Guest guest Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 S Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:46:25 -0800 (PST) Bush's wiretapping stirs constitutional crisis Bush's wiretapping stirs constitutional crisis ... http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/anotherview/all-quote-b-a-adec28,0,4951161.sto\ ry?coll=all-newsopinionanotherview-hed Though the White House would pretend otherwise, President Bush now faces a full-blown constitutional crisis over his insistence that he may spy on Americans without warrant. The more he tries to browbeat Congress and delude the rest of us, the more isolated he becomes. Respected federal judges are rebuking Bush, while he has alienated many political allies and lost any chance of blocking congressional investigations. Citizens are incensed by this latest in a long train of abuses and usurpations. A showdown looms over the rule of law. For days Bush has been whistling past the graveyard in which Richard Nixon's reputation lies buried. All signs are that he is terrified of what this scandal may herald. On Dec. 16 The New York Times reported that Bush had ordered, without warrants, the National Security Agency to tap the phones of Americans. NSA agents leaked the story because they think the policy is illegal. It flagrantly violates the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits warrantless searches of Americans; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), prohibiting electronic spying on U.S. citizens without a warrant (except in emergencies, when a retroactive warrant may be issued within 72 hours); and USSID 18, a longstanding directive preventing the NSA from eavesdropping on Americans. The White House blanched. After stonewalling for a day, Bush veered from his prepared radio address to defend his secret policy, boasting that it would continue as long as he is president. Bush asserted that it's legal because he is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and that Congress authorized him to use force against the terrorists who struck on Sept. 11, 2001. He also warned that any public discussion of his policy endangers the nation. It was too much, even for a country grown used to secret prisons, kidnapping and waterboarding in the name of national security. The crisis boiled over. Administration officials hemmed and hawed when asked why the President could ignore the law. Bush held a hasty press conference. It did not shore up support. He reiterated his bald justifications for ignoring FISA and warned Congress that any hearings (such as Sen. Arlen Specter promised) would aid the terrorists. Facing intense criticism, the White House characteristically spun a web of lies and half-truths. Bush stressed that Congress was briefed about the spying, implying that the executive branch really was subject to oversight. He insisted that the policy is necessary to act quickly on urgent intelligence. Also, the president stated that the NSA listens in only on calls to and from abroad, not on calls within the United States. We're even assured by Bush's claque that Presidents Clinton and Carter both authorized warrantless spying on Americans. As so often happens, these claims turned out to be false. The Los Angeles Times reports that the NSA has been spying on purely domestic calls, too. That betrays the absence of real congressional oversight. The few congressmen actually briefed were prohibited from discussing the policy with anybody. Further, several senators say the White House withheld critical information. There in a nutshell is Bush's idea of checks and balances. The allegations from Bush's defenders about Presidents Clinton and Carter are a mark of desperation. The orders they signed required the NSA to adhere to FISA, and prohibited spying on U.S. citizens. Bush's NSA policy is neither legal nor necessary. His determination to circumvent FISA is bizarre. The FISA court has granted virtually every warrant ever requested of it, quickly and even retroactively. The court was created to prevent civil liberties abuses by an unchecked executive branch. Last year, Bush defended the Patriot Act by arguing that under law all spying in the U.S. still required a FISA warrant. Alberto Gonzales, asked at confirmation hearings last January whether the president could authorize warrantless searches of Americans, assured the Senate it was illegal. We now know both men were violating the very law upon which they appealed for our trust. George Bush has created a constitutional crisis by insisting on his ''plenary'' power (shades of monarchy) to ignore laws as he sees fit. Yet the Supreme Court put that notion to rest more than 50 years ago. One judge on the FISA court has resigned in protest (a thing unheard of) to make the same point more boldly. The next day, The Washington Post reported the full FISA court plans to confront Bush, and if dissatisfied with his explanation, may even disband itself. The silhouette of impeachment has grown distinct on the horizon. Michael Clark is an historian who lives in New Tripoli. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.