http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/10/opinion/10fri1.html<snip>
Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who is one of the few members who does know, has said there is nothing in the program that could not be done legally. She has proposed a more modest bill that would give the government more flexibility to eavesdrop first and get permission later. But Mr. Bush is not interested. He wants the bill that would gut the law, absolve him of illegal behavior and turn over the task of determining the constitutionality of his program to a court that is not equipped to make that judgment.
Since the White House has continued the wiretapping without legislative approval, there is no conceivable reason why Mr. Bush should see this as an emergency. His real motive could be to create a bargaining chip that would allow him to get a narrower bill giving the telephone companies immunity for helping the administration conduct the unlawful eavesdropping. That’s an absurdly bad idea.
There are plenty of responsible lawmakers in both parties who are sympathetic to the idea that the executive branch needed more flexibility to pursue terrorists after 9/11. It has been obvious all along that if the president feels current law is too restrictive, he should explain its shortcomings to members of Congress and ask them to amend it. The Republican majority was never going to insist on that, but the new Democratic leadership might.
The White House refuses to explain itself because this has never been about catching terrorists. It is about overturning the crucial limits placed on executive authority after Watergate and Vietnam. Mr. Cheney and a few other hard-liners have been trying to turn back the clock and have succeeded in some truly scary ways, including the military commissions act they pushed through Congress before the elections. It is vital that they not be allowed to do any more harm.
....more
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
