Well, well. Looks like the NSA has been checking into our phone records and keeping a big fat Orwellian eye on whom we’ve been calling, when, and for how long. Oh, damn! I shouldn’t be writing about this — the mere discussion of any topic detrimental to the Republicans gives aid and comfort to our enemies. So get that straight, people — talk = treason, okay? With the cooperation of their good friends and campaign contributors at Verizon et al, the government is opening your mail and checking out your phone bill… and it’s none of your goddamn business. They just want to know if you’ve been talking to any hardcore terrorists, like — say — the folks at the Thomas Merton Center. It’s a matter of national security, so don’t talk about it or you’ll make Senator Jeff Sessions very very angry. Don’t even think about it — the terrorists will read your mind and take comfort in our lack of discipline. There’s nothing they can’t do, nothing!   

Are you afraid yet? Good. So am I. 

God this is idiotic. I mean, does anyone seriously believe that al Qaeda operatives would never suspect their phone records are being scrutinized unless they read about it in USA Today? In this age of disposable cell phones and calling cards you can buy at your supermarket checkout counter, who the hell would plan terrorist attacks using their household phone? The Democrats are treating this like a privacy issue, but it’s more serious than that. Sure, the notion of the government checking my phone bill is annoying and invasive, but the larger question is what exactly are they looking for? When they vacuum up large volumes of calling data, what makes the NSA connect-the-dot-o-tron go ka-ching!? A call to Yemen? No… ’cause these are domestic calls. Once again, the administration is saying “trust us”, but after all we’ve seen in the last few years, that only recalls to mind the line from Animal House: “Hey… you fucked up. You trusted us.”

We know that they’ve been targeting lawful, peaceful organizing and activism. We know that they’ve been painting animal rights activists as “eco-terrorists” and the like. We know that they routinely engage in “pig-fucking” their political adversaries. What is the big picture here… the elephant in the room? Domestic spying is like a narcotic to the executive branch. Once they start using it, it’s hard to stop. Cointelpro is probably the most glaring example, but it’s not the only one. What we’re seeing may be the outlines of another massive abuse of power by an administration that’s politically on the skids, paranoid, and willing to do just about anything to advance its highly unpopular agenda. That’s not conspiracy mongering — I’m just observing that there is reason for concern. It’s similar to the detainee abuse scandal; the many disparate pieces strongly suggest a unifying policy at its base, one that reflects well established patterns of executive behavior stretching back decades. We were expected to believe that the abuses at Abu Ghraib — taken straight from the CIA torture manuals — were the work of rogue subalterns. Now we’re supposed to believe that opening our mail, listening to our phone conversations, and infiltrating our bridge clubs will make us safer, when all the while they’re failing to meet even the minimum standards for preparedness and prevention identified by the 9-11 Commission and dictated by common sense. 

I confess to being a wee bit skeptical. 

The jury in the Moussaoui case handed in a life sentence; one less body on the 9/11 heap, and that’s all to the good… particularly since the government wanted so badly to burn this mad Frenchman, throwing every grisly detail of the terror attacks at the jury. Total victory has been elusive in the prosecutorial war on terror. This perhaps explains the administration’s preference for military tribunals and the legal limbo of “enemy combatant” status. All this due process nonsense really gets in the way when you want to get some decent sentencing done. Still, the news isn’t all bad for the Department of (In)Justice. They managed to put Lynne Stewart away for the heinous “crime” of violating an administrative agreement, once again stoking the jury with a stack of evidence from unrelated terror attacks and playing tapes of uncle Osama. Even more outrageously, they’ve convicted an NYU grad student — Mohammad Yousry — because he performed his normal duties as translator for the defense team. (See David Cole’s essay in last week’s Nation for more.) Don’t you feel a whole lot safer now? Okay, how about now?

Most of these cases are built on sand, wholly dependent on an extremely weak guilt-by-association component. That’s why the Lodi, California terror case is a shambles and why they failed to convict Sami Al-Arian on a single charge (though federal prosecutors pulled a fast one on this one at the last minute, agreeing to a plea bargain that would amount to time served and deportation for Al-Arian, then apparently getting Alberto Gonzales to intervene with judge Moody so that he would add 18 months to Al-Arian’s sentence on the basis of testimony thoroughly discredited in court and rejected by the jury — see John Sugg’s piece in Creative Loafing for details). Washington is looking for people to take the blame, whether or not they are demonstrably guilty. There’s a kind of circus show-trial feeling to the proceedings, like the Moussaoui case, the sentencing phase of which degenerated into an “I won,” “No, we won” dispute with a madman. How is it that the press can still report with amazement the stuff that comes out of that guy’s mouth? What do they expect him to say? Here’s a guy who exaggerated his own importance in the 9/11 plot in an effort to get himself executed — a ploy so lacking in credibility that the jury could not send him to the death chamber. It’s as if the TV reporters are saying, “Yes, Tom… he’s still crazy.” 

Meanwhile, the Bush administration is continually setting new benchmarks for its own illegal and extra-constitutional behavior. Just this week it was revealed that the president has issued “signing statements” on a large number of laws passed by Congress during his tenure — these documents essentially announcing his administration’s intention to ignore the law or apply it as they see fit. Their reading of the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief of the military is extremely expansive, bordering on banana republic-type “strong man” powers. Russ Feingold’s censure motion is designed to call the president on this arrogation of near-dictatorial power and hold him responsible for breaking the law, but it appears the Senate Democrats haven’t got the belly for it. One would think they might want to make an issue of this for the fall elections — you know, position themselves as the party of the constitution, the party of rights and the rule of law, that sort of thing. I for one am not holding my breath. They feel, I’m sure, that if they defend the rights of the accused, it makes them look “soft on terrorism” or, in pop jargon, “gay.” 

Slogan for the Republicans this fall: We suck. Slogan for the Dems: We suck, only less hard.