In this issue, we cover two stories with widespread and grave implications. President Bush’s recent admission of a large-scale wiretapping program and a federal judge’s ruling that American citizens can be indefinitely held at the border both paint a picture of a government superceding the Constitution in the name of “national security.” Since 9/11, the Bush Administration, under the banner of protecting America from terrorism, has ignored the preexisting holes in security (outdated computer systems, bureaucratic ineptitude, etc.) in favor of what many consider an illegal and superfluous increase in governmental powers.

President Bush, in authorizing wiretapping without judicial approval was in direct violation of FISA, a law which was passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal in order to prevent further abuses of power. Bush’s justification for his action—positing that it was necessary to circumvent the act in the name of necessary improvements in security—is ultimately specious. If the president had a pressing need to monitor someone’s phone activity, he could order an immediate wiretap on the condition that he acquires a warrant within three days (not a difficult task granting that there really was an emergency). In light of this, why would the president need to circumvent the law, when it had more than enough leeway accounting for security concerns?

Whether the motives were earnest but misguided or sinister, this is another example of the government’s paranoid and overzealous “improvements” in national security since the so-called “War on Terror” began. Obviously, there is a need for preventative security (what country does not have this need?), but defending against terrorism should not compromise the inalienable rights that the Constitution guarantees.

The 9/11 Commission found that the United States had gathered intelligence on the potential for a future act of terrorism prior to the creation of the Patriot Act or the circumvention of FISA. It was not the inability to freely wiretap or detain without charges at the border that rendered our country unsafe. Instead, it was bureaucratic inefficiency which blocked this intelligence from getting the proper attention. Thus, are questionable increases in power necessary?

If the government really wants to improve security, why has it not upgraded the FBI’s computer system—a system, which at the present moment can only handle one-word-at-a-time searches? Why does a state like Wyoming (see Christopher Willet’s excellent Letter to the Editor in last Wednesday’s Spectrum entitled “Spying Akin to Witch Hunt”) get more funding per capita to fight terrorism than New York? The answers to these questions have yet to be given by the Bush Administration. In their place, we have more superficial, unconstitutional increases in power. The United States should not suffer this gross misconduct much longer.

Until now, I did not think that it was necessary to impeach the president. I thought he was an incompetent, smug, and overzealous leader, but not worth of the intense and jarring process of removal from office. America is a country centered on democratic laws maintained by the people and not one man. When the person elected to uphold the law is in violation of it, his entitlement to power becomes forfeit. If Congress was hellbent on impeaching President Clinton for mistakes he made in his personal life, there is no reason it should not have the same determination to bring a man to justice for violating the rights of the American people. President Bush getting away with this kills the credibility and strength of the system of checks and balances crucial to the structure of our government.

No one wants to see the United States get attacked again. However, improved security does not equate to a compromise of our core democratic values. Has our security even been improved when our government wastes time and resources focusing on people that pose little threat like Hassan Shibly? After 9/11, things may be more thorough, but it is hard to tell if it is more efficient. Protecting America should not mean that the laws can be unnecessarily violated by those sworn to protect them.