Bush can’t ‘unilaterally decide’ to ignore ‘old law’

The Bush administration has subtly acknowledged for weeks that the president’s warrantless-search program violates FISA, but, officials argue, the program is still lawful because of other presidential legal authorities. Last week, in response to a question from a reporter who asked why the president decided to “circumvent” FISA, Bush quickly summarized his perspective.

“[T]he FISA law was written in 1978. We’re having this discussion in 2006. It’s a different world. And FISA is still an important tool. It’s an important tool. And we still use that tool. But also — and we — look — I said, ‘Look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law?’ And people said, ‘It doesn’t work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do.'”

It’s startling when you think about it. Bush asked “people” — it’s not entirely clear who — whether he could conduct this domestic surveillance under FISA. Bush acknowledged that these people said he could not, because “the old law…doesn’t work.” But here’s the thing: there is no new law, just “the old law” that the president decided he no longer wanted to follow.

Yesterday, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) added his voice to those who believe the president can’t decide to ignore laws he doesn’t like.

HAGEL: I don’t believe, from what I’ve heard, but I’m going to give the administration an opportunity to explain it, that he has the authority now to do what he’s doing. Now, maybe he can convince me otherwise, but that’s OK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But not yet.

HAGEL: Not yet. But that’s OK. If he needs more authority, he just can’t unilaterally decide that that 1978 law is out of date and he will be the guardian of America and he will violate that law. He needs to come back, work with us, work with the courts if he has to, and we will do what we need to do to protect the civil liberties of this country and the national security of this country. (emphasis added)

This comes about a month after Hagel joined a bi-partisan group of senators demanding a full-scale congressional investigation into Bush’s domestic-surveillance program and publicly blasted the White House, saying, “No president is above the law. We are a nation of laws and no president, majority leader, or chief justice of the Supreme Court can unilaterally or arbitrarily avoid a law or dismiss a law.”

Hagel’s been on a roll lately, as he’s struggled to contain his disappointment with the Bush White House. It won’t help Hagel’s presidential ambitions, but it’s encouraging to see a Senate Republican who can put partisanship aside on this issue.

Okay, let us get this one straight.

FISA is not OLD LAW. It was amended by the USA PATRIOT Act. It was amended by the law that created the DNI (the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which was after the NSA started this wiretapping). Senator Mike DeWine was willing to amend it to ease the language for the administration.

It was amended during the Clinton Administration by the Republican Congress to keep HIM from conducting physical foreign intelligence searches without a warrant.

And now the lawyers over at NSA and the White House Counsels Office are telling the President (that’s who he means, by the way, and I doubt he actually talked to the NSA lawyers) that FISA could not be used to conduct the types of easedropping this program is supposed to do.

And why not?

Well, they just can’t tell us. And they can’t tell Congress. And they can’t amend FISA to allow them to get the warrants based on their program.

But when someone says 1978, laugh back in their face.

  • Even if the law was written in 1978, that’s no reason to just not use it. Most of our laws are far older than that. Two of our most import, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, were written in 1787 and 1789, respectively. We have no problems following these ‘old and outdated’ documents. For that matter, Bush and a lot of other people have no problems following a 2000 year old text. 28 years is young in comparison.

  • VT makes a good point. Comparing this with the constitution makes BushCo’s argument clear: we are just doing what we want and nothing stands in our way.

    I suspect Chuck Hagel is simply feeling out the political waters, like a shark that thinks he smells blood but isn’t sure yet. With everything coming down to 2006 midterms, Bush is going to be a hot potato. Republicans are already pushing him on the Abramoff issue.

  • I’m still waiting for the following exchange to occur…

    Republican: Blah, blah, blah,…9/11 changed everything & it’s a different world…”

    Commentator: So you’re saying that conservativism is an outmoded political philosophy? That the “liberals” were right all along that the conservatives are dinosaurs unable to keep up with changing times?

    Republican: [Abort/retry/error until s/he remembers that the usual procedure with difficult questions is to return to the talking point, no matter how irrelevant]

  • Comments are closed.