http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060109/editors
Bush's High Crimes
[from the January 9, 2006 issue]
Choosing his words carefully, George W. Bush all but accused critics
of his extralegal warrantless wiretaps of giving aid and comfort to Al
Qaeda: "It was a shameful act, for someone to disclose this very
important program in time of war. The fact that we're discussing this
program is helping the enemy." If so, the ranks of the treasonous now
include leaders of the President's own party, and the New York Times's
revelations of illegal wiretaps foretell an earthquake. Senator
Lindsey Graham, last seen carrying gallons of water for the White
House on the status of Guantánamo prisoners, will have nothing of
Bush's end run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: "Even
in a time of war, you have to follow the process," he said flatly. An
infuriated Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary chairman, whose good will
the White House depends on in the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation
of Samuel Alito, declared the President's domestic spying
"inexcusable...clearly and categorically wrong" and plans hearings.
For the generations who came of age after the mid-1970s, it is worth
recalling why warrantless domestic surveillance so shocks the
political system. It needs to be repeated that the same arguments
cited by Bush--inherent presidential power and national
security--sustained the wiretapping of Martin Luther King Jr.,
unleashed illegal CIA domestic spying and generated FBI files on
thousands of American dissidents. It needs to be repeated that in
1974, the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon included abuse
of presidential power based on warrantless wiretaps and illegal
surveillance. It needs to be repeated that a few months later,
presidential aides named Cheney and Rumsfeld labored mightily to
secure President Ford's veto of the Freedom of Information Act, in an
unsuccessful attempt to turn back post-Watergate restrictions on
homegrown spying and government secrecy.
Most of all it needs to be repeated that no constitutional clause
gives the President "because I said so" authority. The fact that
former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo tried to concoct a
laughable fig leaf out of Congress's 9/11 use-of-force resolution in
no way diminishes the President's culpability. Nor does the evident
collusion of a handful of Senate leaders, including minority leader
Harry Reid, who was evidently informed at least partly about the
spying program.
A belligerent President vowed that warrantless domestic spying will
continue, whatever the letter of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act or the Bill of Rights. Bush also none too subtly threw down the
gauntlet to Congress: "An open debate about law would say to the enemy
here's what we're going to do." But open debate is the very essence of
democracy; without it, there is little to prevent a slide into
authoritarianism (indeed, the ACLU has released FBI documents that
indicate the bureau has expanded the definition of "domestic
terrorism" to include citizens engaged in nonviolent protest and civil
disobedience). Congress therefore has a solemn obligation to carry out
a full investigation into these grave breaches of our constitutional
liberties.
Where will the revelations end? Given Bush's repeated depiction of
leakers and critics as aiding the enemy, is it a paranoid fantasy to
imagine a secret-wiretap list extending to reporters and government
officials? And given the palpable outrage among Republicans as well as
Democrats at the President's contempt for basic constitutional law, is
it impossible to imagine illegal wiretaps leading to the final undoing
of the Bush presidency?