the Prez and illegal spying

George W. Bush. I'm not going to rant or try to do a superanalysis on why it's being played like this by the administration.

I'm a little upset. Strictly by justice perceptions. Here's the deal: the debate isn't be about whether or not we should be spying on Americans. I personally feel that civil liberties have been infringed, but--IT'S NOT RELEVANT.

The debate is about whether the Prez can skip out on the checks and balances. There's a policy in place--a secret court. They are allowed to go to them 72 hours later. Over the history of this secret court, they've shot down 2 requests (not like shooting it down retroactively would do anything, but anyways). SO WHY SKIP OUT? This is about skipping out. Is it legal for the Prez to not check in?! NO. That's pretty simple. It's simply unjust to skip out on the checks and balances. Procedurally, it's bad form. Distributively, it's alienating. It's that "I'm above the law" thing.

I'm guessing we'll hear stuff like, "It's a different world today, 9/11, blah blah." And that's fine. But the point is, the Prez broke the law. No one's arguing that spying on people WON'T help us gain info on spies. Why not go through the proper channels? We'll hear crap like, "It would take too long, blah blah blah." I go back to my retroactive point. And anyways, do you seriously think that anyone in Congress or in the courts is going to say, "You know what? We don't want to help protect this country! Fuck you, Mr. President." People would work to find a compromise. And they'd keep it secret, too--just like the current FISA system does.

We'll probably hear, "If you don't support the Prez, you're unpatriotic. He has our best interests in mind." I'm just saying, THAT'S NOT THE POINT! IT'S IRRELEVANT. WHY IS HE AVOIDING THE COURTS? THAT'S WHAT'S RELEVANT.

It's kind of interesting: I remember hearing during the Clinton years (from Gingrich and some other Republicans) that executive powers have been far expanded beyond what's needed, and that executive power needs to be reduced. FDR and the New Deal was way too much, and we've been paying for the Prez having too much power. I believe that Clinton was granted (by a Republican House and Senate) a line-item veto in his first term, and that it was repealled along the same lines--the president can't pick and choose which portions of a bill to veto! And now, it's all changed. The Republicans are now OK with an expansion of power--the Prez can do what he wants if it's for national security! And the Dems are crying, "Too much power! We need less executive power!"

But what do I know.