The President, the Democrats, and the Wiretap
In politics, 2005 will likely be remembered as the year of the demagogue. Where facts, history, and truth take a second seat to loud, shrill accusations of wrong-doing.
The latest one has to do with the wiretapping of suspected terrorist agents in the United States. Now, I'm not going to argue whether I'm in favor or against said wire tapping because I do not (and neither do the pundits) know enough on the specifics of each case to know the merits. What I'm going to talk about is the legality of it.
First of all, the supreme power of the land is the constitution. In it, our government is split into three co-equal parts -- the legislature (Congress), the executive (President), and the judicial (Supreme Court). Just as congress cannot pass laws to outlaw frowning because it violates the bill of rights, the congress cannot pass laws that infringe on the power of the other two branches. Or more to the point, it can pass laws but that doesn't make them valid.
In war, the US President has immense powers to conduct that war. In past wars, the President has done some pretty heavy duty stuff. In 1941, the government rounded up Japanese-American citizens and put them in concentration camps for the duration of the war. In 1917, President Wilson locked up anti-war protesters enmasse as "agitators". In the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus entirely and contemplated locking up the chief justice of the supreme court as a "southern sympathizer".
Many Americans don't consider us "at war" today. That is something I find rather odd. On September 13, 2001 congress most definitely passed a resolution that was a declaration of war. It granted the President all the powers and responsibilities necessary to carry out the war on terrorism. You may not agree with it but it exists and the congress has not deactivated it so it remains in effect.
Many constitutional scholars, including Orin Kerr, well known law professor at George Washington university says that warrantless searches and seizures against suspected foreign agents is probably legal. During the Clinton years, its deputy attorney general took the same position. Some of you may remember the Clinton years, where federal troops and armor were sent against people in Waco and armed federal soldiers seized a young child in Florida over a custody battle.
The activity of enemy agents acting with suspected agents in the United States almost certainly falls within the bounds of Presidential action. Of course, the President could just round up all Arab nationals (citizen or not) and put them into monitored camps. The supreme court, incidentally, upheld doing that to Americans of Japanse descent even while I would have condemned it. And I'm not sure yet how I feel about the President's policy on this either. I do know, however, I'm not sweating "it's 1984!" just yet. Democracy has a tendancy to resolve these issues in the longer run.
The point being, whether you agree or not with the President's policy with regards to monitoring suspected terrorist agents, shrieking that Bush should be impeached is absurd. At most, the issue is murky and will need to be resolved by the courts at some time. But it is quite in line with historical precedence.
It's too late for 2005, the year of the demagogue. With 2006 nearly here, perhaps a new-years resolution is in order - cut some slack to those who are trying to protect us from terrorists and jihadists. Be vigilant to be sure for freedom requires it. But don't let ones partisanship become blinding.
