I have been listening to the Senate hearings on the NSA program (Gonzales Defends Legality of Surveillance). The defense from the Administration on the illegal domestic wiretaps seems to be "trust me." Gonzales won't answer most questions on the program. He won't say what the boundaries are. He won't say what protections for civil liberties are in place. He won't say if domestic to domestic calls have been tapped without warrant. He won't say how many American citizens have been tapped. Under Gonzales's interpretation of the "inherent authority" argument, there is nothing that the president cannot do during war. That means that as long as there is terrorism, the president can do anything.
My question is why should we trust you?
If the law needs to be changed, go to congress and say "lets change it."
The reason FISA was created was because past presidents were not trustworthy (For Some, Spying Controversy Recalls a Past Drama). The executive has made bad decisions in the past. What makes this administration different?
The Bush administration has never given me a reason to trust them. Why trust them now? Congress created the PATRIOT act as recommended by the president. Congress has given the president all the moneies asked for in the war on terror. Why does the president need to ignore the law if the Congress has bent over backwards to give the president the tools needed to fight the war on terrorism. Congress has invited the Bush administration to come to them and discuss how to change the law to ensure oversight, but for some reason they refuse.
Listening to him defend a program that subverts the constitution and has little impact (Surveillance Net Yields Few Suspects) is not making a case to "trust" them.