How Spy Program Plays in Peoria

Editor & Publisher (again) has the story:

In recent days, E&P has monitored the overwhelmingly critical response, at major metro editorial pages, to current revelations about the Bush administration's domestic spying program. Even conservatives such as George Will have raised issues about it, but he's another inside-the-Beltway guy. How is the story "playing in Peoria"?

We mean, literally.

It turns out, not all that differently. Here is a lengthy excerpt from the Tuesday editorial in the Peoria (Ill.) Journal Star.*

An unrepentant, even defiant President Bush has admitted to authorizing the National Security Agency to conduct secret electronic eavesdropping on more than 30 occasions involving thousands of citizens, bypassing the court established by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to deal with such circumstances. He defended those actions, proclaiming that the procedure has only been used against those with "a clear link" to al-Qaida. Bush said the Constitution and Congress, when it green-lighted his request to wage war, give him such latitude, which he will continue to exercise.Americans who appreciate what this nation stands for should respectfully disagree with the president's generous and arguably self-serving interpretation of the Constitution, which does not give any occupant of the Oval Office absolute, unilateral power, even in wartime.

Second, to suggest that this is "a vital tool in our war against the terrorists" is stretching reality. Indeed, there is nothing the president has done that he couldn't have within the already established rules. Yes, this is a different kind of war and Uncle Sam needs the bureaucratic flexibility to react quickly and discreetly. But the Justice Department already could move immediately to initiate electronic surveillance, with 72 hours to seek a judge's retroactive OK. Even without that, it can take just a few hours to get the permission of the FISA court, which operates behind closed doors. In practice, presidential petitions for wiretaps are rarely denied.

Graham and others are right to be worried about the integrity of the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans against unreasonable search and seizure. The president maintains there was oversight because congressional leaders were briefed. But it's not like he was seeking their permission. Moreover, if any congressman had revealed the existence of the program by objecting to it in any public way, wouldn't that have amounted to an illegal disclosure of classified information?