The Importance of Clear Language

Mr. Bush had a press conference.

Q Mr. President, though -- this is a direct follow up to that -- the FISA law was implemented in 1978 in part because of revelations that the National Security Agency was spying domestically. What is wrong with that law if you feel you have to circumvent it and, as you just admitted, expand presidential power?

THE PRESIDENT: May I -- if I might, you said that I have to circumvent it. There -- wait a minute. That's a -- there's something -- it's like saying, you know, you're breaking the law. I'm not. See, that's what you've got to understand. I am upholding my duty, and at the same time, doing so under the law and with the Constitution behind me. That's just very important for you to understand.

Secondly, the FISA law was written in 1978. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world. And FISA is still an important tool. It's an important tool. And we still use that tool. But also -- and we -- look -- I said, look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law? And people said, it doesn't work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do.

And so that's why I made the decision I made. And you know, "circumventing" is a loaded word, and I refuse to accept it, because I believe what I'm doing is legally right.

From the American Heritage Dictionary: circumvent. transitive verb:

1. To surround (an enemy, for example); enclose or entrap. 2. To go around; bypass: circumvented the city. 3. To avoid or get around by artful maneuvering: She planned a way to circumvent all the bureaucratic red tape.

People said the FISA law wouldn't allow them to do the thing they wanted to do, so he made a decision to do it anyway, but that, in no way, should be seen as avoiding or going around the law. What then? Ignoring completely?

Lest we forget, as the President and Attorney General seem to, the Congressional resolution to go after Al Qaeda didn't authorize him to do whatever was necessary. The resolution reads "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force".

Appropriate. Congress has already expressed its view on what is appropriate regarding wiretapping during wartime. That's what's in the FISA law. Deciding to make the decision he made is not appropriate, and, therefore, wasn't authorized by Congress. (Which doesn't even adress the repeated assertion that it is "necessary.")

But why stop there?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I said yesterday that other Presidents have used the same authority I've had to use technology to protect the American people. Other Presidents -- most Presidents believe that during a time of war, that we can use our authorities under the Constitution to make decisions necessary to protect us.

Secondly, in this case, there is an act passed by Congress in 2001 which said that I must have the power to conduct this war using the incidents of war. In other words, we believe there's a constitutional power granted to Presidents, as well as, this case, a statutory power. And I'm intending to use that power -- Congress says, go ahead and conduct the war, we're not going to tell you how to do it. And part of winning this war on terror is to understand the nature of the enemy and to find out where they are so we can protect the American people.

There's going to be -- there will be a constitution -- there will be a legal debate about whether or not I have the authority to do this; I'm absolutely convinced I do.

The President is relying on amorphous powers he's reading into the Constitution based on wartime powers. But we aren't, technically, at war. Congress hasn't formally declared a war. They have only given the President a limited authorization to use military force in particular ways against particular enemies.

Despite the President's passionate belief, for those who chose to use clear and precise language, he does not have that authority, and he has admitted to breaking the law.

They aren't loaded words, just plain English.