2008 Woodie Awards
Without Warrant ...
Does domestic wiretapping protect our freedom or take it away?
Marc Howard
Issue date: 2/15/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
It's amazing to see President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Attorney General Gonzales suggesting that the Bush Administration's secret wiretapping program is legal.
There's no way around it; the law does now allow the government to tap phones without proper warrants.
It's as simple as that.
"Anytime you hear the United States government talking about wiretapping," Bush told the American people in 2004, "a wiretap requires a court order."
He went on to say, "Nothing has changed … when we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
The president had actually authorized the warrantless tapping of phones two years prior to making this statement.
Cheney said, "We are [wiretapping] in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of the United States and it ought to be supported."
The vice president argues that the wiretapping program is justified to protect Americans. He's under the misguided impression that the administration's intentions are what determine the legality of their actions.
The fourth Amendment is clear on the issue: Citizens are protected against search and seizure without a warrant and probable cause.
The Justice Department argues that Bush has the inherent power to mount warrantless surveillance in a time of war.
I reject that argument.
To accept it would be to accept that the president has the discretion to decide when it is prudent to follow the law and when it is not.
Democracy simply does not function that way.
In defending the domestic spying program at last week's congressional hearings on the issue, Gonzales said, "It is the modern equivalent to a scout team sent ahead to do reconnaissance or a series of radar outposts designed to detect enemy movements. As with all wartime operations, speed, agility, and secrecy are essential to its success."
The Foreign Intelligence Security Act states that if there's an emergency situation, the government can go ahead and wiretap someone without warrant, but they have to go to a court after doing so. The administration failed to notify the FISA courts of any of the domestic wiretaps it had conducted under the new program.
So what are they hiding from the courts?
FISA was enacted because of decades of abuses of executive power and questionable surveillance of dissenters the government felt represented a threat to the established order.
These dissenters included war protesters during the Vietnam era and civil rights groups and activists including Martin Luther King.
There is no question that the government needs to be kept on its leash.
A government unchecked by law is a dictatorship.
By no means is America that, but we take a step in that direction when our government breaks the law and we fail to hold them accountable.
There's no way around it; the law does now allow the government to tap phones without proper warrants.
It's as simple as that.
"Anytime you hear the United States government talking about wiretapping," Bush told the American people in 2004, "a wiretap requires a court order."
He went on to say, "Nothing has changed … when we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
The president had actually authorized the warrantless tapping of phones two years prior to making this statement.
Cheney said, "We are [wiretapping] in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of the United States and it ought to be supported."
The vice president argues that the wiretapping program is justified to protect Americans. He's under the misguided impression that the administration's intentions are what determine the legality of their actions.
The fourth Amendment is clear on the issue: Citizens are protected against search and seizure without a warrant and probable cause.
The Justice Department argues that Bush has the inherent power to mount warrantless surveillance in a time of war.
I reject that argument.
To accept it would be to accept that the president has the discretion to decide when it is prudent to follow the law and when it is not.
Democracy simply does not function that way.
In defending the domestic spying program at last week's congressional hearings on the issue, Gonzales said, "It is the modern equivalent to a scout team sent ahead to do reconnaissance or a series of radar outposts designed to detect enemy movements. As with all wartime operations, speed, agility, and secrecy are essential to its success."
The Foreign Intelligence Security Act states that if there's an emergency situation, the government can go ahead and wiretap someone without warrant, but they have to go to a court after doing so. The administration failed to notify the FISA courts of any of the domestic wiretaps it had conducted under the new program.
So what are they hiding from the courts?
FISA was enacted because of decades of abuses of executive power and questionable surveillance of dissenters the government felt represented a threat to the established order.
These dissenters included war protesters during the Vietnam era and civil rights groups and activists including Martin Luther King.
There is no question that the government needs to be kept on its leash.
A government unchecked by law is a dictatorship.
By no means is America that, but we take a step in that direction when our government breaks the law and we fail to hold them accountable.
