[White House]

Watershed Moment.

Well, you can't say the cards aren't on the table. Stymied for the first time by a Congress not perfectly compliant with his autocratic impulses, and a press not perfectly willing to run his press releases as fact, Bush has now made the naked case for executive power. From today's radio address:

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

[The NSA's secret wiretapping] is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

Bush's legal team crafted the first part of that language. Bush is careful to claim that the NSA only intercepts international communication--important because domestic communication is protected by law. The second half of that first statement is designed to give the appearance of checks and balances--"the government must have information"--but the "government" here is the executive branch, working secretly and without judicial oversight.

The second paragraph is Bush's claim to power. Not only does he threaten Americans ("crucial to our national security"), but he threatens our free press. Earlier in his speech, talking about the Senate's Patriot Act filibuster, he threatened senators, calling them de facto traitors.

The Times has run a companion piece to its scoop yesterday about the NSA which discusses the legal questions. It will be interesting to watch the righties muster their inevitable defense of these practices (the states' rights party becomes defenders of Orwellian federal abuses), but it's hard to see how there's a legal justification.

"Obviously we have to do things differently because of the terrorist threat," said Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, former general counsel of both N.S.A. and the Central Intelligence Agency, who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. "But to do it without the participation of the Congress and the courts is unwise in the extreme."

This seems like a watershed moment in the Bush presidency. Working behind the cover of 9/11 and Congressional domination, Bush was able to secretly exercise unconstitutional power over American citizens. He no longer has the cover, and today, he decided to make a brazen grab. I think Atrios was right yesterday to cite this as the moment when conservatives earn their stripes (the Atrios Test)--are they for naked power or the uncomfortable exercise of democracy?

In the Clinton administration, Democrats sided with Republicans to investigate Clinton on dozens of perceived crimes and misdemeanors because, although they knew the GOP had cynical, partisan aims, they recognized that the republic is far more important than the career of any politican. Bush has thrown down the gauntlet. Beware anyone who does not feel democracy's imperative to take it up and challenge this tinpot wannabe dictator.