The US Congress is becoming uneasy with President Bush's sweeping mandate to conduct a "war on terror" that may infringe on constitutional rights. Paul Wulfsberg reports from Washington As the debate over a domestic spying programme secretly authorised by President Bush escalates, anonymous officials revealed Friday that the Justice Department has undertaken an investigation into the leak of classified information to The New York Times. Although the 2001 United States Patriot Act made it much easier for the government to obtain warrants for spying on suspected terrorists, the Times reported on 16 December 2005 that Bush had given authorisation in 2002 for the National Security Agency (NSA) to tap communications between suspected Al-Qaeda members without warrants. Before 2002, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was responsible for most domestic surveillance. The NSA, on the other hand, did no domestic spying except for on foreign embassies and missions in the US. Both agencies were required to obtain warrants from the Justice Department's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which was created for this purpose in 1978. The 2002 presidential decree allowed the NSA to conduct surveillance without first going through the FISC. Critics of the president say that the FISC was efficient in handling its cases, which comprised both warrant requests and review in the rare instances where circumstances did not allow law enforcement or intelligence officials to obtain a warrant beforehand. One of the 11 jurists on the FISC resigned on 20 December, reportedly in protest of the NSA revelations. The Congressional reaction to the news has not been in Bush's favour. Both Democrats and Republicans promptly called for bipartisan investigations into the circumstances of the domestic spying programme after Bush acknowledged its existence on 17 December. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a moderate from Pennsylvania, was among the Republicans joining the many Democrats attacking the domestic spying programme. Specter labelled it "clearly and categorically wrong" and vowed to hold Congressional hearings. Congress has been in disagreement with the Bush administration over how thoroughly Congress was briefed on these and other measures in the wake of 11 September 2001, and how much leeway Congress intended to grant the executive branch in carrying out its "war on terror" at home and abroad. "Within a crisis, which is what the president is trying to emphasise we're in, Congress will go along until cooler heads prevail. With a sudden attack like Pearl Harbor that's one thing, but when you have an ongoing, undetermined period of fighting terrorism that's a different equation," said David Grubbs, professor emeritus of political science at Middle Tennessee State University. "Is Bush ever going to say 'Okay, we've defeated terrorism?' What he would like is an indefinite expansion of presidential power over an indefinite period of time, but I don't think Congress will go along with that." The controversy has given ammunition to those who allege that the president has little respect for the checks and balances within the American political system, with some liberals renewing their call for his impeachment. True to form, President Bush aggressively defended his decision to authorise domestic spying without warrants, drawing into question critics' patriotism at a 19 December White House press conference which focussed on the Iraqi parliamentary elections. "My personal opinion is that it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important programme in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this programme is helping the enemy." The original article by the Times was actually prepared a year ago, using as sources nearly a dozen current and former government officials having doubts about the programme's constitutionality, but under pressure from the White House the paper agreed to delay publication and double-check its facts. On 22 December, the Bush administration sent a letter to Congress outlining the rationale for its decision. The security of the nation at large, it argued, was more important than the privacy rights of the individuals under surveillance. The NSA reportedly monitors as many as 500 individuals within the US suspected of having terrorist connections, as well as another 5,000 to 7,000 people overseas. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, whose confirmation hearings begin on 9 January, was brought into the fray on the next day with the release of a 1984 memo. In the memo, Alito expressed his belief that the attorney-general should be granted immunity from lawsuits if acting in the interest of national security -- even if constitutional rights had been violated through measures such as the wiretapping of American citizens without a warrant. The White House and its allies denied any connection between this memo and the domestic spying revelations, arguing that Alito had addressed the question of legal immunity, not warrantless wiretapping per se. By creating an intrusive government that aspires to trade greater freedom for greater security, Bush may alienate libertarians, traditionally suspicious of big government. "Still, Republicans nationally support him 80 per cent no matter what he does. I don't think they care what the constitution says because they're so terrified of terrorism," said Grubbs. "If they feel personally threatened, they'll throw the constitution out the window." The timing of the news was bad for the Bush administration's supporters in Congress -- the Patriot Act, including new provisions that would allow law enforcement officials free access to library and hospital records, was already under fire. Before adjourning for its end-of-the-year recess, Congress extended those components of the Patriot Act which were due to expire at the end of the year until 3 February 2006, effectively buying more time for debate. Bush signed the extension into law on Friday, as well as a $453 billion defence spending bill including a provision banning the cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners. The provision had initially been resisted by the White House, which argued that it would handicap America in its fight against terrorism, but was passed by an overwhelming majority in both the House and Senate.
