International Herald Tribune Editorial - Retreat and cheat

International Herald Tribune Editorial - Retreat and cheat
Copyright by The International Herald Tribune
Published: January 26, 2007


President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program was once deemed so vital to national security that it could not be subjected to judicial review. Last week, the White House said it was doing just that.

By now, this is a familiar pattern: First, Bush and his aides say his actions are so vital to national security that to even report on them — let alone question them — lends comfort to the terrorists. Then, usually when his decisions face scrutiny from someone other than a compliant Republican Congress, the president seems to compromise.

Behind this behavior are at least two dynamics, both of them disturbing. The first is that the policies Bush is trying so hard to hide have little, if anything, to do with real national security issues — and everything to do with a campaign, spearheaded by Vice President Dick Cheney, to break the restraints on presidential power imposed after Vietnam and Watergate.

Second, there is much less than meets the eye to Bush's supposed concessions. Generally, they mask the fact that he either got what he wanted from Congress or found a way to add some other veneer of legitimacy to his lawless behavior. The campaign to expand presidential power goes on.

We don't know exactly what agreement the White House made with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court about eavesdropping. But there is evidence that Bush got some broad approval for a wiretapping "program" rather than the individual warrants required by law. Because the court works in secret, the public may never know whether Bush really is complying with the law.

Nor is there likely to be an explanation of why the White House could not have sought the court's approval in the first place. The White House's claim that the process is too cumbersome doesn't ring true. The law already allows the government to wiretap first and then ask for a warrant within three days. The real reason is almost certainly that the president had no desire to share power even with the most secret part of the judiciary. Why else would the president have turned down more than one offer from Congress to amend the 1978 wiretapping law after 9/11 to make getting warrants easier and faster than the three-day rule?

There are signs that the Democrats will be tougher than the Republicans on holding Bush and his presidency to account on such issues. The eavesdropping program and Bush's secret deal with the surveillance court are a very good place to start.
Back to top
Home >