The President's domestic spying revelation: what now?

I wonder what Rich Lowry, editor of The National Review honestly thinks about Pres. Bush's admission yesterday that he authorized spying on American citizens without obtaining a court order, as specified in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Why Rich Lowry?

About a month after the 9/11 attacks, I sat on a panel with Lowry, discussing the implications of the newly-passed Patriot Act for our civil liberties. While several of us said we feared for our freedom, Lowry was predictably upbeat. I remember him saying at one point that we just have to trust the President and his government to use their new powers responsibly.

Nearly two years later, Lowry was still a fan, challenging critics to, "Name one civil liberty that has been violated under the Patriot Act. They can't, which is why they instead rely on hyperbole in an increasingly successful effort to make the Patriot Act a dirty phrase."

Lowry went on to assure his readers that,"The fact is that federal authorities cannot do any of the nasty things under the Patriot Act that critics complain about — electronic surveillance, record searches, etc. — without a court order and a showing of probable cause. A federal judge has to sign off on any alleged 'violation of civil liberties....'"

Well, apparently the President of the United States doesn't think so. He said in his radio address, broadcast yesterday:

"In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks...."

For Sen. Russell Feingold, the President's admission is precisely why civil liberties protections need to be strengthened before the Patriot Act can be reauthorized. He had this to say in his response to the President's radio address,

"Yesterday morning, Republican and Democratic Senators blocked a flawed bill that extended parts of the Patriot Act that are set to expire without fixing the fundamental problems with the law. Nobody wants these parts of the Patriot Act to expire -- we want to fix them before making them permanent, by including important protections for the rights and freedoms of innocent American citizens.

"With a few modest but critical improvements, like making sure that when the government seeks library records it has to show that those records have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy, we can give the government the powers it needs while also protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. The President can sign a bill into law tomorrow to reauthorize the Patriot Act if he will agree to the bill that the Senate unanimously passed in July or he could extend the law for a short period so negotiations can continue.

"The President's shocking admission that he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on American citizens, without going to a court and in violation of the Constitution and laws passed by Congress, further demonstrates the urgent need for these protections. The President believes that he has the power to override the laws that Congress has passed. This is not how our democratic system of government works. The President does not get to pick and choose which laws he wants to follow. He is a president, not a king...."

National Review writer Mark Levin says that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General offer assurances that the President's actions are legal and proper, and that key members of Congress were aware of the program. Further, he speculates that the administration would endanger national security if they released information about the content of the investigations.

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but wasn't the whole system of checks and balances created because one branch of government was not supposed to be allowed to act with impunity, just on its own say-so? If the surveillance was legal and proper, what was the problem with getting a court order? After all, Secretary Rice herself said just last month, to the International Rule of Law Symposium:

"America strives to realize our calling as a nation of laws, not of men, a nation that holds all governments and citizens, especially our own, to principles that transcend mere brute force or will to power. When Americans violate the law, whether in our country or in foreign lands, we do and we should hold them accountable...."

So Rich, what do you say? Should we still place our blind faith in our leaders? Or should we honor the system of checks and balances that is supposed to be a core value in the democratic system that we are trying to export to the rest of the world?

Tags:President Bush,Russ Feingold,Rich Lowry,FISA,civil liberties,spy,PATRIOT ACT