..out of the dark

The memo is interesting in two ways: first, it establishes the ever problematic duality of the Bush- administration's legal doctrine - where the law is not a requirement to follow, but something to be dictated by sheer intent of the "leader". And then, if convinient, translated with little or no change at all into language that conforms semantically with the law.

Second, it's the flat contradictions in the language used by the attorney general. Or more specifically, that the subject- matter in the sentences quickly morph into another from one sentence to the next, although the words used are similar or the same as before. This is the work of - and you can take this from a well- versed and experienced expert on the subject - a skillful and conscious liar.

One could accept it from Bush, or a politician, as they are not under any obligation to express clinically precise statements, or indeed say useful information at all. But one cannot expect a politician to express policy in terms that can be reckognized as legally authoritative or analythical in any way. That is not the nature of political discourse, as it certainly does not rest on more or less constant definitions.

Gonzales, on the other hand does not - regardless of evidence to the contrary - work in that context. So when he says the president will not seek renewal of the "TSP"(the "Terrorist Surveillance Program") under the current authority, one can only conclude that the program is not seen to be legally sound. Not in the context of the President's assumption of being above the law, of course - Gonzales still says they still "believe" it is possible to justify the program under that authority as well. But the reason, then, to change it is that claiming the authority now (when the judicial committee actually has a chairman who isn't going to cave- in before nervous expectations ahead of the elections) is not sound legal doctrine anymore. That is, in the real world. I.e, they cannot get away with it any longer, so now "the president" does not believe he has the authority to claim the program under the rules, he merely maintains he has the authority.

The questions we are left with are two- fold. What authority does now replace the aforementioned "above the law"- doctrine? Is it, as one may suspect, a dilligent attempt by the FISC to get the program on record, in order for the ever- sabotaged appeal against the program to take place? And is it now the case that the FISC is issuing blanket warrants to anything that can be deemed likely to hook terrorists?

Such a thing may seem far- fetched, but consider that FISA has a provision for the Attorney general to sign off just about anything, as long as he keeps a record of it. The requirement to comply with FISA would then be to report back the activities to the FISC and the appropriate committees. It seems likely that this is what the Bush- administration is doing - reporting to selected members of certain committees that the program exists, in non- specific terms, while avoiding the rest of the clear statutes in FISA about definitions and so on. And therefore effectively preventing any real reactions to the program itself. One can only marvel at the arrogance involved, and the meekness of the Congress to allow statutes to be flaunted like this..

The other question concerns the seemless way in which Gonzales imagines illegal can be made into legal. In other words, the problem that - even though they officially believe they have the legal authority to pronounce George Bush King - they've been breaking the law, and are by all accounts still breaking it. But does this latest move mean the political context has changed, even if the legal one has not?


Perhaps this law - seen to be sufficient to curb the excesses discovered after the Nixon- administration, with such things as the SHAMROCK- program - may have to be rewritten after this is all over. And that the next administration, or perhaps also the current one, will have to abide by stricter and more bureacratic laws, designed to criminalise any lack of regular and statuatory reporting back to Congress? Perhaps accompanied by a serious recrafted procedure for how any administration may be allowed to claim classified and sensitive information, excempt from these things?

Curiously, the reporting requirement may need that. At the present the fact remains that no independent observer may deem the reporting requirement to be excercised fully or not. It's simply dependent on political cover, or in the case of the Bush- administration - a simple majority (as the committee chairmen would hold considerable power over whether such issues would be pursued, or merely deemed sufficient. A fact lamented by many during the previous Congress.

Meaning that while lawyers and politicians may proclaim that the reporting is non- specific useless tripe, and when anyone who can read may testify to that - the Bush- administration may still claim to be within their interpretation (or the DOJ's specifically crafted interpretation) of the law. Therefore, avoiding the warrant- requirement (which has a specific procedure), is of course paramount for the Bush- administration in the real world legal doctrine.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that avoiding this aforementioned appeal- court is therefore a less serious issue. The very opposite is true, and only speaks again to the ridiculous practices in the previous Congress.

But I cannot say I'm impressed at how the Bush- administration has been allowed to flaunt the law for such a long time without being challenged, and ultimately impeached for failing to fulfill the requirements of the office. The requirements that would be - both for the authority of the wiretapping programs, and for the protection of the civil liberties of both those officially challenged and those not - vital and unavoidable.

Well.. in the Twilight Zone, anyway.