President Bush, in his speech at Kansas State University this week, defended his possibly illegal domestic wiretaps by arguing that the phone calls were made from “reasonably suspected” al-Qaida suspects to people in the United States. “If they’re making a phone call into the United States,” he said, “it seems to me we’d want to know why.”
It’s a misleading argument. No one is arguing that such conversations shouldn’t be monitored — of course they should. The concern is why Bush feels the need to bypass the required judicial review that is meant to confirm the “reasonableness” of such surveillance.
If the evidence against a suspect is so compelling, why does the Bush team need to avoid oversight?
The president still hasn’t provided a satisfactory answer to that question.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.
Do you tweet? Follow us on Twitter: @WE_Tweet.