This past week saw a brief return to the underpinnings of the law in the United States of America. After five years of abuse by the Executive Branch we saw a judicial decision that stood up to the monarch that would be and a reassertion of the separation of powers and checks and balances that are the hallmark of our democracy.
In speaking this week against the decision, Bush continued to show his detachment from reality. In a question and answer session Bush stated, "We believe, strongly believe, it's constitutional," the president added. "And if al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know why they're calling." This statement is both disingenuous and a red herring. First of all, the scope is larger than "just if al Qaeda is calling someone in the United States". It appears that it applies if there is suspicion at all from the Executive Branch about a communication. The fact is that if we were allowed to see the true scope of what has been done so far, there is serious doubt if the majority would even turn out to have anything to do with terrorism at all. The administration cries "national security" to avoid having to reveal the true nature of the illegal wiretaps conducted so far. The red herring portion of this argument is the inference that without this program we cannot wiretap someone if al Qaeda is suspected of being involved in the communication. That is patently ridiculous as the system already allows for legal wiretaps by using the FISA court system, which actually allows the government to start a wiretap and provide proof after the fact anyway. Since its inception, the FISA court has approved nearly all of the tens of thousands of requests the government has made. Make no mistake about it America, this is not about terrorism, it is about oversight. The president simply does not want any oversight for who he wishes to wiretap. This was the express reason the FISA court was set up to begin with. To ensure that the president does not have unchecked power over the citizenry of the United States. It is not about wanting to listen is to al Qaeda; it is about not wanting to explain to anyone why the person being wiretapped was targeted.
The judge in this case seems to have grasped the essential elements correctly when she summarized, "It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly when his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," she wrote. "The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another." Amen. These not so subtle democratic nuances are lost on a president that has admittedly chosen to object to enforce over 800 laws by the usage of signing statements. Already George Bush has used more signing statements than all the presidents in our history combined. George Bush seeks to redefine the state of government. Instead of the Executive Branch enforcing the laws, he wants the Executive Branch to decide which laws it wants to enforce, thus circumventing the Legislative Branch, whose job it expressly is to decide what the law is.
Unabashed, Tony Snow, the White House Press Secretary, also described the program as a vital and legal tool. "The whole point is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks before they can be carried out," Mr. Snow said. "The terrorist surveillance program is firmly grounded in law and regularly reviewed to make sure steps are taken to protect civil liberties." More nuance of the truth. The program is not grounded in the law, because if it were then a judge would have not just ruled that it is indeed illegal. The "regular review" is also not within the framework of the current law or constitution. Certain people may review it, but they all are inclined to agree already with the president. If it is so thoroughly vetted then the administration would not be balking at the idea of revealing the scope of the program and the particulars involved to date. Their revulsion at the notion of scrutiny indicates they know full well that they have already overreached in the implementation of these wiretaps. Where there is smoke, there is usually fire.
The United States was founded on such democratic concepts as checks and blances and separation of powers. In the world of George Bush none of it matters, only what he believes. In his world, the president only enforces the laws he specifically agrees with, thus commandeering the Legislative Branch and absorbing it into the Executive. He also thinks nothing of denouncing a judicial decision and in the past has simply ignored court decisions, such as in the case of Jose Padilla, thus commandeering the Judicial Branch and absorbing it into the Executive. The message is clear from President Bush. He simply does not view this country as a democracy anymore. He has decided to take the position that the Executive, himself, IS the law. This past week Bush boldly said, "I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live," No Mr. President, your response displays that you simply do not understand the nature of the democracy in which you live. It's the law stupid and it is about time that someone stood up and demanded that you follow it.