During the Civil War President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson pushed anti sedition laws. In World War II Franklin Roosevelt interned thousands of Japanese Americans.
Now President Bush says, "We're at war and as the commander in chief I've got to use the resources at my disposal."
But is the National Security Agency a resource at his disposal for monitoring the phone conversations of suspected terrorists, even if one end of the call is here in this country?
That's the question Charles Osgood
asked this morning on his daily syndicated radio segment,
The Osgood File. He spoke with presidential historians James Thurber and Julian Zelizer, as well as long-time political strategist David Gergen, a pro with Democrat and Republican administrations and by default an amateur historian of recent presidential activity.
Their conclusion? President Bush may have to do a lot of campaigning -- both among Congress and the American people -- to convince people that his decision was not an example of exceeding his constitutional powers. Some observers have suggested Bush's
personally authorizing the warrant-less domesitc surveillance was
an impeachable offense.
With Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt, "
there was a pushback by the American public through the press but also by Congress and that is likely to happen this time," said Thurber.
Added Zelizer: "Every time we go to war the tension between the president and congress flares. We have hit a point where Congress is very much trying to reassert itself and
much less willing to give the president excessive power."
As an aid to Presidents Republican and Democrat David Gergen has seen the effects of such issues on administrations past. "It could be a real obstacle for President Bush in terms of trying to recover as president," he said. "
He may be on the defensive much longer than he would like."
***
This item first appeared at
Journalists Against Bush's B.S.