Wiretapping Citizens—Bush Must Want Impeachment

I feel bad for President George W. Bush.
The man just cannot get his message through to the American public.
From starting a war in Iraq to wiretapping American citizens, Bush has shown that he’s on a mission, a mission that we keep preventing him from accomplishing. Can’t you see? The poor man is trying to get fired.
Being the president is tough and Bush just does not want the job anymore.
He thought that going to war with a country on utterly false pretenses would at least get him kicked out in 2004, but no, he was re-elected.
Then he got desperate. Bush knows his history and looked toward Nixon for inspiration.
Bush became excited, but he decided to go a step further just to be on the safe side.
He got together with the National Security Agency, and told them to spy not on a small group of Democrats, but on hundreds of American citizens, illegally, because he claimed that they were a strong threat to the nation and American citizens (like I said, the man is desperate).
Oh, how George was beaming at his own cleverness. Surely, this would get him his freedom.
Why, he even had all his toys packed. And now, with U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez under fire from the Senate, an impeachment is not so far-fetched.
I support my president and his wishes, so that is why I hope to convince readers that Bush should indeed be thrown out of office.
Since the aftermath of Sept. 11, it has been discovered that Bush has been wiretapping certain individuals who are suspected of making dangerous phone calls to foreign sources.
This in itself is legal, and I think that any person would agree that spying of this order is necessary to keep our country safe.
In fact, there is a law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which outlines the various rules and steps that need to be followed in order for wiretapping to be legal. Bush, however, broke one of these rules.
When applying for surveillance, FISA states that a warrant must be obtained by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to determine the legality of the proposed surveillance.
First of all, it is not hard to obtain a warrant.
In fact, out of nearly 20,000 requests in 2004, only five were rejected.
Second, the court realizes that when dealing with terrorist threats, the bureaucracy of obtaining a warrant can endanger the country.
That is why there is an emergency rule which states that surveillance can be carried out without a warrant.
However, the court must be notified by the attorney general within 72 hours.
In lieu of this fact, however, Bush and Gonzalez still decided to keep the wiretaps a secret.
So, one must ask the question, why did the administration find it necessary to completely ignore the court and thus break the laws of this country?
The answer: The ‘suspects’ the administration deemed dangerous have little or no evidence against them and are, in fact, innocent. Why else would the court be kept in the dark?
Because the Bush administration would be screwed if they admit that Kalib Muhammad was not planning an attack, but was instead making calls to Saudi Arabia to check on his grandmother.
But now, thanks to the New York Times, the word is out and Bush and his cohorts have to come up with a damn good explanation of why they found breaking the law so necessary.
That is after all what they did; they committed a crime.
Notice how the conservative media is not going into this simple fact.
Notice how they, instead, debate on whether it’s right to wiretap suspected terrorists.
This should not be the issue. Argue all you want that the laws should be changed or that surveillance should be made easier.
It does not change the fact that Bush

David Syatt is a first-year literary journalism major.