 17, 2008 9:45 AM

The whole point D.C. blackmail, Matt, is to control what happens there.

Posted by ferd | March 17, 2008 9:47 AM

They're willing to torture people, so it's crazy to think they haven't been listening in on their political opponents already.

Posted by jimbo | March 17, 2008 9:48 AM

Does anybody think they wouldn't have taken the opportunity to follow the email of the Kerry 2004 campaign?

"well, MAYBE if we burn the Village down. but anything short of that? feh."

Actually, all it will take is maybe another couple of dozen real Democrats getting elected to Congress (just as an example, Larry Kissell here in NC, who with no assistance whatsoever from Rahm and outspent 5-1 by Robin Hayes came within 800 votes in 06). That, really, is all it would take. The FISA maneuvering (and the fact that telecom immunity never quite made it into a bill) shows that we're going to look back at this era and realize that Nancy Pelosi was one of the real heavy lifters. She is dreadfully handicapped by the existence of 20 Bush Democrats; give her a dozen or more additional real Democrats and retire a few of the 20, and all this and more will open up.

Posted by drinkof | March 17, 2008 10:16 AM

I'm afraid you're still confusing unchecked executive authority with being a means, when it has become an end onto itself.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | March 17, 2008 11:42 PM