Imperial Presidential Nonsense

I’ve noticed two good New York Times’ editorials and a column in yesterday’s Philadelphia Inquirer (believe it or not) that I just want to post here without much comment, since they speak for themselves pretty well (all are “behind the wall,” and I think they’re too important not to read).

Here are the two editorials in the Times (first follows):

Of the many ways that President Bush has trampled civil liberties and the balance of powers since the 9/11 attacks, one of the most egregious was his decision to order wiretaps of Americans’ international calls and e-mail without court approval. It was good news, then, when the administration announced (on 1/17) that it would now seek a warrant from the proper court for that sort of eavesdropping.

The president’s decision hardly ends this constitutional crisis. Among other things, the public needs to know why Mr. Bush broke the law for more than five years and what should be done to ensure there will be no more abuses of the wiretap statute.

But we’re pleased that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales informed leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mr. Bush had decided to end the warrantless program. He said the administration had worked out a way to speed the process of getting a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to intercept communications to and from the United States “where there is probable cause to believe that one of the communicants is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization.”

He said the court – created by the 1978 law on domestic wiretapping – issued an order on Jan. 10 governing this new process and that eavesdropping under “the terrorist surveillance program” would be subject to the court’s approval. There are still some big unanswered questions. For one thing, because the new warrant process is secret, we don’t know whether the court has issued a blanket approval for wiretapping, which would undermine the intent of the law, or whether the administration agreed to seek individual warrants.

It was also troubling that Mr. Gonzales repeated his insistence that the warrantless spying was legal. That suggests that the administration – which has never explained why it could not have sought warrants from the start and turned down offers to amend the law – will continue to resist legislative oversight of the wiretapping. It’s also likely to argue that the lawsuits challenging the eavesdropping should be dismissed. The damage has already been done by the president’s decision to ignore the law, and the lawsuits should proceed.

Mr. Gonzales’ announcement clearly was politically timed; he (appeared yesterday) before the Judiciary Committee, now controlled by Democrats who have vowed to investigate the eavesdropping.

We hope they will do that. Congress has a legitimate interest in the creation of this program, which has always seemed motivated more by the president’s relentless campaign to expand his powers than by a real need to speed intelligence gathering.

We strongly agree with John Rockefeller IV, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, that “the administration’s go-it-alone approach, effectively excluding Congress and the courts and operating outside the law, was unnecessary” and that the White House should turn over documents on the creation of the wiretapping program. If the 1978 law needs to be updated, that should happen in public, not in a secret court.”

This administration long ago forfeited the public trust on these issues.

Here’s the second…

In its secretive purge of key United States attorneys, the Bush Administration is needlessly giving comfort to any number of individuals now under federal investigation. Most prominently, there is Representative Jerry Lewis, the California Republican whose dealings as appropriations chairman have been under scrutiny in the continuing investigation of lawmakers delivering quid pro quo favors for contractors and lobbyists.

U.S. Attorney Carol Lam of San Diego is one of a number of prosecutors (there’s no official tally) being forced from office without the courtesy of an explanation. A career professional, Ms. Lam ran a first-rate investigation of Randy Cunningham, the former Republican congressman from California, who admitted taking more than $2.4 million in bribes.

Ms. Lam then turned her attention to Mr. Lewis as she plumbed Congress’ weakness for “earmarks” – legislation that lawmakers customize on behalf of deep-pocketed campaign contributors. The focus moved to Mr. Lewis – who has denied any wrongdoing – after the disclosure that one of his staff aides became a lobbyist and arranged windfall contracts worth hundreds of millions.

Stymied by the previous Republican Congress, Ms. Lam was negotiating with the new Democratic leadership to obtain extensive earmark documentation for her investigation when the administration forced her resignation.

Legal professionals are defending Ms. Lam, with the F.B.I. chief in San Diego asking: “What do you expect her to do? Let corruption exist?” It’s especially alarming that the White House can use a loophole in the Patriot Act to name a successor who will not have to face questions or confirmation by the Senate. The administration owes the nation a full explanation of a move that reeks of politics.

Definitely (I'll get to the Inquirer column later).

And by the way, mcjoan over at The Daily Kos noted this exchange between Gonzales and Arlen Specter regarding habeas corpus (Arlen trying to recover from that little "loophole" thing) that tells you how little regard Bushco has for laws in general, to say nothing of congressional oversight.