Spying
‘This Is a Different Era, a Different War,’ He Says as Some Lawmakers Seek Probe
By Peter Baker and Charles Babington,
Washington Post Staff Writers
“It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war,” he
said. “The fact that we’re discussing this program is helping the enemy.”
Bush: I want to
make sure the American people understand, however, that we have an obligation to protect you, and we’re doing that and
at the time protecting your civil liberties. Secondly, an open debate about law would say to the enemy, ‘Here’s what
we’re going to do.’ And this is an enemy which adjusts.
QUESTION: You say you have an obligation to protect us. Then why not
monitor those calls between Houston and L.A.? If the threat is so great and you use the same logic, why not monitor those calls?
Americans thought they weren’t being spied on in calls overseas; why not within the country if the threat is so great?
BUSH: We
will, under current law, if we have to. We will monitor those calls.
This is not an argument for an
unfettered executive prerogative. Under our system of separated powers, Congress has the right and the ability to judge whether President
Bush has in fact used his executive discretion soundly, and to hold him responsible if he hasn’t. But to engage in demagogic rhetoric
about “imperial” presidents and “monarchic” pretensions, with no evidence that the president has abused his discretion, is foolish and
irresponsible.
[William Kristol is editor of the Weekly Standard.]
WEBCommentary(tm) – Bush Goes on
Offense…Finally
During Monday’s presser, Bush could be seen attempting to suppress his anger over the leaking of the NSA
operation. Hopefully he will call for a special prosecutor to investigate this truly damaging leak. He must stay on the
offensive. We spent two years investigating the leak of a bozo’s CIA wife’s name. These were two people using the CIA for
their own politically leftist agenda, yet the Democrats and their lapdogs in the news media displayed feigned concern regarding
national security over the woman’s identity being revealed.
As expected, liberals from the Democrat and Republican parties
called for congressional investigations into President Bush’s decision after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to allow domestic
eavesdropping without court approval. They appeared disinterested in finding out the truth about the leaker in this obvious case
of treachery. …
Now that Bush and his administration are finally taking the offense, they should deal with the liberals
and backstabbers in their own party. And keep up the pressure to investigate the New York Times hack who broke the story and find out the
identities of the treasonous leakers. The media want a special prosecutor leak investigation? Give ’em one they can choke on, Mr.
President. — Jim Kouri, CPP
[mjh: The famously “leftist” New York Times capitulated to a presidential request
to keep silent on this domestic spying for more than a year.]
Spying
‘This Is a Different Era, a Different War,’ He Says as Some Lawmakers Seek Probe
By Peter Baker and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Nor did he explain why the current system is not quick enough to meet the needs of the fight
against terrorism. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the NSA in urgent situations can already eavesdrop on international
telephone calls for 72 hours without a warrant, as long as it goes to a secret intelligence court by the end of that period for
retroactive permission. Since the law was passed in 1978 after intelligence scandals, the court has rejected just five of
18,748 requests for wiretaps and search warrants, according to the government.
Eugene Robinson
It seems that the Imperial Presidency has been restored. The nation’s highest office was cut down to
constitutional size three decades ago, when Richard Nixon helicoptered out of town, but listening to George W. Bush in his latest come-
out-swinging media blitz has been like an audience with an impatient monarch whose ungrateful subjects won’t just shut up and do as he
says.
On Saturday, he was wrathful. How dare someone reveal that for years his administration has been eavesdropping on the phone
calls and e-mails of American citizens? How dare the New York Times publish its story about the illegal surveillance?
Investigations would be convened, he warned, and the leakers could be outed.
[Washington Post Editorial]
[I]f Mr. Bush claims the authority to defy acts of Congress, he invites a constitutional clash of the
highest order. In a constitutional democracy, laws are meant to be followed until they can be changed — even laws that, a president
feels, encumber his ability to wage war. …
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales … acknowledged that the administration discussed
introducing legislation explicitly permitting such domestic spying but decided against it because it “would be difficult, if not
impossible” to pass.
don’t matter much ‘after you’re dead,’ Cornyn says on spy case By Jonathan Allen
“None of your civil liberties matter
much after you’re dead,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a former judge and close ally of the president who sits on the
Judiciary Committee.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who has led a bipartisan filibuster against a reauthorization of the Patriot
Act, quoted Patrick Henry, an icon of the American Revolution, in response: “Give me liberty or give me death.”
He called Cornyn’s
comments “a retreat from who we are and who we should be.” …
Cornyn, who agreed with the White House analysis
of the president’s powers, called for an investigation into how the Times obtained its information.