Apparently, George Allen hasn't read up on the separation of powers, co-equal branches of government, etc., etc. Why do I say this? Because yesterday, on CNN's Late Edition, Virginia's illustrious (or is it infamous?) junior Senator essentially argued that, in a time of "war," the President can do whatever the heck he likes. Here's the exchange with Wolf Blitzer, on warrant-less wiretaps being conducted on Americans by the National Security Agency (bolding added for emphasis):
BLITZER: Why doesn't the president, Senator Allen, simply go to the Congress and say, you know what, this FISA, this Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, that was created in the '70s when everybody had sort of a single hard-line telephone before this communications revolution, this technology breakthrough that's occurred in recent years, and go to the Congress and say, I need this new authority, can you give me that authority?Why not go that route, as opposed to unilaterally just coming up with a legal opinion and saying, I have that authority built in?
ALLEN: All right.
Several points here, Wolf: Number one, he does have the authority. An argument can be made that the president by virtue of his office and his role and responsibility is to prevent attacks on the United States. That's just, generally.
The more specific authority he has right now was the Congress authorized the use of military force. And, in that use of military force, it was to wage war against those who have declared war on us, specifically Al Qaeda.
And to do that, of course, you need military action, but also you need intelligence...
BLITZER: Senator, Senator, let me interrupt you. On that point, when you voted for that resolution, did anyone say to you that you were authorizing warrant-less wiretaps of American citizens?ALLEN: No, nor did a lot of tactical decisions that were made in the midst of this war on terror; neither did I know what sort of intercepts or communications of financial assistance or other things that I don't know about and none of us should know about because it would tip off our opponents or our enemy.
The point of the matter is that this is what you would expect. Wouldn't you want us to know what the enemies are plotting against us? This is focused. These intercepts are focused on calls from phones that are related to Al Qaeda that may come into this country.
We have an enemy that is now possibly -- of course, it did hit on our ground here in the homeland, but they also would like to do it again. And so, in my view, Congress authorized it.
I find nothing wrong, though, with having a hearing. This maybe ought to be something that you would ratify -- yes, the president has this authority. But we had a case just recently, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld which I think was dispositive on the legal justification. But there's nothing wrong with having an investigation or understanding what's going on so long as we don't tip off our enemies, our opponents, as to what we're doing as far as our methods.
Wow. In other words, as I said before, Allen is basically arguing that the President - in time of "war" (however defined) - can do whatever the hell he wants to do. And Congress? Basically, it can rubber stamp the decision after the fact, even if the President clearly has gone beyond what said Congress has authorized. Anything, George Allen argues, just keep me safe from my dastardly enemies!! Waaaaaaah!! What a wuss.
Seriously, is THIS what our grandfathers' generation fought and died for in World War II, so that we could throw away our Constitution because of a bunch of terrorists hiding in caves in Pakistan? Of course, George Allen has always been a "chickenhawk," having conveniently missed serving in Vietnam. As did, for instance, a truly courageous man like James Webb, who I am hopeful will announce shortly that he is taking on "Cowboy George." Then, in January 2007, I look forward to Senator Webb voting to authorize extensive hearings into the Bush Administration's illegal and unconsitutional behavior.