Bush Admits to Impeachable Offense

Bush has admitted to violating American law and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution barring illegal search and seizure. While he claims:

it was "critical to saving American lives" and "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution."

this clearly is not the case. Hilzoy, guest blogging on Kevin Drum's Washington Monthly, suggests not only the 4th Amendment, it also violates Article II, sec. 3 of the Constitution:

that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

because it violates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires that warrants be granted by secret FIS courts. These warrants are not difficult to get, are infrequently refused, and remain secret. The necessary portions of the FISA:

making it a criminal offense to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute."
And,
"In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof".

By admitting to authorizing electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens by the NSA, as well as promising to continue the policy, Bush has admitted guilt in what (especially when compared to the reason for Clinton's impeachment) should be considered an impeachable offense. And there is evidence that the Senate may at least make a tentative investigation into it. Arlen Specter (R-PA) the head of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, had promised investigations even before Bush's admission. With a Republican senator involved, the investigation would have subpoena power unless the leadership of the Republicans pressures Specter out of the investigation. And there is outrage coming not just from Democrats and moderate Republicans. Bob Barr, one of the leaders of the Clinton impeachment, and he appeared on CNN with the following comments (quoted by Shakespeare's Sister on Washington Monthly):

"The fact of the matter is that, if you have any government official who deliberately orders that federal law be violated despite the best of motives, that certainly ought to be of concern to us…...Well, gee, I guess then the president should be able to ignore whatever provision in the Constitution as long as there’s something after the fact that justifies it…...The fact of the matter is the law prohibits ...— specifically prohibits ...— what apparently was done in this case, and for a member of Congress to say, oh, that doesn't matter, I'm proud that the president violated the law is absolutely astounding"…

On this issue, Bush has clearly crossed the line and any support for his position delineates one as anti-Constitution, anti-rule of law and anti-democracy.