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.
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.
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.