Thursday, February 16, 2006

Check please...

I've been a fan of George Will for 35 years even though most of the time I want to strangle him with his silly bowtie. Maybe it's because I'm attracted to geeks. I can't explain it, it dates back to my Agronsky and Company days. But this column might shed a little light on why I still hold him dear in spite of my long time liberal progressive creds. A few choice quotes:
...Why would future presidents ask, if the present administration successfully asserts its current doctrine? It is that whenever the nation is at war, the other two branches of government have a radically diminished pertinence to governance, and the president determines what that pertinence shall be. This monarchical doctrine emerges from the administration's stance that warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency targeting American citizens on American soil is a legal exercise of the president's inherent powers as commander in chief, even though it violates the clear language of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was written to regulate wartime surveillance.
[...]
Anyway, the argument that the AUMF contained a completely unexpressed congressional intent to empower the president to disregard the FISA regime is risible coming from this administration. It famously opposes those who discover unstated meanings in the Constitution's text and do not strictly construe the language of statutes.
The administration's argument about the legality of the NSA program also has been discordant with its argument about the urgency of extending the USA Patriot Act. Many provisions of that act are superfluous if a president's wartime powers are as far-reaching as today's president says they are.
[...]
Besides, terrorism is not the only new danger of this era. Another is the administration's argument that because the president is commander in chief, he is the "sole organ for the nation in foreign affairs." That non sequitur is refuted by the Constitution's plain language, which empowers Congress to ratify treaties, declare war, fund and regulate military forces, and make laws "necessary and proper" for the execution of all presidential powers . Those powers do not include deciding that a law -- FISA, for example -- is somehow exempted from the presidential duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
[...]
But 53 months later, Congress should make all necessary actions lawful by authorizing the president to take those actions, with suitable supervision. It should do so with language that does not stigmatize what he has been doing, but that implicitly refutes the doctrine that the authorization is superfluous.
The key phrases being necessary lawful actions and suitable supervision. Mr. Will of course loses me with the do not stigmatize provisio. What Bush has been doing is unacceptable by any standard. Our government should not be datamining its citizens -- period.
Bookmark and Share

2 Comments:

Blogger Left of Center said...

Excellent points. It's quite evident that these changes are well crafted. As many have said, these are powers that some have wanted to give the Executive branch for quite some time, and just needed the impetus to do so. The events of 9/11 were all they needed. Of course timing is everything, no sense in having another terrorist act happen until the proper instruments and machinery are in place.

11:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Libby said...

That's what scares me most Left. I think they're getting close to having their machinery in place and how hard would it be to stage a "terrorist incident"?

9:44:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home