Bounce the blank check

Shortly before Christmas, The New York Times revealed President Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to wiretap and monitor phone calls within the United States to identify possible security threats. While there is already checks-and-balances protocol set in place for such action, the president says sometimes the actions must be taken immediately and that the order falls within the boundaries of the law. \nIn the month since, the debate regarding the controversial authorization had been rather muffled and sporadic. That is, until Monday, when the president hit the road and began what will become a week-long series of defenses and explanations of his order for the NSA to listen in on phone calls without the necessary court orders. With the president's public speech, the debate has officially started -- and it's time for the opponents to make their voices heard.\nOnly people with nothing to lose have said anything against the program with as much conviction as the president has in its defense. Pinch-hitting for the opposition, Al Gore gave a major speech last week in which he criticized the president and even went as far as to suggest that authorizing the wiretapping was an impeachable offense. Of course, Gore holds no office and holds zero power. Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, are practicing their favorite pastime of making only minor murmurs so as not to run the risk of actually displaying a backbone.\nBush contends his actions are justified by recent court decisions and holds that before implementing the secret program, he had its logistics analyzed by legal experts. (Gee, how considerate.) But the most potent piece of ammunition opponents have is the now-famous declaration from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a recent Supreme Court decision: "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."\nThe Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings in two weeks to discuss the president's wiretapping authorization, but whether the hearings will accomplish anything is yet to be seen. No one else seems poised to limit the president, so it is up to Congress to bounce his blank check and impose on clearly defined rules for such controversial and secretive activity.\nMaybe the wiretapping is what is truly needed to ensure domestic safety. If that is the case, it needs to be clarified in the law. Right now, the domestic spying seems to be a clear violation of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which set forward guidelines and protocol for obtaining permission to monitor telephone calls within the United States. If the wiretapping is necessary, that act must be amended to make room for such activity, rather than the president simply circumventing it as his leisure.\nBut opponents can't rely on heavily bureaucratic language to counter the president. The president's defense is simple: "Congress gave me the authority, but it didn't prescribe the tactics," he said in his speech Monday. Perhaps his opponents should try countering with something remarkably simpler: "Well, you abused your authority, get ready for some checks and balances"