[IP] Wiretap Furor Widens Republican Divide
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ken Deifik <kenneth.d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: December 22, 2005 4:28:51 PM EST
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Wiretap Furor Widens Republican Divide
This is one of the most articulate articles available right now on
the subject of the taps, and one of the few that clearly expounds on
the key issue of warrants. (Even All Things Considered's discussion
on the story between two authorities on presidential wartime powers
left out all mention of warrants.)
Not only is it articulate, I find little to disagree with. Bush has
now united those of us on the left with the Wall Street Journal and
Bob Barr. Wait 'til you see his quote. Amazing. (Barr was one of
the leaders of the Clinton impeachment.) -K
Wiretap Furor Widens Republican Divide
While Security Camp Claims Justification,
Civil Libertarians See an Intrusion on Rights
By NEIL KING JR.
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
http://tinyurl.com/dt3fy
December 22, 2005; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's claim that he has a legal right to
eavesdrop on some U.S. citizens without court approval has widened an
ideological gap within his party.
On one side is the national-security camp, made even more numerous by
loyalty to a wartime president. On the other are the small-government
civil libertarians who have long held a privileged place within the
Republican Party but whose ranks have ebbed since the 2001 terrorist
attacks.
The surveillance furor, at least among some conservatives, also has
heightened worries that the party is straying from many of its core
principles the longer it remains in control of both the White House
and Congress.
Conservatives have knocked heads in recent months over the
administration's detainment and treatment of terrorist suspects, and
as recently as yesterday over provisions of the Patriot Act. Strains
also have grown among conservatives over government spending and
whether to loosen U.S. immigration rules.
But the current debate over using the National Security Agency for
domestic surveillance -- which the administration has defended as
legal and necessary -- hit a rawer nerve because it pits national-
security concerns against a core constitutional right, in this case,
the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
"It seems to me that if you're the president, you have to proceed
with great caution when you do anything that flies in the face of the
Constitution," said Warren Rudman, a former Republican senator from
New Hampshire who has served on a number of government intelligence
advisory boards. He calls the administration's surveillance program
"a matter of grave concern."
Since 1978, Congress has required the executive branch to seek
warrants through a secret federal court for domestic eavesdropping on
foreigners or U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism or espionage. Such
permission is all but automatic and usually is granted within hours.
The court granted warrants at the rate of almost five a day last year
-- and rejected none.
President Bush and his top aides argued this week that they were on
solid legal ground in ordering -- without going through the secret
court -- large-scale eavesdropping of communications between the U.S.
and other countries to thwart potential terrorist attacks. They claim
they had the authority to conduct the spying under the president's
powers as commander in chief, as well as under a congressional
resolution that approved the use of force in Afghanistan in 2001.
Yet some prominent conservatives reject that argument. Some even have
accused the administration of treading on the Constitution and
stretching the prerogatives of the presidency to the detriment of
balanced government.
David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, described
the spy program as a case of "presidential overreaching" that he said
most Americans would reject. Columnist George Will wrote in a
Washington Post opinion piece that "conservatives' wholesome wariness
of presidential power has been a casualty of conservative presidents
winning seven of the past 10 elections."
Bob Barr, a Georgia conservative who was one of the Republican
Party's loudest opponents of government snooping until he left
Congress in 2003, says the furor should stand as a test of
Republicans' willingness to call their president to task. "This is
just such an egregious violation of the electronic surveillance
laws," Mr. Barr says.
Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the
Judiciary Committee, has called the program "inappropriate" and
promised to hold hearings early next year. Republicans joining him
include centrist Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John Sununu of New
Hampshire, along with limited-government types like Larry Craig of
Idaho.
The three, along with Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, have sided with
Democrats in the Patriot Act fight, citing concerns the government is
running rough-shod over civil liberties in the name of the war on
terrorism. Without Senate approval by Dec. 31, a bulk of the law's
key provisions would expire. Negotiations over a compromise continued
yesterday.
Some other top Republicans have defended the president's right to
conduct surveillance outside congressionally mandated rules. Sen.
Trent Lott of Mississippi summarized the argument: "I want my
security first," he told reporters when news of the program broke
last week. "I will deal with all the details after that."
Prominent neoconservatives William Kristol and Gary Schmitt opined
earlier this week that the president has the authority to collect
foreign intelligence "as he sees fit," even within the U.S. And no
matter how much people might wish it, they wrote, "Congress cannot
legislate for every contingency."
Vice President Dick Cheney portrayed the dispute as one entirely
about presidential power. "I believe in a strong, robust executive
authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it," he told
reporters while traveling abroad on Tuesday.
Some conservative critics contend that the fault lines within the
party are easy to trace. As with so much else, they say, the trail
leads to Iraq.
"From the beginning, the folks who thought it was a good idea to go
into Iraq have found good reason to think that all other Bush
policies, from torture to domestic surveillance, are justified," said
Robert Levy, a conservative legal scholar at the libertarian Cato
Institute. "This is just one in a litany of ongoing events that have
separated the noninterventionist wing of the Republican Party from
the neocon wing."
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/