The apologists for the Bush Administration have been dutifully scrambling to downplay the recently disclosed NSA
phone record scandal. This
OpinionJournal piece is typical:
Datamining and wiretapping are not the same thing. So much for the "Bush lied" angle to this story.
...
And once it's clear that telephone records are all we're talking about here, the rest of this alleged scandal melts away.
...
[S]ince the database doesn't involve any wiretapping, FISA doesn't apply...
...
[T]he law appears to be on the Bush Administration's side here.
Michelle Malkin has
a linkfest of similar spin.
One preliminary point: The President did
lie, twice, about warrantless wiretapping. That is undisputed by the White House and simply not open to serious discussion anymore.
But I want to make a different point. Let's assume —
very prematurely at best — that the NSA phone record
scandal program is indeed lawful under some strained interpretation of the relevant statutes. Or let's even assume that the White House's "dictator in time of war" theory of executive power is valid.
So what?
How does that change the fact that people are entitled to be upset if not outraged over this revelation? Not every legal act of government is automatically proper, moral or just. Just look at the backlash over
the Kelo eminent domain decision.
---
Here are two hypothetical examples of how "legal" does not mean "proper."
First, despite the unequivocally unambiguous text of the
Thirteenth Amendment to the contrary, the overwhelming (yet wrong) consensus is that the draft is constitutional. See
Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916). So what? Does that make a draft proper, especially for an optional war such as Iraq? Would people, particularly those directly affected, be "wrong" to oppose it, indeed to be aghast that the idea would even be proposed? Would they be accused of "aiding the enemy" or even of being "traitors"?
Second, suppose that the federal government decides to solve the Social Security crisis by limiting the period that a retiree can receive benefits (e.g., no one over 80 receives benefits). That would be perfectly legal: despite the interminable lies of the Left, there is no recognized right to Social Security benefits and there is no "account with your name on it" waiting for you when you retire. You get whatever the government decides you get, and no matter how much or how little, it's perfectly legal under current law. See
Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960), or
this post. When it comes to slashing Social Security benefits, there is simply no legal impediment whatsoever, only a political one — the
goodwill of the government fear of the public fury that would result. Again, "legal" is not synonymous with "proper."
---
So too with the phone record scandal:
"Legal" is not synonymous with "proper." Let the politicians, bureaucrats, pundits, scholars and, in the end, judges sort out the law.
But regardless of how the legal wrangling plays itself out, don't tell us we're not entitled to be angry. We are the ones you're supposed to be protecting, remember? It's about serving us and doing what we want and treating us the way we deserve to be treated.
We are not al Qaeda. We are loyal, proud, law-abiding Americans. We have done nothing wrong and given you no reason to think otherwise. We are entitled to be left alone.
Any law, or spin, to contrary be damned.
---
A quick denouement: Speaking of whether "people are angry," be sure to review the debunking of the atrocious and unprofessional "
poll" conducted by the
Washington Post that supposedly indicates that two-thirds of Americans approve of the NSA phone record program.
This survey was conducted overnight and totaled only 500 participants. Even
WaPo openly acknowledges that the poll is inherently flawed.
A newspaper playing catch-up finds
316 people at 3:00 A.M. who
could not possibly be fully informed about the
just-broken story, and now
suddenly the majority of the nation backs the NSA?
Remind me again
who called whom "guys sitting in living rooms in pajamas"?