Collegiate Times

December 16, the New York Times let the world know that in 2002, President Bush issued an executive order allowing the National Security Agency to spy on American citizens without even having to obtain a warrant. Now, those of you who paid attention in your high school government class might be wondering, isnt that kind of unconstitutional? Well Im here to tell you that no, it is not kind of unconstitutional its absolutely unconstitutional, as well as a violation of federal law and a serious threat to our basic liberties.

?The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.?

That?s the Fourth Amendment. Notice that it doesnt say explicitly that all searches must be conducted with a warrant. But that is implied warrants issued upon probable cause are pretty much the only way of ensuring that a search will be reasonable if it is carried out. So any search conducted without a warrant with a small number of exceptions determined by the Supreme Court is automatically unreasonable, and thus unconstitutional.

Seems pretty clear-cut doesnt it? President Bush authorized the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. Wiretapping is a form of searching, according to the Supreme Court. So unless the searches were reasonable and conducting them without obtaining a warrant was reasonable, President Bush violated his oath to uphold the Constitution.

We dont know if the searches were reasonable or not. But we do know that conducting the searches without a warrant is completely unreasonable. There is simply no need for warrantless wiretapping in the war on terror. Bush already has the legal power to start wiretapping at any time, as long as he seeks a warrant in the following three days. With that, it is already easy and quick to spy on people for the purpose of national security perhaps even too easy (the secret court in charge of approving such warrants almost never turns down a warrant request). But Bush, unreasonably, wanted to make it even easier by not obtaining warrants at all.

Thus his warrantless wiretapping was unreasonable and a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

In addition to violating the Constitution, Bushs actions also violate federal law. In 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which specifies what the executive branch can and cannot do with regards to surveillance. The act says that the president may only use warrantless surveillance if it targets a foreign power (not a United States citizen) or if it is conducted within 15 days after a congressional declaration of war. If the president engages in warrantless surveillance that does not fall into either of those categories, he has violated federal law, and is subject to criminal penalties. Bushs warrantless wiretapping targets United States citizens and it has been going on for far longer than 15 days it violates federal law.

That is not just my opinion. A number of Americas top constitutional scholars, with different political views, have concluded that ?the Bush administration?s National Security Agency domestic spying program ... appears on its face to violate existing law.?

Accused of such serious crimes as violating the Constitution and federal law, its not surprising that President Bush is trying very hard to defend the legality of those warrantless searches. His argument boils down to this: 1) he was given the authority by the Congress to engage in warrantless surveillance with the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force and 2) even if the first argument isnt sound, the president has the inherent power as commander-in-chief to do whatever he thinks is necessary to defend America. The first argument is highly questionable. It was not the intention of the authors of the AUMF to allow wiretapping of U.S. Citizens. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that ?the legislative history of the force resolution shows that Congress had no intention of broadening the scope of presidential war-making powers to cover activity in the United States.

The second argument is also dubious, as well as scary. With that, President Bush is essentially claiming that during a time of war, he is King George and we are his subjects. As long as it is done in the name of national security, the president can do whatever he wants. Lock people up without charges, torture them, kidnap them, beat them you name it. He doesnt have to listen to either Congress or the Supreme Court. That is exactly the kind of arbitrary, unlimited, undemocratic power that our Founding Fathers fought against. If that is deemed constitutional, then the Constitution serves no good purpose.

President Bush must be stopped, for our good and the good of the country. What kind of precedent will this set: allowing the president to do whatever he wants in a time of war as long as he says its for our own safety? Even if you think President Bush hasnt abused this power, what about future presidents presidents who you may strongly dislike? Bushs actions are indefensible if you care about whats good for America.