"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
-- President George W. Bush, 4/20/2004"So, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, I authorize the interception of international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."
-- President George W. Bush, 12/19/2005
When the President speaks to us, there is an unspoken code of ethics behind every word he utters: We, the People, trust that he is the most knowledgeable individual on the facts, we trust that he is honest in what he communicates, and we trust that he respects the rule of Law, our Constitution. We expect the same of all of our elected officials because we do not, generally speaking, have the time to fact check everything we are told.
But unchecked faith in our leaders is, perhaps, the greatest weakness of our democracy because of the important questions it raises. Are we vigilant enough to know when we are not being told the truth? Are we smart enough to recognize when we're given only partial truths or are lied to by omission? And are we brave enough to admit that our leaders are actually capable of lying? These can be upsetting questions. In fact, some of you reading this are already upset that I've even dared to ask the questions in the first place, despite what history already tells us: that Presidents lie. In 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned because he faced certain impeachment for his lies concerning the Watergate investigation, and in 1998, President Clinton was impeached for lying under oath during the Monica Lewinsky investigation.
But if Presidents, like all human beings, are capable of lying, who then can we trust? And when? The answer: we must must be willing to pay attention, do our fact-checking and then listen to our instincts. As an example, let us examine the current scandal in Washington...
Earlier this week, President Bush claimed he had authority to order the National Security Agency (NSA) to wiretap Americans without a court order if those citizens had suspected links to terrorist organizations. Bush said, "As president and commander in chief, I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country. Article 2 of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the authority necessary to fulfill it." However, an examination of our Constitution proves that the President is not correct. None of the four Sections in Article 2 of the Constitution grants the President the powers to spy on American citizens. In fact, when a President takes office he swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", not the United States itself...a subtle but important difference. And although Article 2, Section 2 does bestow upon the President the title of "Commander in Chief" of the Army, Navy and Militia, the NSA is not a part of the military. Call and ask them yourself - here's the number: (301) 688-6524.
Judicial rulings don't help the President build his case either. In 1974, The Supreme Court voted unanimously that the President of the United States (then Richard Nixon) does not have the jurisdiction to order wiretaps of Americans and then avoid all legal consequences by simply citing "executive privilege".
But we must ask ALL of our officials to be more specific. So when the Vice President defends Bush's authority to order these wiretaps, we must ask him: can you please cite the specific phrase in the specific law which gives the President the authority to overturn the Supreme Court's 1974 ruling? If Mr. Cheney cannot do so and be proven correct, then the Vice President is either lying or ignorant.
And when Attorney General Alberto Gonzoles claims that Congress gave the President consent "to use all necessary and appropriate force" to fight the war on terror, we must boldly ask him: how does the phrase "appropriate force" get misconstrued to mean eavesdropping on our international phone calls without securing a court order? Or ordering the FBI to monitor groups like PETA and Greenpeace that have nothing to do with the war on terror? Or secretly paying to have one-sided, pro-American news stories printed in Iraqi news papers?
If the President of the United States is truly obeying the law, then he has nothing to fear by allowing questions, dissent, or investigations into his actions, especially those being called for by members of his own party like John McCain, Arlen Specter and Lindsey Graham. But if the President reacts to the uproar over his actions with anger, secrecy and a lack of accountability, that sends a clear message to America and to Iraq as well: that although we're willing to fight for Democracy abroad, we're not willing to defend it here at home.
