Bush Criticized for Domestic Wiretaps

Dec. 19, 2005 — -- Criticism is mounting over revelations that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to engage in domestic surveillance without court warrants for the last four years.

The New York Times reported last week that Bush had secretly authorized eavesdropping on individuals in the United States without first gaining court permission. In his weekly radio address on Saturday, Bush confirmed that he had authorized the tactic as necessary to protect national security.

"There's a certain arrogance to it," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said in an interview today on "Good Morning America." "They could have gone to Congress. They have sort of an attitude that they can do what they want."

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has called the eavesdropping "inappropriate," and has promised hearings into the issue next year.

Vice President Dick Cheney said that the president, who reauthorized the NSA eavesdropping measure more than 30 times, had been vigilant about ensuring that no innocent Americans' rights were violated. Bush has said the eavesdropping is consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution.

Critics, however, say the tactic violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval for any secret wiretaps and surveillance. In the event of an emergency, the president is allowed to order a wiretap, but then must go to a court afterward.

"The law is perfectly clear. There is plenty of latitude to wiretap American citizens," Schumer said.

In an interview Sunday, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., criticized Bush for refusing to identify a law or a constitutional provision that justified non-court authorized wiretaps.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is defending the surveillance, saying the surveillance act, which was enacted in 1978, is now antiquated.

"We have to have the speed and agility to fight these enemies," Gonzales said.

Schumer said that the law had been changed many times in the last 27 years, and added that if the administration felt it needed more authority to combat terrorism, it should have sought a revision in the law from Congress.