As the Old Republic is in its last days and Chancellor Palpatine claims martial law in 'Star Wars: Episode III,' Senator Amidala says, 'So this is how liberty dies'with thunderous applause.' Much like the citizens of the fantasy republic, Americans are watching their liberty die. In this instance it is because of the president's domestic spying program. It is the result of a president who feels he is above the law and above the separation of powers, which is one of the pillars our great nation stands upon.
Never mind that Congress should be fully informed of this program, seeing as how it should have been under their regulation. Why would President Bush need the legislative branch when he is above the law?
Never mind that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires a warrant for this kind of surveillance. Why would Bush need the judicial branch when he is above the law?
Never mind that the American people are not only being left in the dark, but are also being potentially violated under the ambiguous claim of protecting the country in the 'war on terror.' Why would Bush need the American people when he is above the law?
Bush claims the program is necessary because it has saved thousands of lives. But a Jan. 16 New York Times report debunks this claim, stating the program found thin information that never led anywhere.
He claims the program is 'limited in nature,' but the same report shows FBI agents were required to check out thousands of tips a month, wasting their valuable time.
We must look beyond the Bush administration's false defense to see that the program has violated the law by bypassing FISA and Congress. He violated the Constitution by expanding executive power to a level bordering on monarchy.
The same executive power has been used to defend torture. A 2002 memo claims Congress cannot regulate interrogation of detainees because it 'would violate the Constitution's sole vesting of the commander-in-chief authority in the president.'
The very concept of the president having sole authority is ludicrous and goes against checks and balances ingrained in our political system. Sole authority would mean his intent in signing a bill can trump that of Congress. It would mean he can claim power without supervision of the courts. This way of thinking completely ignores the checks-and-balances system so strongly believed in by the framers of our Constitution.
If a president keeps members of Congress in the dark on issues they are supposed to be regulating and does not take their concerns into consideration, he is abusing his power. If a president bypasses the judicial branch altogether on false grounds of war powers, he is abusing his power.
The Constitution contains checks and balances to prohibit this. The framers wanted to avoid a king at all costs after escaping the English monarchy. By heavily investing in the rule of law and checks on the presidency, the Constitution made it impossible for power to legally be put in the hands of the few. By abusing his executive power, Bush has taken us one step closer to monarchy.
Bush is trying to make us believe we have to trade some of our liberty in exchange for protection. He is wrong. Ben Franklin said, 'Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.' If Bush continues to subvert the other branches of government claiming unfettered power, democracy will be threatened and liberty will be lost. I do not intend to applaud.
