Let's entertain for a moment the possibility that Bush had some justification for the wiretapping. What kind of a justification was it, and what were its parameters. Kevin Drum thinks that Jonah Goldberg (of all people!) makes a good case. I'll link to Jonah, but quote Kevin below:
I think that's exactly right. With the caveat that we still don't know exactly what this program entails, it appears to be just the kind of thing people have in mind when they say that the executive branch should be given a lot of leeway during wartime because only the executive can act speedily enough when the country is under attack.
"Under attack" describes 9/11, and the president had every reason to suppose that those attacks might continue. If Bush had ordered the NSA to broaden its mandate immediately, and then gone to Congress a few weeks or a month later to get permanent authorization for a change in the law, I'd probably have no problem with it.
But that's not what he did. In fact, he did just the opposite. He deliberately declined to ask the FISA court to authorize his program because he knew they'd turn him down. Likewise, he declined to ask Congress to authorize the program because after consulting with congressional leaders he concluded that Congress would turn him down too. But like it or not, once the initial emergency was past he no longer had the authority to act unilaterally. He's our president, not our king, and even though he likes to style himself a "wartime president" he still has to obey the law. Somebody ought to remind him of that occasionally.
Me? I think that the totality of Jonah's case is weak, though he may be right that Bush will suffer no long-term consequences (alas!). Even I'm willing to acknowledge the need for short term emergency measures when we're under attack, but I believe in the rule of law and the separation of powers. Bush's version of the Imperial Presidency is simply too imperious for me.
Comments