Sun Tzu and the Art of Spying
This article is a tad lengthy, but it's well written and makes some good points.
A White House official's wisecrack about an ancient Chinese philosopher actually provides critical insights into Bush's views on spying and executive branch power...
- By Craig Murray
A White House official's wisecrack about an ancient Chinese philosopher actually provides critical insights into Bush's views on spying and executive branch power...
- By Craig Murray
posted by Smorgasbord at 11:23 AM
9 Comments:
That's just silly. A Whitehouse official makes a wisecrack referencing Sun Tzu and suddenly the White House praising an ancient Chinese Taoist thinker? Quite a stretch. Sun Tzu wrote a master work on strategy. The wisecrack clearly referred to the fact that you don't need to be a master strategist to know publishing your play book makes it more difficult to fight the enemy.
Everything else read into Duffy's statement is pure speculation tainted by an opposing political view.
You're right that Duffy's intent was innocent enough, but the article simply uses it as a launching pad to demonstrate how far we are from where we could/should be.
No, the article goes much farther. The paragraph quoted in the post demonstrates that. This wisecrack "actually provides critical insights into Bush's views". Right. A wisecrack by Duffy "actually provides" insights into Bush's views on anything.
It gets worse from there. The only way this article is well-written is in its use of language, spelling, and grammar. As far as insight and commentary, its a load of (expletive).
Is it a load of crap or do you just not like what he has to say?
Its a load of crap. This article doesn't provide insight into anything other than the author's bias. The reference was clear, it doesn't take a genius of military strategy to understand you're at a disadvantage if the enemy knows exactly what you're doing to thwart them.
From this straightforward statement the author extrapolates ideas and assertions and attributes them to the Bush administration. This article is nothing but speculation. Labeling the NSA program as "extralegal" is a load of crap.
Comparing this program to the Nixon administration's illegal wiretaps is a load of crap. Asserting that "Unlike Nixon, however, this president has fully admitted spying and shown no remorse. Watergate settled Fourth Amendment law that the Executive Branch may not engage in wiretapping or other forms of electronic surveillance of the contents of private communications without probable cause and a warrant.
This guy is seriously going to try and compare breaking into an opposition party's campaign headquarters, stealing papers and installing bugs, with intercepting international phonecalls when one end of that phonecall is a terrorist in a foreign country? That goes directly to the President's authority and duty to protect our national security. That's a Constitutional authority and duty, by the way.
How about this gem from the article: "Duffy, in quoting Sun Tzu, cavalierly told the American people that deception is the name of the game these days. In effect, he told the American people that they may as well distrust the administration, since the administration clearly distrusts them."
Of course deception is the name of the game. In war, deception is always the name of the game. I'm so glad this moron isn't running the country, he'd be broadcasting exactly what our strategy is, then wondering why it wasn't effective in stopping the bad guys. And no, Duffy did not tell the American people, "effectively" or otherwise, that this administration distrusts them. This administration has told the American people that it doesn't trust individuals having international telephone conversations with terrorists. Is this mental giant actually implying that he would trust such individuals? Again, thank God Almighty he ain't in charge.
So, to answer your question, this article is a load of crap, and I don't like what it has to say, because what it says is a bunch of baseless conjecture completely disconnected from the actual statement made by Duffy. All in all, this article is a giant steaming pile of shit.
If they are spying on al Qaeda that is fine I am sure, but I do not trust that they would not abuse their power. As I heard from Bush on Tuesday night, more legislation, more spending, more America all over the world. This guy loves a big, powerful government- that has been proven. If they were doing this legally and constitutionally, why should they not be getting warrants for spying on Americans? They must not be certain that these are people who speak with al Qaedis, wouldn't they arrest them if they were? Oh and I didnt know that whenever the government gets a warrant it is published on page 1, thats interesting. And actually, you can find al Qaeda's playbook on espn.com.
I just read the article, and it is very broad. I dont think Duffy had that intention with his stupid comment, but Leavitt saw a reference to "Sun Tzu" and took off. This is an essay, his own thesis that he tries to prove. I dont think the wisecrack provided much insight into Bush's views on spying. Leavitt, for some reason, takes Sun Tzu's philosophies and compares them to the government's spying program. Sun Tzu did write on spying, and Leavitt discredits it based on what Sun Tzu wrote, and that is fair, but he does not articulate that as his point. That does not reveal Bush's (or the people that make his decisions I should say) views on spying. Leavitt fails here because he gave the wrong thesis statement at the beginning- he should have altered it to align itself with the point he makes in the 3rd paragraph, like this perhaps- "worth exploring for the critical insights it provides when comparing Sun Tzu's views on spying with the US government's."
