President Bush likes to argue that he was justified in his illegal wiretapping of American citizens.

It’s official. President Bush is a criminal. Not for his wars, not for his neglecting the poorest of Americans — although we could argue those are crimes he did commit as well — but for his wiretapping of Americans.

Bush contends that the wiretappings were legal and that he acted within the law. But the law clearly states that the executive branch of this country cannot act without reason, as well as without the consent, of the FISA courts.

FISA — or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 — was passed after the Watergate scandal in order to limit who the president could wiretap, to be a check on the president so that he couldn’t wiretap anyone for political gains. The president must go to the FISA court and request for permission to eavesdrop on Americans or else he is in direct violation of FISA.

It isn’t as difficult as it sounds; according to USA Today, there were 18,761 requests to eavesdrop on Americans between 1979 and 2004. Only five were rejected outright; 100 were modified.

President Bush likes to argue that he was justified in his illegal wiretapping of American citizens. He says that often times the government gets a phone line they know has a terrorist talking on the other end with an American, and they can’t waste their time getting a warrant from a FISA court.

That is the most laughable part of this whole ordeal. Under FISA rules, the president can eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant as long as he gets one within three days in times of peace, and within 15 days during times of war.

So, being in a war with Iraq (or with Terror if you want to look at it that way), Bush certainly could have taken the opportunity to go to FISA courts and plead his case about why these wiretaps were so important. And knowing how the FISA court usually rules, why wouldn’t Bush take this opportunity to justify his wiretaps? He had 15 days within each illegal wiretap. Why didn’t he go to the court?

Not only does this present the question of exactly who the president was wiretapping, but it also sets up an extremely bad precedent. FISA means nothing now to future presidents who may hold the office. That is, unless we challenge this.

If we allow Bush to continue these illegal wiretaps without accountability, then it only means we are endorsing an even stronger executive branch than we already have. Checks and balances mean nothing within this government if one power gains grounds closer to absolute authority. For the sake of our government, we must not allow this to happen.

> Comments