While tearing up treaties, thoroughly disregarding allies and calling liberals and others who disagree with him traitors, Bush has declared war on Iraq. While searching for weapons of mass destruction there he found an inkling of democracy that he is nourishing. Of course, we in the U.S. must pay for this nourishment by a reduction of freedoms via the Patriot Act.
We must win this war, Bush says. But how can you win a war against terrorists without torture? Torture in the hands of dictators is terrible. However, torture in the hands of the president of a great democracy is an important instrument for achieving victory and peace.
Senator John McCain, somebody who knows about torture, introduced an amendment to essentially make torture illegal. Bush fought this amendment to the bitter end. The amendment passed the Senate 99 - 9. Even when placing his signature on this amendment, Bush made a written statement, full of legalese, which effectively states that if he deems it necessary, he will authorize torture. No need to worry about what the Senate does.
Another way to win the "war on terror," according to Bush, is through spying. Not merely spying on foreigners, but on Americans. Not spying after getting a court order, but with no court order at all. So it looks as though you, I or any American can be wiretapped at an executive whim.
Last year, President Bush stated:
"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
Today, after it has been determined that he had authorized domestic wiretapping without warrent at least a year ago, Bush says lamely:
"This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America and, I repeat, limited."
Thank you very much, your highness.
Now it comes out that Bush had gone to Comey, who was in charge of the Attorney General's office because Ashcroft was in the hospital undergoing a gall bladder operation. Comey did not want to sign off on warrantless domestic wiretaps. So Ashcroft was visited in the hospital and even he was reluctant to sign off on this. Several prominent Senate Republicans are against warrantless wiretaps, among them Specter (Pa.), Graham (S.C.), Hagel (Neb.), Snowe (Maine), and Lugar (IN).
Conservative pundit William Sapphire said on Meet the Press:
"So I have this thing about personal privacy. And I think what's happening now is that the--as a result of that scandal back in the '70s, we got this electronic eavesdropping act stopping it, or requiring the president to go before this court. Now, this court's a rubber-stamp court, let's face it. They give five noes and 20,000 yeses."
Sapphire is talking about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA.
Even Robert A. Levy of the Cato Institute is aghast:
"President Bush's executive order sanctions warrant-less wiretaps by the National Security Agency of communications from the United States to foreign countries by U.S. persons. Reportedly, the executive order is based on classified legal opinions stating that the president's authority derives from his Commander-in-Chief power and the post-911 congressional authorization for the use of military force against Al Qaeda. That pernicious rationale, carried to its logical extreme, renders the PATRIOT Act unnecessary and trumps any dispute over its reauthorization. Indeed, such a policy makes a mockery of the principle of separation of powers."
Bush feels he is above the law. He is protecting us by reducing some of our liberties. After all, he is commander-in-chief in the "war on terror." He's got a reason to disregard Congress and to rule by fiat. Too bad the judiciary does not agree with him. He'll remedy that by nominating to the Supreme Court judges who agree that the presidency is too weak and needs to be more powerful. One such judge is Samuel Alito. Armando on Daily KOS expressed it this way:
"The February 1986 memo where Samuel Alito suggested that the President adopt the practice of issuing 'interpretative signing statements' became more than just a bizarre proposal when the Bush Administration's penchant for disregarding duly enacted federal law became brazen -- through Bush's illegal program of warrantless domestic surveillance."
"Interpretive signing statements" are presidential statements defining the meaning - as the president sees it - of bills they sign into laws. Alito, for one, would give these statements more prominence in Court decisions. Why shouldn't the president be more like a king?
President Bush wants to spread democracy everywhere, but here at home. In the U.S., Bush is pushing for a monarchy. To protect us, of course. Instead of president, we should call him King George Bush. KGB, for short.
