Subject: The powers of the President of United States (both real and imagined).
Hypothesis: Per the White House: Leaking info about abuses of power = shameful. Leaking info about a CIA agent = okay.
Evidence: Read the front page of Kos, ya lazy bum.
(Remarks, Conclusion and Solution after the flip)
Remarks: As anyone who's read
my blog knows, I'm not exactly a big fan of Our Clueless Leader. But I've hesitated writing about his approval of warrant-free wiretaps for two reasons.
First, pretty much everyone has already covered the issue, from the "MSM" to bloggers from both sides of the political fence. And most of them have done a damn better job than I ever could (just check out the long but should-be-required-for-all-citizens post at Obsidian Wings--no way in hell I can compete with that).
The second reason is that, despite comments made by both U.S. Attorney General Alberto "Torture Is Good" Gonzalez and Preznit Bush, the legality of wiretaps on American citizens and/or permanent aliens seems pretty clear: they're not. All one has to do is read the surveillance statute. The argument that they couldn't wait for a court order is unmitigated crap (they can tap now and get a warrant up to 72 hours later), and the FISA courts have pretty much been a rubber stamp since it's inception in 1978.
And while those are both good reasons, there is one thing that interests me about this issue. It's something that was discussed on an Internet message board I frequented back in early 2003:
The amount of power we're willing to hand over to the President.
For a brief history and an explanation of why extra-special executive-branch powers are sometimes necessary, here's an article written in 2002 by John W. Dean (who was White House Counsel under Nixon). He does a good job explaining a "Constitutional Dictatorship" in regards to the war on terror:
At present, the President has opted to exercise only a few of his emergency powers. Under the National Emergencies Act, at this time, he is only utilizing provisions relating to the military.
Will the President choose to use additional powers? It depends on the future. Because we don't know what shape this undeclared war on terrorism will take, we can't know what powers this president - or any successor - might need to cope with the problems of terrorism.
That, in a nutshell, is the justification for Bush's actions--he was simply trying to defend our country. Whether true or not remains to be seen.
An American President, should he need them, possesses awesome powers. Those powers potentially include what political scientists have described as the powers of a "constitutional dictatorship." No President has ever had to go that far - although they have come close.
It seems as though this President has gone that far.
...
Past presidents - principally Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt - by exercising their powers in time of emergency, have expanded their authority as necessary to meet emergencies they faced. They have, in essence, made the law in times of crisis, not always in the manner envisioned.
The problem, however, is when those powers go unchecked. As Dean notes:
"Constitutional dictatorship is a dangerous thing," [historian Clinton] Rossiter advises. Such governments are the result of necessity, of the sheer imperative of survival. The greatest danger with such a form of government, and its related institutions and laws, is that they can remain after the crisis has abated.
The Bush administration maintains that the wiretaps were limited and aimed only at terrorists. Um ... uh ... rriiiiight. And the Patriot Act won't monitor the activities of, say, American college students and professors, will it?
Let's be honest here: the current administration hasn't exactly been trustworthy in regards to doing the right thing. They've denied any torture took place (even though it's well documented), fought against legislation that would stop torture (how the fuck do you argue against that, anyway?), are running secret prisons all over the world, and have come up with every excuse under the sun to justify invading Iraq.
So why, exactly, should they be trusted to do the right thing now?
To be sure, the war on terror is one that needs to be fought. There are still people out there who wish to do America harm and those people need to be caught and brought to justice. There's just one sticky issue:
The war on terror is one without a conceivable end.
The very definition of terrorism is so broad that it could be applied not just to Islamic fundamentalists, but to whomever else the powers that be feel is a threat. (I'd argue that James Dobson is one, but maybe my interpretation is too broad.)
That scares the crap out of me, and should frighten every single American who believes dissent is a requirement of a free society, mainly because it's not a huge jump from fighting legitimate threats to attacking those who are threats in perception only. And while many on the right think that's just fine now, my guess is that they won't like it later on--after all, they won't always be in power.
All of this boils down to a question that has not been asked nearly enough as both sides go after one another with a vengeance on this issue:
At one point do we sacrifice our liberty and freedom in exchange for security?
The President does need broader powers in order to protect us--Lincoln and FDR are examples of times that it happened (Abe's order to use federal troops was good, while the internment of Japanese-Americans was bad). But if that power goes unchecked by the other two branches of government, then we might as well just give up and admit defeat because we've crossed the line from democracy to autocracy.
It may, however, be too late to stop that from happening because the GOP-led Congress and White House have set the stage for any future President (Republican, Democrat, or otherwise) to use his/her power any way he/she pleases, all in the name of security.
And it's not just me who thinks this--Dean was quite prescient:
Congress has the power to determine whether it wants the American equivalent of a constitutional dictator in the White House. The only way to be certain that we don't make that decision during a crisis, is to revise and codify our emergency laws now - before fear and anger in the aftermath of a possible attack might cause us to make bad decisions, and too easily trade liberty for security in numerous areas.
This is already happening, as the NSA wiretap authorization and fight over the Patriot Act has shown. And all one has to do is listen to speeches given by members of this administration to see how they've used fear and 9/11 to justify any number of actions, from torture to wiretaps to monitoring library records. (On a side note, you all owe me a shot for Sunday's speech.)
I'm not sure how this whole fiasco will play out, but one thing is clear: this administration is taking some drastic steps in the name of security.
Let's just hope the next one they take doesn't lead them into the homes of every innocent American.
Conclusion: Perhaps some day we can stop calling those who leak information "shameful" and start labeling those who consistently abuse their powers as such.
Solution: Never, ever, under any circumstances, allow the fear of attack to override your right to freedom.