John Bambenek vs. the facts

Yesterday, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor found the National Security Agency’s ‘Terrorist Surveillance Program’ to be unconstitutional. Ed Brayton correctly predicted that the right-wing terror monkeys would make all kinds of ignorant noise about the ruling, and John Bambenek at StopTheACLU has obliged by doing just that.

Let’s start with the title of John’s screed:

“Federal Court Rules Protecting America is Unconstitutional”

Utterly false, of course. Judge Taylor made no such ruling. What she ruled was that the warrantless wiretaps undertaken by the NSA were unconstitutional. There is a mechanism in place for performing wiretaps: it’s called FISA, and it requires that a warrant be signed by a judge. John might want to consider why the Bush administration is unwilling to abide by the law of the land.

“The ACLU has convinced a federal judge that monitoring overseas communications of terrorists is against the constitution.”

False, and also disingenuous. John Bambenek knows full well that the communications in question are those that occur between someone in the US and an overseas location. He is being very careful not to mention this fact — probably because he is well aware that to do so would sink instantly his argument. Doggone those inconvenient facts, eh?

“Despite the evidence, the media still calls the case a matter of “warrantless wiretapping” despite the fact that the clear intention is to monitor international calls.”

John should try treating his readers with a little respect. Any one of them is capable of reading the first sentence of Judge Taylor’s ruling (PDF) and see how he is trying to deceive them:

“This is a challenge to the legality of a secret program (hereinafter “TSP”) undisputedly inaugurated by the National Security Agency (hereinafter “NSA”) at least by 2002 and continuing today, which intercepts without benefit of warrant or other judicial approval, prior or subsequent, the international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizations within this country.”

Note that last phrase: “within this country”. The admitted intention of the Terrorist Surveillance Program is to monitor calls that originate or terminate in the US — yet John continues to refer to these as “international calls” in a feeble attempt to make it seem that the ruling affects calls which neither originate or terminate in the US.

“Let’s skip past the FISA court idea…”

Yes, by all means, let us ignore entirely the inconvenient fact that there is a legal way to conduct these wiretaps. Since this fact does not fit well with John’s fantasies, he discards it.

“Debating what due process should exist for wiretapping is something that can and will take place, however, the idea that plotting terror attacks against the citizens of the United States of America could even possible be protected by the First Amendment should make everyone who cares about the safety of their family cringe. What other possible meaning is there to that phrase?”

Simple. The “plaintiffs” in that sentence aren’t the terrorists. They are US citizens. Oops… another inconvenient fact just knocked the stuffing out of John’s claims.

”…with Judge Taylor’s ruling and the help of the ACLU, the shroud of the First Amendment has been extended to protect those who plot to kill Americans.”

And John ends his rant with yet another lie. He really ought to stick to the truth. His fabrications have left his credibility in tatters.

There is more good analysis and commentary on the ruling at Dispatches from the Culture Wars and Unclaimed Territory.