The points he makes in the essay logically follow my statement more than his own. And essentially he would be arguing that this program is flawed- when compared to Sun Tzu though and he is not the authority to which our government should appeal. He has been dead a long time, but then again, so has Jesus and people somehow still talk to Him. Ok, Im just being a wise ass.
I strongly oppose the spying campaign2006, I do not understand how the administration circumvents Congress or the courts, or how they can. And why shouldn't Leavitt compare this to Nixon's spying- like Nixon, Bush ordered NSA to spy on people, perhaps illegally. I am just not so sure the government is doing this legally if they cannot follow legal procedures to be spying on people who may or MAY NOT be affiliated with al Qaeda. Again, I do not trust our government to NOT abuse their authority.
Let me respond to a few points you make. I agree that the article more logically follows your thesis statement. One of my big problems with the article is the assertion that all its conclusions naturally flow from the one wisecrack about Sun Tzu.
I do not understand how the administration circumvents Congress or the courts, or how they can.
Based on my understanding, this falls under the President's Constitutional powers to protect us from foreign threats. This article provides a solid explanation. Here's a taste:
In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
It seems pretty clear the NSA program falls under the President's authority to protect us from threats from abroad.
And why shouldn't Leavitt compare this to Nixon's spying- like Nixon, Bush ordered NSA to spy on people, perhaps illegally.
The Nixon fiasco involved domestic spying for political gain, all within the United States. The NSA program involves national security, foreign intelligence gatherin, and foreign threats. Apples and oranges.
I am just not so sure the government is doing this legally if they cannot follow legal procedures to be spying on people who may or MAY NOT be affiliated with al Qaeda.
If they are on the phone with al Qaeda, they are affiliated with al Qaeda. Whether they know it or not.
They must not be certain that these are people who speak with al Qaedis, wouldn't they arrest them if they were?
Not necessarily, if we already know the content of the communication it would make more sense to monitor the activities. If we arrested the domestic end of the call immediately it would tip off the terrorists outside the country. They would find new ways to communicate and we might miss something important. Much better to know what's going on without tipping your hand that you know.
Now we are having a discussion. My first issue is that I do not trust the government to not abuse that authority. For example, bending the rules and using it to spy on their political opponents- perhaps they are convinced that one of them leaked this operation, something that is being investigated. When I referred to people who may or may not be affiliated with al Qaeda, I was referring to them tapping into calls that did not involve anyone from al Qaeda- my bad. I agree with your final point, that is why police set up different sting operations and take time in building a case- more evidence and more criminals to track down.
What the Keith case was actually about was domestic spying. I have read everywhere that, "the supreme court was not questioning the president's authority to take such action on threats from abroad." But that is not what the Keith case was about, that is what the justices stated in conclusion. The case was about the White Panthers being charged with bombing a CIA building in Michigan. The government admitted to warrantless wiretapping of certain individuals on behalf of national security concerns. Wiretapping Americans phone calls without a warrant was found unconstitutional based on the 4th amendment. The justices of the Keith case were stating that they were not hearing anything about warrantless wiretapping between US citizens and foreigners- in other words, the issue of intercepting a US citizen’s calls from overseas in the name of national defense without a warrant was not decided or being decided here.
This takes me to the next point, that this is ultimately why FISA was written- and within FISA it is permitted to gather foreign intelligence information without a warrant, but only if there is no likelihood that the tapping will contain communications that involve a US person. Based on FISA, the president does need a warrant to do what he has been doing. In time of war, the president CAN authorize a wiretap WITHOUT a warrant to acquire foreign intelligence information for 15 days. Apparently that rule has been bent as well. Plus, the FISA Court that the president has to go through to get that warrant has relaxed standards and almost never turns down a request for a warrant. So why wouldn't they go through that process if it is quick, clandestine and they almost never say no? If they knew who they were going after and were confident, why would they not go the route that this law requires them to go through? Again, the FISA court is known for being quick and clandestine, which itself draws some complaints from the people. So why? The answer is simple- because intercepting phone calls between potential foreign threats and American citizens without a warrant is not permitted in FISA (except for the 15 day period in wartime). And the administration is being deliberately misleading when they say that they have the legal authority to do so. I am just lead to believe they are up to no good.
You make good points. To be fair and respond adequately I need to do some research on FISA and the Keith case. My preliminary research on FISA shows that your analysis is spot on, which is troubling given the Administration's explanations.
I think the main difference I have from you is I inherently trust the government to do the right thing, but am realistic enough to know they need oversight. I'll have to get back to you on this one.
Post a Comment
<< Home