It's easy to rag on the New York Times because, chances are (in fact it's almost certain that), they really don't give a rat's posterior about the security of the United States. However, there is a legitimate concern about the way that Bush has worked against the checks and balances. Yes, it's true that hitherto the abuses have been dealt with, but there has been a dearth of long-term planning about the way that the counter-terrorism powers can be used.
I think it would do a lot to assuage public concerns about these programs, and pre-empt the groups like the New York Times who are acting almost entirely out of a hatred of Bush (as opposed to a genuine concern about civil liberties) if Bush actually imposed real, transparent controls on these powers. He and his lawyers have done a lot to undermine "cumbersome restrictions" on his war powers, but there is valid historical precedent to be scared of the melding of law enforcement, military and intelligence that has happened under Bush. How about Bush start with the following:
- Pass an executive order and draft legislation to reinforce the executive order, that creates a new legal regime that prohibits any criminal investigation unrelated to terrorism to arise from evidence gathered by the intelligence agencies. No exceptions, even if it's a capital murder or child molestation case. War powers cannot intrude upon the normal criminal justice system.
- Change the law so that intelligence agencies not only can legally refuse to follow an order to conduct surveillance on American citizens if they have sufficient reason to believe that the motive is political, not terrorism-related, but make it a legal ground for impeachment of the President. Raise your hand if you oppose this and like the idea of Clinton II having access to these powers, instead of just a few FBI files.
- Create a two-part regime for detaining terrorists: "militant" and "material aid." If the government can prove to a court that an American citizen has actually participated in a military operation against the United States, he or she can be detained as a foreign combatant without any legal rights. If the government can only prove that they have provided material aid and comfort, they must instead be charged with treason and can only be subjected to a secret trial if the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are capable of providing material aid to militants if the trial is conducted publically.
It's disheartening to see a lot of conservative bloggers let their passion for seeing the less than patriotic editors at the New York Times go down, get in the way of appreciating the need to rein in some of the police powers that Bush has grabbed. Even if you think that Bush has done a good job, there is no denying the fact that he won't be President in the next few years. We cannot have a set of laws and powers created with the assumption that someone like him will be the one employing them.
Conservative bloggers ought to also be asking the Bush Administration why they have done so little to clean up security problems such as the illegal immigration problem that compound the terrorism issue. Bush has lost a lot of his authority as a leader because he has pulled some very PC stunts such as labeling the minutement vigilantes. I don't think it takes a big leap of logic to question a leader who invokes war powers on some issues, but has a rather disturbing apathy toward more basic wartime concerns such as border security. If Bush had treated this like a war from the very beginning, he wouldn't come off as such a hypocrite to dissenting hawks.
Others:
"Pass an executive order ... War powers cannot intrude upon the normal criminal justice system."
Sorry, MikeT, but the above is gobbledygook. The very NATURE of the executive order, aka Imperial Decree, as used since the Fall of our Republic, is utter anathema to the Olde Constitution. And, of course, they aren't "passed", other than the way gas is...
The fact is that so-called "war powers" are INTENDED to bypass, override, and generally distort what WAS a Rule of Law. There can BE no prevention of 'intrusion' when the very purpose of the ruse is exactly that.
Why not just wish for Kings who would honor their oaths?
I think you are being semantical here. What I meant by "passing an executive order" is nothing more than write up a directive to all federal personnel engaged in WoT activities to exclude all normal criminal investigations from WoT investigations.
The problem is... even if we abide by the rule of law to the letter, end all immigration and secure the borders, they'll still try to sneak in. The federal government can--and should-- treat such people as military personnel which would allow the regular legal system to go untouched.