The power vested in him

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Presidential authority. Isn't that what all the sensational stories and the ensuing political division are really all about?

President Bush has said he's operating within the allowable power vested in him to stop attacks, and his chosen tactics are much more effective if the enemy doesn't know them. In a nutshell, this is most likely why he appealed to the two big newspapers to bury the NSA story.

This is a good read (despite the liberal slant) and lays out the issues we face in fighting this uncoventional war. How far can the president go in using extraordinary measures to fulfull his duties under Article II of the Constitution? Since the Constitution never imagined WMDs, should it be amended to reflect our modern threats? Unchecked presidential power was a concern to the founders, and in a seemingly open-ended conflict such as the GWoT, allowing a president expanded powers might de facto make them permanent.

Fine, but when is a public debate proper? I can't imagine Roosevelt encouraging a national debate in 1944 about whether we should build and drop the bomb. Did the Times leak the Manhattan Project before the Indianapolis was loaded and sailing? Fast forward to today, Bin Laden and Zawahiri are still running loose, and Saddam has yet to see the noose. Bush clearly believes we are still at war and still under great threat. Many others have come to characterize it on less urgent terms, which as the president points out can be quite dangerous. I don't believe it's time for a public debate yet.

One more thing to point out. The WaPo article is an example of a vague conventional wisdom that the GWoT only began when the towers fell. As an example, the article didn't mention the history of the CIA's fight against Bin Laden, which began in 1995 with the terrorist rendition program (CIA airlines). Terrorist torture occurred during that operation, but was enacted by foreign governments.

One has to guess that any mention of such history would take away from the ongoing merriment of the Bush bash along with illustrating how utterly ineffectual Clinton-era programs were. It might also condemn the MSM itself for not playing up the threat as strongly as it deserved and their double standard in terms of outrage level. Starting history around 2001 is much more convenient.

But they aren't alone in their amnesia. The 9/11 Commission also seemed to take the view that the roots of the attack were not worth exploring back past the late 90s, since they largely ignored the first attack in 1993 and its connection to the second, and took a laissez faire attitude regarding terrorist funding at large.

ONE MORE FOR THE ROAD 12/31

Macsmind has many details of the question of whether these leakers are patriotic whistleblowers or sleazy seditionists.

Folks keep wondering about why Bush didn't stick with normal FISA protocol. Here's what we know about the timing of the special program:

A high-ranking intelligence official with firsthand knowledge said in an interview yesterday that Vice President Cheney, then-Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet and Michael V. Hayden, then a lieutenant general and director of the National Security Agency, briefed four key members of Congress about the NSA's new domestic surveillance on Oct. 25, 2001, and Nov. 14, 2001, shortly after Bush signed a highly classified directive that eliminated some restrictions on eavesdropping against U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

The first anthrax letters were received in early October. Bush ramped up the NSA program in October, more than a month after the 9/11 attacks and well after the Congressional authority to open a can of whoopass on AQ. Connection? You be the judge.