"the sky is falling" lefties, put them in straitjackets (so that they don't hurt themselves or anyone else) and then lock them up in an insane asylum.This suggestion of mine has at least one outstanding merit as opposed to theirs: I don't actually mean it. But my suggestion is no more outrageous or goofy, no more irresponsible or paranoid, and no more an assault on democratic principles than what they are mouthing (and I say as much even though I disagree with the administration's domestic spying).
It is this revelation - that the administration has eavesdropped without court review on conversations between overseas terrorists and legal U.S. residents - that has especially stirred up the anti-Bush zanies, many of whom were already hysterical and shrill to the point of comparing the president to Hitler (as if he were similarly killing millions in gas chambers).
But let's consider the following.
A nearly imperceptible percentage of Americans are likely to ever have their privacy violated by the spying and the policy, which mainly targets those who have buddies in al-Qaida, has quite possibly been one of the administration policies that has saved us from a repeat of Sept. 11.
As the president said in a press conference, he himself has continuously reviewed the execution of the policy. Congressional leaders were kept abreast of it. And while a 1970s law prohibits the domestic wiretapping, the president's defenders point out that every president since its passage has asserted that the Constitution grants him authority to ignore it and courts have, on more than one occasion, agreed. Many respected constitutional experts have argued that the 1970s law was itself an infringement on a president's right as commander in chief to safeguard America in a time of war.
There remains a strong case that, whatever the difficulties, the administration should have sought congressional legalization of the practice and found a way for judicial review (even if it had to come after the federal agents had done their eavesdropping). The Constitution says explicitly that the president should uphold the law (which seems explicit and clear, whatever the courts say), and I can find nothing that says the obligation evaporates in a time of war. Court review is necessary to make sure that the executive does not extend its domestic spying beyond the narrow scope of what we now know is taking place.
The possibilities for abuse are obvious and could add up to serious civil rights infringements in the absence of this check.But this is not the same as saying that the legal arguments against the president are impenetrable, that the White House acted in bad faith - without regard for the legislative branch - or that national security dividends could not have resulted.
What we have here is a debate, but not a revelation of malfeasance. Anyone who suggests that the solution to this argument is impeachment, rather than democratic give and take, walks dangerously close to melodramatic absolutism. Yet, we have a number of congressional Democrats (in addition to some liberal columnists and Hollywood's dubious analysts) talking about impeachment as if they finally had their opportunity to overturn the judgment of the electorate. While I don't seriously advocate straitjackets for them, nothing would delight me more than to see them feel democracy's sting in failed reelection efforts.
Examiner columnist Jay Ambrose is a former Washington opinion writer and editor of two dailies.