The
continued discussion that the Bush administration may, in fact, be spying on story-chasing journalists is beginning to nag at this trained reporter's mind. Not only because this possibility answers the question the administration
can't answer, but also because, if a reality, it squares nicely with the West Wing's motives.
Previously, myself and others have raised the all-important question:
If FISA regulations allowed for instant surveillance on the promise of filed applications within 72 hours, what, exactly, prevented the administration from following the rule of law? One answer dictates that the reason the administration acted illegally was because they knew what they were doing
was illegal.
Think about it. If what President Bush said Monday is true, there's no reason for his administration to break the law. Unless they knew what they were doing would break the law. Spying on journalists - as opposed to tracking "international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations" - could be the very reason Bush and his surrogates refuse to be upfront about their inability to adhere to the rules. If you think about it, journalists, as John said, fit the president's profile rather easily.
Further, even if you want to discount the urgency excuse, there is nothing about the FISA Court that screams "roadblock to surveillance." Over the course of its existence, which dates back to 1978, the court has denied exactly four warrant applications, which number in the tens of thousands. So if the administration, which has claimed laziness, felt it necessary to circumvent a rubber-stamp court - when we know it clearly didn't have to - there is something else at play. Someone, some group, is being surveilled that the White House doesn't want you to know is under surveillance. If not journalists, than whom? Politicians? Activists? The thought of a modern-day Enemies List doesn't seem so off base, does it?
Following the premise that the administration may be spying on American journalists, imagine the effect such a practice - or even the rumor of such a practice - would have. I can see the administration's spying on journalists as a means to gather possible "actionable" intelligence, but how frequently would this happen? Perhaps that's just it: Bush is more interested in silencing journalists than uncovering terrorist chatter. Does this West Wing tactic sound familiar? It should. Ask Valerie Plame.
When the administration outed Plame in its attempt to exact revenge on Joe Wilson, it did so with the full knowledge that it would also silence the next generation of whistle-blowers. "Don't mess with us," the outing said, "or else." Could spying on journalists have a similar chilling effect?
Think about what this White House has done to control coverage. It took softball questions from a partisan plant. It paid "journalists" to propagandize. It bought positive coverage in Iraq. Could scaring the press corps into servility with the specter of being spied upon be yet another administration technique intended to keep the focus on missing white women and runaway brides - not the quagmire in Iraq or an above-the-law president?
Think about this possibility for a second. We've seen tactics like this before. Could we be seeing them again?
Cross-posted at Hughes for America