In keeping the NSA spying story alive, the

New York Times gives us a more detailed look today into how the NSA assumed
their powers:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 3 – The National Security Agency acted on its own
authority, without a formal directive from President Bush, to expand its
domestic surveillance operations in the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks,
according to declassified documents released Tuesday.

The N.S.A. operation prompted questions from a leading Democrat,
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who said in an Oct. 11, 2001,
letter to a top intelligence official that she was concerned about the
agency’s legal authority to expand its domestic operations, the documents
showed.

Article continues

here.

From this account it is becoming more obvious that the legalities of the
program are even more at question. Last week it was discovered that Bush didn’t
try to pursue his warrantless tap powers until the following summer. He tried to
go through Comey, the acting Attorney General who would not agree to it which
prompted an emergency visit to John Ashcroft, the Attorney General, who was in
intensive care recovering from surgery.

So what happened in those 9+ months between when the NSA initiated this
program and when Bush went to the AG to get his so called “authorization”.
Actually this report puts Bush into a tighter corner as now there is evidence
the program started without the executive order which Bush said “gives him the
authority”. Now it appears that Bush may have done this executive order so that
he could cover up illegal spying being done by the NSA.

Another interesting take from the article is this:

The way the N.S.A.’s role has expanded has prompted concern even from
some of its former leaders, like Bobby R. Inman, a retired admiral who was
N.S.A. director from 1977 to 1981. Admiral Inman said that while he
supported the decision to step up eavesdropping against potential terrorists
immediately after the 2001 attacks, the Bush administration should have
tried to change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide
explicit legal authorization for what N.S.A. was doing.

“What I don’t understand is why when you’re proposing the Patriot Act,
you don’t set up an oversight mechanism for this?” Admiral Inman said in an
interview. “I would have preferred an approach to try to gain legislation to
try to operate with new technology and with an audit of how this technology
was used.”

I must agree that if this program was so vital then why didn’t Bush lobby for
a provision to allow it. Perhaps he didn’t because he knew Congress might be
hesitant to pass such a broad power to the executive branch but legislation
could of been included similar to the current FISA statues mandating timely
reports to Congress on the activites.

Another interesting look into this comes from conservative blogger

Andrew Sullivan who has this on his blog:

Cato has suggested that if the president can simply break the law when he
feels like it in pursuing the war on terror, why bother with the Patriot Act
at all? Or the McCain Amendment?

You can read his full entry

here as he has highlighted many other conservatives who seem to oppose the
warantless wiretaps. That statement is very true however. Bush is currently
fighting to get the Patriot Act renewed, but why? He can just enact it with a
stroke of his mighty pen. He is a war time President and has all this power, or
so he thinks.

Some of that statement may be coming to light though. It seems that when Bush
signed the McCain torture ban into law last week he also added a way he thinks
he can get around it:

WASHINGTON — When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the
torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under
his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ”signing statement”
— an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of
a new law — declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the
context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush
believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal
specialists said.

”The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent
with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in
Chief,” Bush wrote, adding that this approach ”will assist in achieving the
shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the
American people from further terrorist attacks.”

View complete article

here.

Bush’s constitutional authority? What about the constitutional authority of
Congress, particularly article 1 section 8 which states Congress shall have the
power to “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;”. So they make the rules and Bush can override them? Bush might be the
commander in chief but Congress is the rule makers. That is the constitutional
authority and no where in the constitution does it say Bush’s rules can trump
those of Congress, in war or in peace.

Bush has become mad with power. Most likley influences of people like Cheney
and Rumsfeld, who have been activists in giving more power to the executive
branch, have played a large part in this. Congress must start hearings now into
this unchecked power and instantly restore the much needed balance that our
country depends on. If one branch’s power gets to out of control we are
threatened with becoming a dictatorship.