I do not breathe your politics
"Comment is free but facts are sacred." (C.P. Scott)
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
On surveillance and the glorious precision of words
Yet again, the internet provides me with one of those "I love language" moments. This time, President Bush's phone tapping scandal, and the question of what he is alleged to have done.
Some background: Apparently, since 2001, the President has been authorising extra-judicial surveillance of American citizens communicating with overseas entities needing investigation. He's unashamed of the fact that he's done this in secret with little oversight, and is trying to maintain that bizarre state of 'non-recognition' of criticism (Charles Clarke would be proud) over whether he has deliberately avoided using a legal mechanism put in place for him to do what he has done.
Essentially, he claims he had to bend the law because there was no quick enough way to do what he wants. In any case he contends that if he puts on his Commander-in-Chief hat, he has unlimited authority. Critics say there is an act (the FISA legislation) which convenes a court (FISC) which normally oversees this process, they will grant retroactive warrants (that is he can start without asking permission), and they have a history of basically granting every request. They also say that it's not true that the commander in chief has unlimited authority, and even if he did, stretch marks are appearing on the whole 'war on terror' concept.
Enough background. Here's why this is cool to geeky ol' me. It comes down to the difference between two closely related terms for describing dubious official actions: misfeasance and malfeasance.
It is misfeasance if he is illegally pursuing a course of action which could have been pursued legally (through FISC). That is, if all he is saying he needs is speed, then the FISC process really meets that requirement, with retroactive warrants.
It is malfeasance if he is doing something which is flat-out illegal. That is, he is acting in full knowledge of the fact that FISC would not be able to grant him permission, which suggests that he is not spying on people who are legitimate targets of espionage. Think: peace campaigners, diplomats, pesky Hollywood types who campaign against the war. The word 'unamerican' springs unbidden to mind.
We can, I think, expect plenty of effort to be spent first on this entirely wonky 'unlimited powers' bit, and when that finally falls flat, his supporters will assert that the end justifies the means, and will claim that Congress and in particular the Democrats were briefed anyway. (Which is true. But it turns out they were briefed in such a way that made it impossible for them to act without breaking the law.)
And throw this into the mix: this intriguing speculation that what happened was in fact mass e-mail analysis. Into which definitive bucket does that drop?
So:
MIS OR MAL? MIS OR MAL? MIS OR MAL? PLACE BETS NOW! BETTING ENDS!I know which one I think it is. posted by Michael at 12/20/2005 04:18:00 AM |