In an
editorial today, the Star Tribune asked the Bush Administration to stop "blowing smoke" and speak the truth about the Warrentless Surveillance Program.
President Bush and his team -- including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during Senate testimony Monday -- portray in stark black and white the purpose of their extensive, warrantless wiretapping: Either we tap or we don't. Either we keep the American people safe from terrorists or we don't. But those are false choices. The administration has wide latitude within existing federal law. It can also ask Congress to change the law.
They start polite, but they get some punches in later on.
For example, the oft-repeated talking point that we could have stopped 9/11 gets taken care of. They use details and statistics that would turn Feingold's
floor statement into a Kerry speech.
President Bush suggested during his State of the Union address that had this program been in place, authorities might have found out about the 9/11 attacks by wiretapping two of the hijackers. What he neglected to mention was that he has always had authority to use warrantless electronic surveillance on any foreign terrorist suspect, indeed any foreigner, whether in this country or abroad.
That includes phone calls to an American citizen in the United States. If a member of Al-Qaida telephones an American and the call is noticed, no warrant is needed to continue a wiretap so long as it targets only the Al-Qaida member. Only if the American recipient is of interest to federal authorities is a warrant required for extended surveillance. Even in that case, federal authorities have 72 hours to prepare and submit a retroactive warrant request for a tap that is already running. The court overseeing such wiretaps has only disallowed five requests out of more than 15,000 submitted.
Towards the end, they get in some of the best shots. If Bush does this now, what will someone do in the future?
If, as the White House argues, the president has authority to do whatever he decides is necessary in times of war -- though this is not a formally declared war -- then future presidents may claim the right to even more reprehensible behavior.
But the final two words of the editorial say it all: King George