Follow me past the fold and I'll give you a point to ponder. I hope the point will help you debate the issue with your favorite wingnut. It has their favorite dirty word...Hillary.First off, you need to understand what has happened here. Carter in 78 signed into law FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) which specifically sets up a secret court for situations where short notice and secrecy is needed for wire taps. In the history of this program since 1978, there have been a total of 15,264 requests for wire taps made. These occurred under Carter, Regan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and this Bush. However, beginning in 2003 4 requests were rejected. 79 of the requests were initially declined for revisions, but later approved. That never happened before 2003. In 2004 it jumped to another 94 requests denied on first attempt to be later approved. So what we can see is that beginning in 2003 the secret court that handles these cases started to see issues and had to have the White House modify their requests. It was around this time that Bush signed the directive to bypass the courts and just have the NSA do it with no further oversight. (Thanks to Josh at TPM for the details.)
What made him think it was ok? A memo by a guy named John Yoo. In this memo, which was also used as justification for ignoring the geneva conventions, the lawyer argues that as long as terrorists threated this country, the president has absolute authority and can do ANYTHING that he feels is necessary to fight the war on terror. With no oversight whatsoever. Think about that. ANYTHING. By the details of this memo, Bush, if he was so inclined, would be completely justified disbanding Congress, removing the supreme court and declaring martial law. Don't think he would? Probably not, but the point is that with the way this memo is written, he most certainly could. So based on this Bush sees no issues with any actions he takes because he's been specifically told there is no legal recourse that can be used against him. His power is total.
I want everyone to think about one aspect of that though. This is setting precedent. Know what that means? That means if Bush is able to do this without threat of prosecution or impeachment, then every president after him can do the same. Big deal you think?
What if the next one is Hillary Clinton? Do you trust her with the same level of authority? Think about that. Based on what Bush has done, the next president could do the exact same thing with no more than a "just trust me". Do you trust Hillary that much? How about some other guy/woman? Maybe not in 08, but how about '12 or '16. All of them will have this precedent in front of them that says that they can listen to conversations of ANY American they choose with NO oversight from the courts or the congress. Beyond that, because of this precedent, the president would be "all powerful" and would be able to do absolutely anything he/she wants.
So you may trust Bush emphatically. Fine. Do you trust the next one? Or the next? Think about that before you say this is no big deal.
Note: I originally wrote this as a letter to some family members who think the whole issue is nothing. This is why there is an overtone of negativity around Hillary. Simply because I know that name gets under their skin.
