Bush’s press conference

Most of the commentary I’ve read has been on last night’s speech but I thought his news conference this morning was more significant:

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush, brushing aside bipartisan criticism in Congress, said Monday he approved spying on suspected terrorists without court orders because it was “a necessary part of my job to protect” Americans from attack.

The president said he would continue the program “for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens,” and added it included safeguards to protect civil liberties.

Bush bristled at a year-end news conference when asked whether there are any limits on presidential power in wartime.

“I just described limits on this particular program, and that’s what’s important for the American people to understand,” Bush said.

Raising his voice, Bush challenged Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton – without naming them – to allow a final vote on legislation renewing the anti-terror Patriot Act. “I want senators from New York or Los Angeles or Las Vegas to go home and explain why these cities are safer” without the extension, he said.

Reid represents Nevada; Clinton is a New York senator, and both helped block passage of the legislation in the Senate last week.

“In a war on terror we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment,” Bush said.

The legislation has cleared the House but Senate Democrats have blocked final passage and its prospects are uncertain in the final days of the congressional session.

On another issue, Bush acknowledged that a pre-war failure of American intelligence – claiming that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction – has complicated the United States’ ability to confront other potential emerging threats such as Iran.

“Where it is going to be most difficult to make the case is in the public arena,” Bush said. “People will say, if we’re trying to make the case on Iran, ‘Well, if the intelligence failed in Iraq, therefore, how can we trust the intelligence on Iran?'”

The news conference ran just shy of an hour. It was the latest in a series of events – appearances outside Washington, meetings with members of Congress and an Oval Office address on Sunday night – in which the president has sought to quell criticism of the war in Iraq and reverse his months-long slide in the polls.

In opening news conference remarks, Bush said the warrantless spying, conducted by the National Security Agency, was an essential element in the war on terror.

“It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this important program in a time of war. The fact that we’re discussing this program is discussing the enemy,” he said.

I recall his using even stronger language than was reported in how he characterized the disclosure and, when the transcript is available, I’ll see if it jibes with my recollection.

I honestly don’t know what to make of the NSA program or the President’s response. I’m afraid I’ll have to rely on those more learned in the intricacies of Article II constitutional law than I am to make their judgments. I suspect that the political calculation that went into the decision saw the downside risk of acting as the White House did to be less than the risk if lack of action allowed a successful terrorist act. As me auld mither puts it, “It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission”.

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I think that the Congress has been late and slovenly in exercising its prerogatives. Is late better than never? I’m not so sure.

However, I do wish that Bush had been making speeches like last night’s and having press conferences like this morning’s once a week since 2003.

UPDATE: From The LA Times:

“It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this important program in a time of war. The fact that we’re discussing this program is helping the enemy,” he said.

That’s the way I remembered it (which differed from the source I cited). That’s skirting very close to an extremely serious charge—treason—and I believe that such charges should not be made lightly. Either there should be an investigation and, presumably, charges or this is yet another lowering of the tone of public discourse.

ANOTHER UPDATE: I do have one thing to say on the subject of the privacy of email of correspondence. The current technology of Internet email correspondence is such that, unless encrypted, I don’t see how anyone could reasonably have an expectation of privacy. The very mechanisms of transmission mean that an email message is less like a letter delivered by the Post Office or receiving a wired telephone call than it is like posting a notice on a telephone pole.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: So far the wisest words on the subject of the legality of the wiretapping seems to be from Ann Althouse:

Obviously, there is a tremendous amount of controversy about whether these justifications are sufficient. You can say the President ought to have had specific authorization from Congress for what he did, and you might imagine a court sorting through the problem, looking at the legislation that does exist and examining whether the President did things that go beyond that legislation and, if he did, whether he has freestanding executive powers to support his actions. However, what is needed now is for Congress to examine the problem and take a position in response. And, indeed, Congress will do that, with hearings beginning soon—

Or, in other words, it’s not completely clear.

Other than that, much of what I’m seeing is the usual suspects: Hugh Hewitt seems to believe that the actions were clearly legal; Scott Lemieux of Lawyers, Guns and Money seems to believe that the actions are clearly illegal.