To Parry The Coming Offensive

WHO do we believe DID the wiretapping that produced the Garci tapes? The Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP) has already been fingered by Rep. Roilo Golez of Paranaque (a graduate of the Philippine Military Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD) and investigated by 5 Congressional Committees in the matter of "Sargeant Doble." Those investigations are currently on hold, but for Justice to be done in this case, two crucial tasks must be accomplished by the Democratic Opposition:

(1) To prove that WHOEVER wiretapped the conversations were GUILTY of violations of the Anti-Wiretapping Law, and acts of TREASON against the Republic if equipment and personnel of the Armed Forces were illegally used to spy on candidates in the 2004 national elections (whoever they were).

(2) To prove that EVEN IF such material had been illegally acquired, the PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW surpasses the putative RIGHTS of the STATE to protect itself, which was the TRUE SPIRIT of the Anti-Wiretapping Law.

UPDATE (2100): I need to make a correction to something I've said in point (2) above. The "spirit" of the Anti-Wiretapping Act is directly the protection of the rights of privacy in interpersonal communications. There is a striking parallel however between the Garci tapes and the case of Bartnicki v. Vopper

An unidentified person intercepted and recorded a phone call between the chief union negotiator and the union president (the petitioners) during collective-bargaining negotiations involving a teachers' union and the local school board. After a teacher-favorable proposal was accepted, a radio commentator played a tape of the intercepted conversation. Petitioners filed suit under both federal and state wiretapping laws, alleging that an unknown person using an electronic device had surreptitiously intercepted their telephone conversation. Rejecting a First Amendment protection defense, the District Court concluded, in part, that the statutes were content-neutral laws of general applicability containing "no indicia of prior restraint or the chilling of free speech." Ultimately, the Court of Appeals found the statutes invalid because they deterred significantly more speech than necessary to protect the private interests at stake.

In the above case, here is how I would put it: the public's right to know cannot be deterred in favor of the rights to privacy of the possible wiretappers themselves. This is especially true because it is alleged that the President herself has been wire-tapped. Which makes the finding of the wiretappers and their punishment a matter of national security.

EYES ON THE PRIZE: The key point is this. No one can prove that VOTERIGGING occured in 2004 just because everyone has listened to the Garci tapes and they do suggest that happened. It would be a better strategy to simply prove that illegal and treasonous WIRETAPPING occurred in 2004 because it is the MOTIVE for doing the wiretapping that is the evidence of cheating in the elections, NOT the contents of the tapes themselves. (Although the latter will become icing on the cake later.) We must not neglect the obvious: the wiretapping was done as part of a voterigging conspiracy. But from a legal standpoint, it is the very existence of the tapes that must be prosecuted, because they ARE illegal. The Palace's claim that they are therefore USELESS for ANY purpose is itself an admission of guilt by dereliction of duty in the refusal to expose and arrest whoever made the tapes to begin with.

DISHONORING THE MILITARY: From this perspective, it is not the conversations between Garci and GMA and dozens of other administration allies and officials that are telling. What is prima facie evidence of the Military being prostituted to a treasonous endeavour are those largely ignored introductory segments of Doble and other low-ranking personnel who are obviously editing and selecting from a far larger trove of audio recordings for someone's convenience during review and assessment of whether Garci was double crossing them or not. Although dozens and dozens of individuals have been identified by PCIJ as the voices on the tapes, I have not yet seen a definitive identification of the voices that introduce the Garci conversations. Is Doble even one of those voices. Who are those voices? Are they sargeants, lieutenants, colonels in the ISAFP? Why were they doing what they were doing? Why were they editing and collating conversations that are redolent of dishonesty and conspiracy and so degrade all that is left of Philippine democracy?

PALACE BLUNDER? Ironically it is the Palace that has been insisting for six months that ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING occurred, yet they have used this insistence only to say that no one should look further into the provenance of the tapes, they cannot be used for ANY purpose, etc. That's plainly wrong. They should be used to discover and punish whoever made the original tapes by illegal wiretapping. The Palace's complete disinterest in enforcing the Anti-Wiretapping Law in earnest is suspicious at the very least. For why would you want to suppress as "unusable" the very evidence of a crime you say has been commited? Conversely, many people are too mesmerized by the contents of those tapes and enamoured of MP3 technology to see that their mere existence, not just their contents, is proof of wrong-doing by someone. I think we have seen less than 1% of the "intel" collected for the voteriggers. Proving who that someone is and dragging them out into the bright lights will solve this case in one fell swoop, Dr. Watson. (Ha! Someone may have blundered in bringing Garci back! Just do not take the proferred poisoned pawn. Do not go after the voterigging. Go after the wiretapping, for the one leads to the other.)

Be comforted. Iron Logic is Lady Justice's mighty sword! (And have a look at Bartnicki v. Vopper.)

Gone cycling in the boondocks of the Archipelago...have a nice weekend folks.