A few months ago, I posted about how I didn't think it was a good idea to impeach Bush.

I have changed my mind. This latest business about warrantless spying on Americans has put me over the edge.

Impeachment is the ultimate weapon of the legislative branch against an executive branch gone out of control. When possible, I'd prefer to see Congress rein in the President by more conventional means, like passing a law that says, "In the event that the United States has a large troop force occupying Iraq attempting to establish a democracy after the fall of a dictator named Saddam Hussein, withdrawal of those troops shall commence on X date and proceed according to this schedule."

However, when the President defies laws already passed by Congress, well, that's where you have to bust out the big guns. I do want to note that the impeachment had better involve Dick Cheney as well as GWB, because Dick Cheney is a paranoid megalomaniac fuck; if he had commander-in-chief authority, I would not put it past him to respond to impeachment by ordering the National Guard--or the Army--into the Capitol.

Bush's actions in this latest scandal seem utterly indefensible, yet, as Ltwelve2 said there would be, there are people out there trying to defend them. If you can't read the article, it's the apotheosis of great flaming idiocy; I shall now dissect (or, rather, bludgeon to death) the most appalling bits.

The president has the constitutional authority to acquire foreign intelligence without a warrant or any other type of judicial blessing. The courts have acknowledged this authority, and numerous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have espoused the same view.

Possibly true, but irrelevant. See, when you're spying on Americans, even when they're calling someone in a different country, that's what we call "domestic intelligence." Domestic means in the same country. Foreign means not in the same country. See Dick. See Bush. See Dick and Bush violate the Constitution.

The procedures under the surveillance act are streamlined, but nevertheless involve a number of bureaucratic steps. Furthermore, the FISA court is not a rubber stamp and may well decline to issue warrants even when wartime necessity compels surveillance.

Of course it's not a rubber stamp. That's the point, you idiots. The FISA court is there to make sure that if the President decides he's going to, oh, I don't know, use military intelligence forces to spy on peaceful political demonstrators, somebody can step in and say, "Hey, wait a minute. That ain't wartime necessity, buster."

Out of 14,000 requests for warrants, the FISA court has refused something like 5. Hardly a record of meddlesome judicial interference with defense of the homeland... or, as we civil-rights loonies like to call it, "upholding the Fourth Amendment."

Frankly, I was appalled when I first learned about the existence of FISA. I thought it was egregious abuse of power and an obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment. Now, apparently, the executive branch has decided to bypass even this kangaroo court.

More to the point, the surveillance act was designed for the intricate "spy versus spy" world of the cold war, where move and countermove could be counted in days and hours, rather than minutes and seconds. It was not drafted to deal with the collection of intelligence involving the enemy's military operations in wartime, when information must be put to immediate use.

Can you smell that sweet straw man? I challenge the Bush Administration or anyone else to come up with a case in which a wiretap was actually a matter of "minutes and seconds." In any case, this claim conveniently ignores the fact that under FISA, the executive branch can spy first and apply later--they can put a wiretap in place on no authority but their own, then apply to the FISA court for a retroactive warrant. As long as they submit their application within 72 hours of placing the wiretap, they're fine.

Indeed, it is highly doubtful whether individuals involved in a conflict have any "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their communications, which is the touchstone of protection under both the Fourth Amendment and the surveillance act itself - anymore than a tank commander has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his communications with his commanders on the battlefield. The same goes for noncombatants swept up in the hostilities.

I don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when I'm talking to a friend on the telephone, from my own home? When do I have a reasonable expectation of privacy, then?

(I was going to follow that last question up with an example of a situation in which it would be ridiculously obvious that I had an expectation of privacy, but then I realized that I couldn't do much better than "talking to a friend on the telephone, from my own home." And by the way, you aren't allowed to say, "But what if you're talking to a known terrorist?" If the government can prove I'm talking to a known terrorist, they should have no trouble getting a warrant.)

Even if Congress had intended to restrict the president's ability to obtain intelligence in such circumstances, it could not have constitutionally done so. The Constitution designates the president as commander in chief, and Congress can no more direct his exercise of that authority than he can direct Congress in the execution of its constitutional duties.

By this logic, if the President orders the Army to bomb Congress, drop nerve gas on the Supreme Court, and impose martial law, he's perfectly within his rights to do so, and Congress can't tell him to stop. He's the commander in chief, isn't he? If he decides it's wartime necessity, he can order the troops to do it, no matter what.

Uh... no.

In this instance, in addition to relying on his own inherent constitutional authority, the president can also draw upon the specific Congressional authorization "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks "in order to prevent any future attacks of international terrorism against the United States."

See previous comment. What if Bush decides some members of Congress are in league with the terrorists?

The key words here are "necessary and appropriate."

The Constitution's framers did not vest absolute power in any branch of the federal government, including the courts, but they did create a strong executive and equipped the office with sufficient authority to act energetically to defend the national interest in wartime. That is what President Bush has done, and nothing more.

Hmm. I disagree. I say that Bush has, in fact, sent his minions to peek at women in the shower, kill cute little kittens, and install mind control rays in civilian communications satellites. And guess what? Because no one is overseeing the activities of the executive branch any more, you can't prove me wrong.


(Note to commenters: If you're going to post something along the lines of "The Fourth Amendment is a load of bull and the President should be allowed to spy on anybody, any time," or anything equally incendiary, I will expect you to include the reason why you think this is the case, in your first post. Otherwise, I will deem you a troll, delete your post, and probably ban you. I'm fine with hearing from different points of view, even ones radically different from mine, but posting "Fuck the Fourth Amendment!" and nothing else does not constitute a point of view.)