Taps, lies and presidential snoops Bush's eavesdropping fibs catch up with

Clarence Page
Taps, lies and presidential snoops
Bush's eavesdropping fibs catch up with him

Published December 25, 2005

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512250248dec25,0,1320822.column?coll=chi-ed_opinion_columnists-utl


FISA is neither a big obstacle nor a worthless rubber stamp. The founding fathers understood the value of having the three branches of government involved in dilemmas like this one so no single branch would get too big for its wingtips. Divided power has less opportunity to be corrupted by itself.

With that in mind, it is amusing to me to see numerous Bush defenders turning for cover in recent days to the Clinton years. Several major conservative pundits and bloggers claim that Clinton asserted exactly the same legal authority that Bush claims. Actually, as the liberal-leaning media watchdog site Media Matters for America details, the Clinton administration in 1994 cited only "physical searches," which unlike electronic surveillance were not yet covered by FISA.

When Clinton did not like FISA, he sought changes from Congress. Bush chose to defy the law and consult privately with a few members of the Senate. At least one of them, West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller, says the White House ignored his serious concerns.

Which brings us back to the central question Bush has yet to answer: Why did he not follow the law that Congress has passed? The great balance of liberty versus national security should not be a partisan issue. Many principled conservatives have raised this issue, as they should. For those who still are not sure, I offer this advice: Don't grant powers to President Bush that you would not want to grant to President Hillary Clinton.

----------

E-mail: cptime@aol.com

"Don't grant powers to President Bush that you would not want to grant to President Hillary Clinton."

Give the bastard the impeachment he deserves.

And get off the Empire builder Hillary Clinton.