A Question of Human Dignity

What's remarkable is that this happened just a day after the Democratic-controlled Senate gave Bush everything he asked for (see yesterday's column, Fear Rules the Day) and just hours after Bush let loose with some of his most inflamed rhetoric in a long time.

As Lichtblau puts it: "Mr. Bush accused the Democratic-led House of needlessly prolonging the debate at the expense of the country's safety."

"'At this moment,' he said, 'somewhere in the world terrorists are planning new attacks on our country. Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make Sept. 11 pale by comparison.'

"To stop an attack, he urged, Congress must act immediately to strengthen the eavesdropping."

Editorial Watch

The editorial boards are calling Bush's bluff -- and his bluster.

The USA Today editorial board writes: "President Bush is rarely as vivid about the specter of terrorism as he is when he's trying to stampede Congress into doing something it should think twice about. On Wednesday, he demanded quick passage of a flawed surveillance measure because 'terrorists are planning attacks on our country ... that will make Sept. 11 pale by comparison.'

"Whoa. There's little dispute that terrorists want to strike the United States in horrific ways, or that the government should aggressively hunt them down and stop them. But there's a legitimate debate over how much of Americans' hard-won civil liberties it's necessary to trade away to fight and win, and how much to curtail the traditional role of judges in overseeing wiretapping that involves Americans. The president has frequently gotten this trade-off wrong, and he's doing it again. . . .

"Bush warns that if phone companies don't get immunity, they'll never cooperate again. That's a concern, but it's doubtful that companies would rebuff lawful requests. Of greater concern is the message that illegal activity is acceptable and will be forgiven. While companies that thought they were acting patriotically don't deserve to be driven into bankruptcy, blanket immunity seems premature, particularly because the administration has stonewalled most requests for documents that would show what they did.

"Bush is pressing the House to accept the Senate bill and refusing to temporarily extend the current law, which expires on Saturday. That's irresponsible. The House and Senate need time to negotiate their differences because the House has no telecom immunity provision. Bush's implication that expiration of the law would expose the nation to terrorist danger is worse than disingenuous: The eavesdropping authorizations under the law continue for a year. Crucial decisions about civil liberties in an age of terror shouldn't be driven by fear-mongering."

The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board writes: "Using scare tactics is no way to work out how the nation should craft the spying tools needed in its fight to detect and thwart terrorist attacks. . . .

"Whatever the actual threat, Bush is trying to stampede Congress - particularly, Democrats. He's pressuring them to approve a misguided anti-terrorism law out of the fear that they'll be seen by American voters as weak on national security. It's an old strategy, and one that meek Democrats continue to swallow.

"No one questions the need for antiterror agents to spy on the nation's enemies. But it should be done with privacy safeguards and accountability. That's why the House shouldn't cave to fear."