Bruce Schneier makes a key point here on the implications of the Bush administration's limitless conception of executive power:
If the president can ignore laws regulating surveillance and wiretapping, why is Congress bothering to debate reauthorizing certain provisions of the Patriot Act? Any debate over laws is predicated on the belief that the executive branch will follow the law.
That's exactly right. And it can be taken further, too: the president's own arguments militate against congressional action. Since his primary line of attack against the snoopgate coverage is that it warns the enemy (as they would never imagine that America could possibly be so gauche as to spy on them), why should Congress renew the PATRIOT Act? If Bush can do what he wants anyway, why telegraph to the terrorists that our intelligence services have a freer reign? Fewer walls? Hell, why not take the argument all the way to its strategic conclusion? Propose and pass a bill dramatically limiting executive discretion and sharply constraining the actions of our intelligence services...and then ignore it. To track Bush's reasoning, terrorists would become less careful and we could snatch them with ease.
But Bush doesn't propose that. Americans tend to think their laws should matter, with the actions of the executive roughly comporting to the amount of constitutional and statutory freedom he's been granted. Congress supposedly exercises real oversight and wields tangible legislative authority, they're not hanging around to provide diversionary cover for the president, as played by Harrison Ford. If Bush thinks the country should run differently, he should start that debate by proposing those amendments. But if he doesn't, then he can't just call "Calvinball" on FISA and espionage and berate the critics because they're not hip to the new rules.
