Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 11 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

In Memoriam: The Rule of Law, It is Time for Impeachment

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   No comments
Message Anthony Wade
Become a Fan
  (9 fans)
December 19, 2005

I remember six years ago how important the rule of law was to the republicans in this country. I remember how we had nearly every republican operative and politician finding any camera or microphone they could to tell us how the very fabric which holds our democracy together was in grave danger of being eradicated by the nefarious Bill Clinton. The issue at that time was the fact that Clinton had lied under oath in a personal matter of sexual indiscretion. There was only one citizen who was directly affected, that being Monica Lewinski. Nonetheless, there was the GOP telling us that if a president breaks the law that potentially undermines the rule of law itself and since we are a nation of laws, that was an offense is simply inexcusable. The only answer that would resolve this egregious violation? Impeachment.

Fast forward six years and we again are a nation faced with the unsettling reality that our president has violated the law. Now President Bush has violated the law in the past either by lying to Congress to start a war or through operatives to reveal the secret identity of a CIA agent for political retribution. The difference this time though, is that we have a crime which the president openly admits to. It was revealed this past week that the president personally authorized the illegal wiretapping of US citizens and has been doing so for years. The law is very clear in that the president does not have the authority to conduct such matters without judicial oversight. To overstep the courts is a felony punishable by up to five years in jail.

Yet here was our defiant would-be-king holding a media blitz to assure the country that he did indeed have the legal right to violate the law. Let’s settle some of the poor excuses being offered by Bush and his usual gang of apologists. We have heard that the process of obtaining warrants is somehow cumbersome and in this fast-paced world of terrorism, well, Bush just couldn’t wait for the warrants. This is not only false; it is ludicrous as the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA) actually allows the government to start the tap as soon as they deem necessary and allows them up to 72 hours to retroactively prove to the court the need for it. Additionally, government officials are able to get an emergency warrant from the secret court set up by FISA within hours, if not minutes. From 1979 through 2002 there were 15,264 surveillance warrants issued by the FISA court, clearly displaying that the process is quite favorable to the government seeking such wiretaps. Further supporting this is the amount of surveillance warrants which were rejected during that same 23 year period, ZERO. That is right; in a 23 year period not one request was denied. From 2002 until now, only four such requests were denied.

The other main talking point seems to be that the leaking of this illegal activity to the press somehow compromised our national security. This is beyond a red herring, designed to distract attention from the real crime, the wiretapping. Unless terrorists are somehow unaware that the US is in the intelligence business, nothing was revealed that would be surprising to any real enemies of this country. In fact, what is extremely unsettling is that the New York Times has now admitted they actually sat on this story for over a year at the behest of the White House. Combined with the pimping of the Iraq lies by Judith Miller in the lead up to the Iraq War, the New York Times has now officially cemented themselves as part of the White House propaganda machine as opposed to the “paper of record.”

The best defense that Bush and his apologists can muster is that the president had the legal authority because he has sworn to protect American citizens. That argument is specious and subjective, two facets we do not allow when discussing the law. By the Bush defense, he can violate any law that is already on the books by simply saying he is doing so to protect the people. That is a completely ridiculous argument that cannot be allowed to be given any consideration.

Bush used the word "understand" 25 times in his nearly hour-long news conference today, trying to convey that the American people need to understand that his breaking of the law was in their best interest. At the end of the day however, we all do understand Mr. President. We understand that you broke the law.

Today President Bush said it was shameful that someone leaked this story. A man so disconnected from the reality in this country remains clueless to the end. Never mind that this leak is deemed shameful while the willful outing of a covert CIA operative is not. What is shameful is a president that would disregard the laws of this country, the constitution and the very citizens he has sworn to protect. What is more shameful is a party that six years ago lectured us to no end about the importance of the rule of law as they impeached a president for lying under oath in a personal matter of sexual indiscretion that affected one citizen seems to have conveniently forgotten the importance of the United States being a nation of laws. In this case there are thousands of US citizens who have had their civil liberties violated by this president as he has presumed that he was above the law. There can only be two logical reasons why Bush would choose to not utilize the FISA court which is so amenable to issuing the surveillance warrants anyway. One is that the information possessed was obtained illegally, which could implicate further illegalities by this administration. The other possibility is that the individuals being illegally wiretapped were not really terrorist threats, but political ones.

Either way, one thing remains crystal clear after this revelation. This president has broken the law, period. He has violated the constitution and committed felonies against the citizens of this country. There is no gray area here. There are no implied powers in other acts of Congress which supersedes the statutes already on the books under FISA. The rule of law hangs in the balance. According to the republicans, it is the very fabric of our country and cannot be allowed to be sullied. We cannot allow a president to think that he is above the law. That is exactly what Bush is saying when he claims that he can illegally wiretap people, simply out of an alleged desire to protect America. It is not only disingenuous, it is a lie. It is a dangerous lie because it attempts to circumvent the checks and balances this country was founded on and grant dictatorial powers to the executive branch of government.

What you have here is quite simple. You have a law on the books which gives the president specific procedures he must follow if he wishes to wiretap American citizens. These procedures are not cumbersome at all and there is even a special court set up for obtaining these warrants. In the 26 year history of the FISA court only 4 warrants were denied out of over 15,000 requests. Instead of following these procedures, the President of the United States took it upon himself to bypass Congress and secretly authorize the wiretapping of US citizens. By doing so he clearly violated the law. To try and defend himself he claims he has a general legal right based on his war on terrorism. The problem is that federal law does not disappear by magic. It is not rendered quaint at the whim of a president who would be dictator. The law is not some flimsy, esoteric enigma which can be reshaped by only one branch of government. It is the fabric which holds this country together. A lesson I learned from republicans in the late 1990s. As such, the rule of law must be protected. It must be revered and upheld, not abused and reinvented. I have heard some democrats wrangling already about whether this should be investigated. They are using the wrong “I” word. As the republicans taught us so well six years ago, there is only one option when a president has admitted to violating the law, IMPEACHMENT.
Rate It | View Ratings

Anthony Wade Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Anthony Wade, a contributing writer to, is dedicated to educating the populace to the lies and abuses of the government. He is a 53-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple (more...)

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Preparing the Cover Story for the Theft of the Election

Sarah Palin, A Wolf in Moose Clothing

Hate and Hypocrisy Pays Well – The Rush Limbaugh Payoff

Birth of the Red-Letter Christian Movement

First They Came For the Soda"

Recognizing Glenn Beck's Religion

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend