In just about a week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program. While we've (rightfully) been focused on the Supreme Court debate, the media has already begun to sweep this scandal as well under the rug. Bust this excerpt from an
ABC News poll article:
NSA -- A better result for Bush, noted above, is the apparent lack of traction for critics of the warrantless NSA wiretaps. A clear majority now says such wiretaps are acceptable, 56 percent, compared with 43 percent who call them unacceptable. That compares with a closer 51 to 47 percent split earlier this month.
Most polls have approval of the program hovering around 50%-55%. FISA and FISA courts and warrants and probable cause are complicated subjects, so it's understandable that many Americans view this issue as a simple false dichotomy between civil liberties and security. Karl Rove and the Republicans have already planted the seed in the media and the talking points have taken firm root: this may or may not be outside the law, but don't we want to spy on terrorists?
Democrats, in turn, are once again showing off their superior framing skills and are expertly controlling the debate. Hehe, had you going there for a second, didn't I? The reality is that the Democratic strategy to this scandal appears to be what the Democratic strategy is to every Bush scandal: "OMGODZ! Look! Hez so bad! Bad, Bush, bad!" See, the magnitude of Bush's errors have been so egregious, that Democrats take the position that they will inevitably reach fruition and explode all by themselves. It's the whole "the truth will set you free" approach. Democrats think if they just state the truth--that Bush broke the law, that FISA controls, that this is a constitutional crisis--that's all the strategy they need. That strategy, I assure you, will lead to failure.
We tried it with Bush's Iraq lies ("Look at the memos! See??"). We tried it with Alito ("Look at his resume! CAP! See??"). What the Democratic party fails to realize is that the American people have been conditioned to filter out the truth. The massive right-wing apparatus that has its tentacles in every media outlet--conservative and seemingly "neutral" ones alike--requires us to sort through the facts and determine which ones have the greatest chance of surviving through the media propaganda filter.
More below...
The current truth being pushed by the Democratic Party is that this domestic spying program violates our civil liberties. It is, ultimately, the most dangerous element of Bush's program. But, as recent polls show, relying
solely on this fact will result in yet another instance of a scandal that just wouldn't take hold. Let's take Gonzales. He'll be in front of the Judiciary Committee, the same committee that questioned Alito. This means we still have Joe "Narcissus" Biden, Dianne "Dance Around the Question" Feinstein, and Patrick "No follow-up" Leahy to deal with. Our team of all-star questioners will be pitted up against one Alberto Gonzales, who has is well-versed in administration spin and has a vested interest in covering his ass and the collective asses of the Bush administration. If the Democrats thought Alito couldn't be rattled, wait until they get Gonzales in the seat. That man has an uncanny ability to stick to his talking points, and to advance extreme views of the law in a tone which gives them mainstream credence.
Now, Democrats will focus on the 4th Amendment issue, I'm sure. They'll ask why the government thinks it can act outside the law. And I'm sure Gonzales will have a perfect soundbite in response about "taking all steps necessary to protect the American people." That soundbite will play on the evening news, and that little kernel of truth about "acting outside the law" won't permeate the media barrier. The core talking point will be that this program saves lives, and that's what Americans believe. Because that's what Americans want to believe.
The civil liberties issue is key, but we cannot rely solely on that factor. Indeed, if we want to protect civil liberties, we have to take a different approach and ensure this story stays alive well after the hearings are over.
I propose that the thrust of our debate on this focus not completely on the 4th Amendment issue, but on the program's ineffectiveness. Americans are far too willing to sacrifice civil liberties for safety. What we need to prove to America is that this domestic spying program is so ineffective, it compromises national security instead of enhancing it. We will never escape the false framework of civil liberty vs. safety that the media and the administration have engaged us in. If we haven't done it in the 4 years since 9/11, we sure as hell won't do it in the few weeks that the this story may stay alive. If we cannot change the framework, let us use it to our advantage.
Every time a Democrat speaks of this program, let them speak of how it weakens the War on Terror. Every time the phrase "domestic spying" is uttered, let it be followed by "and this program is a grave danger to our national security." Why? Why does Bush's order hinder the War on Terrorism?
It's simple, really. First and foremost, any terror conviction can now be challenged under a "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine (See Andrew C. White's diary here). Bush acting outside the law has actually made it easier for those charged with terrorism to suppress evidence against them.
Second, the program is a distraction which wastes critical manpower. FBI agents who are supposed to be chasing down terrorists are, because of this far-reaching scope of this program, investigating ordinary Americans. Under Bush's program, thousands of FBI officers are chasing calls to Pizza Hut rather than chasing sleeper cells who may be planning to attack us.
Finally--and this is the point the Democrats need to hit, hard--Bush's spying program has not resulted in a single terror lead in the four years it has been implemented. Not one single lead.
Thus, we have changed the debate from "would you give up civil liberties to be more secure" to "would you give up your civil liberties to be less secure"? The answer to that question, I assure you, will be a resounding "no".
Ineffectiveness. That is the key to winning this debate and getting the truth to the American people.