[Note: the title is meant to be sarcastic.]
Glenn Greenwald brings us this argument from the Washington Post's Fred Hiatt on the subject of telcom immunity:
There is one major area of disagreement between the administration and House Democrats where we think the administration has the better of the argument: the question of whether telecommunications companies that provided information to the government without court orders should be given retroactive immunity from being sued. House Democrats are understandably reluctant to grant that wholesale protection without understanding exactly what conduct they are shielding, and the administration has balked at providing such information. But the telecommunications providers seem to us to have been acting as patriotic corporate citizens in a difficult and uncharted environment.
What a fascinating vision for America Fred has. What an interesting interpretion of how this country works. And what little faith he has in the fundamentals of Democracy he's so intent on spreading to the middle east.
As Glenn points out there is no patriotism exception to the law, and since it allows for retroactive warrants the argument that vital intelligence could be delayed is bogus.
These laws do not exist to guide us in times of peace but to guide us in times of great strife and difficulty. Declaring yourself a nation of laws is easy when everyone's your friend but it is during the difficult times when the state's power tends to expand and the rights of the individual tend to diminish. That is what this is all about. If America must turn into a dictatorship every time there's trouble then Congress might as well declare Bush King and go home because Democracy is a failure.
By this line of reasoning the Constitution itself interferes with the President's ability to fight terror. Notions such has probable cause, warrants, innocent til proven guilty, privacy, the right to a speedy trial and to legal representation, and the Bill of Rights... all these freedoms interfere with the ability to fight terrorism, but they are also what make us free. Risk is the price we pay for our freedoms.
The American people cannot be expected to give up their rights to an indefinite war that does not end until the President declares it so. The rights of the voters are not dependent on the moods of the Commander in Chief. Stripping the American people of their civil rights every time the United States is engaged in some form of military conflict sets a terrible precedent which should be lost on no one.
We have an American President who declares himself unable to perfom one of his duties without purposely ignoring another of his duties. If the Bush Administration is unable to deliver both liberty AND security, if they try to make the American people choose one, then they are negligent and should be removed from office immediately.