The New Road

Article II

Mike pointed out, correctly, that I neglected the three later sections of article II of the Constitution. That was unintentional. Here is the complete text. He points out that the relevant clause is; "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Probably so. It has been used to allow for executive orders.

But the proximity of that minor clause to the fourth section, which defines impeachment, tells me that the framers didn't excuse the President from the law.

Here are some talking points that I have heard from the right on this issue and my rebuttal to each:

Thank goodness the President did this. Otherwise we would all be dead.

This argument is disengenuous. The President did not have to skirt around the law to run these taps. He can tap any phone he wants as long as he goes to the leniant FISA court to make his case. He can even get permission to tap up to 72 hours after he had done the tap.

I wish Clinton had done this.

Nice to see that he is still the perennial whipping boy for the right. We actually don't know if Clinton used the legal FISA power to tap phone calls. He probably did. The position that Clinton was responsible for 9/11 is crazy. Read the 9/11 committee report. Clinton begged the White House to take Al Qaida seriously and Bush and Co. decided that the Chinese were much more important.

This is just like an electronic border patrol.

Yes, actually, it is. But that's not the question. The President had a legal way to use this electronic border patrol, but instead decided to circumvent the law.

Clinton did it.

Even if that is true it seems odd to me that you would be defending one crooked act with the act of someone you see as a serial criminal. Plus, just because someone got away with a crime doesn't mean that the law is gone or that everyone should get away with that crime.

All of this oversight hinders the war on terror.

Clearly not. The FISA law is very leniant. In fact the FISA court had never turned down a request until 2003. And as stated previously, he can tap all he wants for up to 72 hours before getting approval.

This leak damaged national security.

The FISA law has been on the books since 1976. Interested parties would realize that the government could tap international calls within the law. The fact that Bush has decided to go outside the law really makes little practical difference to our enemies.

The doesn't effect Americans, just Americans with ties to Al Qaida.

First, the statement is non-sensical. Second, can you prove that? Or are we just taking Bush's word for it? This is the same Bush who authorized torture. And the same Bush who authorized the FBI to spy on Quakers and vegans.

Clearly you wouldn't have given Clinton the same deference. How is Bush any different. And no, "Bush is God's chosen man." doesn't count.

He informed Senate Democrats.

So? That makes what was illegal legal?

It's World War II. It's World War III. We are in a war here. et al.

Again, a very friendly legal authority was provided to the Bush expressly for this purpose and he went around it. Oh, and, technically, we aren't at war. The "war on terror" is a slogan, like the "war on drugs."

As to the attacks this has stopped. Apparently the Brooklyn bridge attack is the only one. And that was a bunch of kooks with blowtorches.

These are just a few of the justifications I've heard for Bush's breaking the law. Clearly it's an open and shut case and these apologists are just that. Bush could do basically anything and these people would come up with some lame ass reason why it was the best thing for us.

The question I want answered but nobody is asking is why Bush went to all this trouble. There are two answers I can think of. The first is that he would be denied, again. Which means that he was spying on people that weren't bad guys. This is the simplest, and thus the most likely.

The second is that the program isn't technically a tap but something much larger, like Echelon. Where all outbound and inbound calls are monitored for words and phrases and then recorded. There are several clues to this, the citing of new technologies, and the use of the terminology; monitoring versus detection. If it indeed is the case that there is something like Echelon running, it is perhaps warranted, but it does require Congressional oversight. The Presidency is one branch of government. This is not a monarchy.