As the Bush presidency heads deeper into its sixth year, it appears that one controversy has emerged from a bevy to both highlight and deepen the political divisions that began with the Supreme Court decision that sent George W. Bush to the White House in late 2000, sharpened in the wake of the Iraqi invasion, and became entrenched over the past year with scandals, Katrina, and the debate over the (ever?) expanding powers of the presidency dominating the headlines.
The Bush administration's deliberate decision to avoid established legal channels and wiretap Americans without a court order brings together and then collides all of these political divisions while fermenting the discontent of those who have been worried about preserving civil liberties and personal freedoms since the time of the original passing of the USA PATRIOT Act.
The latest development in this story centers upon an investigation into the leak that broke the wiretapping story, as The New York Times reports:
Federal agents have interviewed officials at several of the country's law enforcement and national security agencies in a rapidly expanding criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding a New York Times article published in December that disclosed the existence of a highly classified domestic eavesdropping program, according to government officials.The investigation, which appears to cover the case from 2004, when the newspaper began reporting the story, is being closely coordinated with criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department, the officials said. People who have been interviewed and others in the government who have been briefed on the interviews said the investigation seemed to lay the groundwork for a grand jury inquiry that could lead to criminal charges.
While the "sides" of this issue easily take on traditional partisan leanings in many ways, each camp – left and right – has posed uneasy questions to mull over as both political parties face an election year and complex issues that hold no easy answers. The Democrats as a whole are concerned with national security while maintaining civil liberties in a post 9/11 world. For Republicans, and particularly those with libertarian and small government ideologies, the notion of governmental overreach into the private lives of citizens is troubling.
Article comments
1 - RedTard
I think the blog article in your link sums up the attitudes of many in the MSM correctly.
"If the disclosure of national secrets harms Bush, it is an absolutely unblemished example of heroism; if the disclosure boosts the administration, it is an example of an imperial presidency that must surely end in impeachment."
2 - Eric Berlin
Regardless of whether or not that is true, that perception has nothing to do with the legality or illegality of the wiretapping program and what that means in terms of the powers of the presidency.
Personally, I see it as an appalling lack of respect for the law.
3 - Nancy
Same here. Party politics aside, to me it smacks of arrogance and an "I'll do what I want because I'm above the law" attitude that, to me at least, seems to be one of Dubya's most abysmal shortcomings, and the outcome of his wealthy upbringing, where whatever problem he encountered was resolved by his parents' money or connections. He got out of every problem he ever had that way, and he's never had to grow beyond it. In a president of the US, that's dangerous as well as intolerable.
4 - Eric Berlin
Well, the excuses for why the FISA provisions weren't followed have been downright feeble. And the "forceful pushback," a classic Rove PR trick at this point, only makes it more so.
5 - RedTard
"Personally, I see it as an appalling lack of respect for the law."
I see it as a reasonable policy in a time of war. If Americans are calling terrorist operatives to plan attacks, our government should be able to listen in, period. Soldiers don't have to read miranda rights to enemy combatants on the battlefield or collect and bag evidence, neither should out intelligence services get bogged down in red tape when it comes to intercepting enemy communication.
Previous presidents have thrown whole ethnic groups into intern camps and suspended habeus corpus during war. With those examples in mind, it seems that our president has not been acting out of line or beyond his mandate in protecting our national security.
6 - Eric Berlin
I see two major faults in your reasoning, RedTard:
* You equate enemy combatants with American citizens suspected of criminal acts. Can the police wiretap you tomorrow in the Nicole Simpson murder investigation?
* You take precedent as carte blanche for current actions. People used to own slaves -- can I get you to work my job for me this week?
Do you see the faults in your argument?
7 - Eric Berlin
I see it as a reasonable policy in a time of war. If Americans are calling terrorist operatives to plan attacks, our government should be able to listen in, period.
Further, NO ONE argues with that we shouldn't take measures to protect national security. Just do it within the law.
8 - gonzo marx
well now...Congress has NOT delacred War, as outlined in the Constitution, so the Article 2 Powers that go into effect during wartime are not valid...remember Congress MUST actually "declare war"...there is legal and Constitutional outlines for this to happen
that shoots down that whole line of reasoning
the big Question is why not follow the applicable Law concerning these matters...FISA?
time will tell...i'm all for nailing the bad guys...i'm all against the Government violating the Law, especially concerning the Rights of Citizens
nuff said?
Excelsior!
9 - Nancy
Actually, it would appear Cheney might eventually shoot them all. Accidently, of course.
10 - Eric Berlin
It would be very helpful if we could return to a system of government where the Congress must pass a formal declaration of war.