Here’s a little food for thought. Let’s suppose that the American public believes George Bush is a bigger threat to national security than it can imagine. Can the average Joe then ask the president to authorise wiretapping, even though the perpetrator in this instance is himself? Perhaps that will also help to unravel clues as to why Bush screwed up so badly.
But seriously, why do Americans have a Constitution at all, except to prevent the kind of abuse Bush is engaging in? If the president declares that he has the right to order wiretapping of the country’s citizens without a warrant by virtue of being the chief executive of the military, and declares that allowing the public to know he is doing such things violates national security, how does anybody have any way of knowing whether any law has been broken?
Darn, this is almost as bad as detention without trial in Singapore. Whatever happened to presumed innocent?
On wiretapping, Bush isn’t listening to the Constitution
The principled fight