When the Bush administration began I didn’t have much faith that they would make good decisions but I never expected to see the editorial board of the New York Times become so unflinchingly vituperative in response. They see the president’s lawbreaking on domestic surveillance as criminal, and they sound like the political blogosphere in denouncing it.
Finally, Mr. Bush said it was vital to national security to give amnesty to any company that turned over data on Americans without a court order. The purpose of this amnesty is not to protect national secrets — that could be done during a trial — but to make sure that the full damage to Americans’ civil liberties is never revealed. Mr. Bush also objects to a provision that would create a committee to examine his warrantless spying program.
Mr. Bush wanted the House to approve the Senate’s version of the bill, which includes Mr. Bush’s amnesty and does not do nearly as good a job of preserving Americans’ rights. We were glad the House ignored his bluster. If the Senate cannot summon the courage and good sense to follow suit, there is no rush to pass a law.
The president will continue to claim the country is in grave danger over this issue, but it is not. The real danger is for Mr. Bush. A good law — like the House bill — would allow Americans to finally see the breathtaking extent of his lawless behavior.
After eight year of the administration, the Times is blunt and unafraid in its condemnation. If only they had taken that attitude from the moment it became obvious that it was appropriate.
