The imperial presidency

"We have had discussions with Congress in the past -- certain members of Congress -- as to whether or not FISA [Federal Intelligence Security Act] could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible." -US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, on the administration's warrantless spying on American citizens



This comment epitomizes the arrogance and contempt for the rule of law repeatedly demonstrated by the Bush administration. Essentially, the attorney general is saying "We can't get Congress to legalize these actions so we're just going to do them anyway."

If the Republican administration thinks that spying on dangerous Americans like Quakers and Catholic anti-poverty activists is absolutely critical to national security, then why is it unable to convince a Republican Congress of this alleged necessity?

Bush apologists argue that Congress really gave the president a blank check, law and Constitution be damned, to do whatever he wanted following 9/11. And only whiny partisan Democrats and other terrorists appeasers object to this blank check.

Yet even Kansas Sen, Sam Brownback, a conservative Republican and usually a staunch White House ally, disagrees. "There was no discussion in anything that I was around that gave the president a broad surveillance authority with that resolution," Sen. Brownback told The Associated Press. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is another conservative Republican and normally a friend of the president who's objected to the White House's claims of omnipotence.

And those claims of unchecked authority are precisely what makes this administration so dangerous. What claims?

-Spying on American citizens without a warrant (4th Amendment? We don't need no stinkin' 4th Amendment!)

-Detaining people on foreign battlefields in an undeclared war and then transfering them to an American-run prison camp that, the administration claims, is not subject to American law and keep these people detained indefinitely, without charge or trial until you feel like dealing with them. Some of these prisons are alleged to have been in the former Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe. (Illegal on so many levels)

-Claiming the 'right' to torture these detainees. (To advance the cause of 'freedom and liberty' of course)

-Objecting to Congressional oversight of these human rights' abuses.

-Allegedly kidnapping people on European soil without the knowledge or consent of the governments in question.

-Signing bills but unilaterally claiming the right to ignore provisions it doesn't like (Where is this in the Constitution?)

-Claiming powers derived from Congressional resolutions that Congress never intended to give.

I'm sure there are others but these are what spring to mind immediately.


These claims of unchecked imperial authority are even more dangerous than the actual malfeasence.

I am not shocked that the government is doing bad things in my name. But what usually happens in such cases is that when exposed, someone apologizes and has the decency to know that when caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you should at least pretend to be sorry. Even Bill Clinton faked an apology when he was caught lying about a blow job.

This administration is not the least bit sorry when caught in such extralegal activities. Even though we could be kept just as safe in a legal manner. Instead, those who question this contempt for the rule of law, even friends of the administration, are met with defiance and the proverbial middle finger.

As commentator Ron Elving wrote:

Instead, the administration relies on its own notions of its legal authority (courtesy of the White House counsel and the attorney general) and invokes its responsibility for protecting American lives. The administration line is this: The legal points are arguable, the Congress has been told, and the court of public opinion will vindicate the president.

This is what becomes genuinely disturbing: This blanket assertion of authority has no discernible limits. Accepting it confers on this president -- or any president -- the powers of autocracy.

The president does not have powers of autocracy even during a declared war (which we are not in). Congress was not dissolved during either World War or during the Civil War. If Congress' authority as a co-equal branch of government was respected during those far more grave crises, then there's no need for an imperial presidency right now.



Update: I forgot to add some important revelations reported in an article by The Washington Post.

A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.

The [non-partisan] Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad.

[...]

The 44-page report said that Bush probably cannot claim the broad presidential powers he has relied upon as authority to order the secret monitoring of calls made by U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001. Congress expressly intended for the government to seek warrants from a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before engaging in such surveillance when it passed legislation creating the court in 1978, the CRS report said.