Dictatorial Powers
"To say ‘unchecked power’ is to ascribe dictatorial power to the president, to which I object." - George W. Bush
Yes, George, you should object to "unchecked power", as all good Americans should. Yet, what else do you call that program of spying on Americans on American soil, listening to phone calls, reading emails, snooping through mail…all without any judicial oversight of any kind? Oh yes, you did tell the respective party leaders of the House and Senate, along with the Intelligence Committee chairs, none of whom could do a damn thing to stop you. The Democrats should have kicked and screamed, even if in secret, when this program was mentioned. If Pelosi and Reid just stood by and shrugged when told about this domestic spying program, then they should be removed from their positions of leadership for having let down not only their party but the American people. I hope the record, as it comes to light, will not show that the Democrats didn’t care when Bush launched his domestic spying agenda.
When this story broke, why was Condi Rice sent out on the TV circuit to defend this policy? She’s the Secretary of State, not the Attorney General. She’s not even a lawyer. She’s a Bush hack, and why the AG wasn’t available to make up some justification for the domestic spying, I’ll never understand. The AG was the WH counsel after all when this spying program was set up, so he certainly had to know about it. Unless the Bushies kept it all "in house" at the NSA, which is entirely possible.
The Defense Department has released some of the names of people and groups it spied on too. Included was an anti-war Quaker group. I’m sure they were planning a big-Al-Queda-like attack on the US. That’s the problem with giving a president unchecked, dictatorial powers to spy on Americans domestically. He will inevitably abuse that power. Does anyone doubt that Cindy Sheehan, Move-On.org and other groups that fight the Bush agenda are also being spied on? I don’t even believe the claptrap about it just being a spying program on communications "to/from" the United States. How can we trust ANYTHING that comes out of Bush’s lying mouth? He’s already shown us that he’s willing to say anything, withhold evidence, and destroy lives in order to get his way politically. He led us into a war knowing that his reasoning was just a hunch about Saddam’s alleged WMDs, and a poorly based hunch at that. Yet, he and his henchmen made it sound like they had color photographs of nukes in some bunker in Tikrit. He misled us then, and it’s not a stretch to say he’s probably misleading us again.
Bush says his justification for violating the law (FISA - the statute that governs domestic spying) came from a use-of-force resolution for Afghanistan and his "inherent" war powers as Commander in Chief. I’ve read Article II of the Constitution a couple of times today, searching for this authorization. All I can find is a statement that the President is "Commander in Chief". NO WHERE does it say that domestic spying is included as a commander in chief right. The 4th Amendment, however, does prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. The key there is a WARRANT, which FISA calls for. There’s a whole special court set up specifically for this, so I don’t see why asking for authority for even a "roving wiretap" could not be put before a judge of some kind first. This is the United States of America! Some things we can’t just "give up" in the name of safety. We should never suspend our civil liberties, especially those enshrined in the Constitution, for any reason. If we do suspend those liberties, we destroy the very thing we say we are fighting to protect. It doesn’t make sense to destroy something in order to "protect" it.
The other justification for the spying program is the resolution passed right after September 11, which said, "The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." The Supreme Court has said this was explicit authorization for detention of persons, but to detain someone you must use force, so it makes some sense. Spying on people is not using force; it’s spying, pure and simple. In fact, if you do it right, the person(s) being spied upon will never know they are being watched. How can that be "force" if the object of that force has no idea it’s going on?
Bush’s internal lawyers, most of whom I’m guessing where at NSA, made up this justification because they knew their jobs depended on it. They knew what Bush and others wanted to do, and their job was to find a justification to do it. They were not acting as "independent analysts" when finding reasons why the President could ignore FISA and spy on Americans without court approval. It’s incredible that they even believe their own story, or expect others to believe it. Even some Republicans are calling "bullshit" on that! The President’s powers are limited by our Constitution and the laws of this nation. He cannot just circumvent them at will. He did go to the trouble of making up some authority, but most people can see that the reasoning is flawed, to be kind.
I hope that there will be hearings on this domestic spying program in the coming year. I hope the public does not let up on this until they find out the whole truth about this program, and there is a determination if Bush broke the law by pushing it. I think he did, but you will never see the GOP punish Bush about it. Now, with Clinton, he gets head in the Oval Office, and he’s impeached by the House and put on trial in the Senate. Bush, however, can misled us into a war, wantonly break federal laws regarding domestic spying, and push to shred our Constitutional rights in the name of "safety" with nary a word out of Congress. Nothing will change as long as one faction of one party controls all the levers of power in Washington. If for no other reason than to finally reign in our would-be Dictator Bush, we need to have Democrats take control of at least one house of Congress after the 2006 elections. If that doesn’t happen, then the American people will fall into the trap warned of by Ben Franklin, "A people that surrenders its rights for security deserves neither."
