Sen. Specter: 'Bush Broke The Law. So I Will Create A New Law For Him!'

President breaks law. Senator proposes new law saying 'Please obey law'. I reach for Advil.

Washington Post: Specter Proposes NSA Surveillance Rules-
Measure Would Make Administration Seek FISA Court's Permission to Eavesdrop

The federal government would have to obtain permission from a secret court to continue a controversial form of surveillance, which the National Security Agency now conducts without warrants, under a bill being proposed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

Specter's proposal would bring the four-year-old NSA program under the authority of the court created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The act created a mechanism for obtaining warrants to wiretap domestic suspects. But President Bush, shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks, authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on communications without such warrants. The program was revealed in news reports two months ago...

...The draft version of Specter's bill, which is circulating in intelligence and legal circles, would require the attorney general to seek the FISA court's approval for each planned NSA intercept under the program...

So Sen. Specter wants to create a new law. A new law that basically, for all intents and purposes, says the same thing as the 1978 FISA law. A law that would require Bush to answer to the FISA court for his surveillance program. But still without warrants. Sort of. Just getting FISA court approval. Which is kind of the same thing as a warrant anyway.

Why not just make the President follow the original FISA law?!?!?

That is, if you choose to recall, why we are having this discussion in the first place. Because the President has been routinely violating the law with a secret, illegal surveillance program that has been continuously reauthorized since 2001, despite major objections by top Justice Department officials, U.S. Senators, and others before it even became public. And as it became public, and new details were revealed, we learned that not only is the program illegal, but it is also likely not even effective! The White House gave Congress its legal rationale for the move, which even Sen. Specter said was "strained and unrealistic". Polls showed Americans greatly concerned about the issue, if not for the civil liberties aspect, but in majority agreeance that the President breaking the law was a major issue. Hearings had begun on the issue, but were still in the early stages. And now?

Well, if Specter's law does get traction (which knowing Bush and his imperial stubbornness, it might not), that important debate may be stymied. Instead just simply demanding that his majesty comply with the existing law, or even "pay a political price" (to quote Mr. Specter from a few weeks ago), they are simply going to write new laws requiring he do what he was already required to do.

This move by Specter is boneheadedly naive. The President violated FISA for reasons so dubious, we have yet to get a straight answer from Attorney General Gonzales or any of his other surrogates. This scandal wasn't about spying, per se, it was about abuse of Presidential power during wartime. Perhaps Specter's intentions here are good; I'm not that doubting that. Likely, he means this to reinforce the authority the courts have over the President and our surveillance activities. I respect that. But what reasons does Sen. Specter have to believe the President will not simply (and secretly) invoke his imperial 'inherent powers' to override this new law the very first second it becomes inconvenient to him? What if the President agrees to sign the new law... but issues a signing statement effectively nullifying it anyway? Nothing in the administration's behavior, and stated belief on Executive authority, gives the Senator reason to believe that won't happen.

Instead of worrying about how to make the President stop breaking the law, the larger issue Congress needs to be focusing on is the idea of an unchecked Executive branch. What message would this move send to Americans about the rule or law? Or what message would this send to future Presidents (Democrat and Republican alike) about what they can get away with? Allowing this to pass would set a dangerous precedent. Are we a nation of laws? Of checks and balances? Or mere subjects to an Executive with seemingly no limits to his power?

Harper's Magazine has a cover story on impeachment. A passage from that article-

We have before us in the White House a thief who steals the country's good name and reputation for his private and personal use; a liar who seeks to instill in the American people a state of fear; a televangelist who engages the United States in a never-ending crusade against all the world's evil, a wastrel who who squanders a vast sum of the nation's wealth on what turns out to be a recruiting drive certain to multiply the host of our enemies. In a word, a criminal- known to be armed and shown to be dangerous.

Strong charges. Luckily for the President, his Congress will never see them answered.

Either we need Congress to act... or we need a new Congress. I vote for the latter.