1115.org

One sad thing about the Bush administration’s defense of the NSA domestic spying operation is what it reveals about their attitude to the law: the law is there to be manipulated and to be skirted, to be bent to your will.

They have as much as said in so many words that they feel free to do whatever they want, as long as they can persuade someone who has passed a bar exam and works for the White House or the Justice Department to write an opinion justifying it.

It doesn’t matter how much actual or potential controversy there may be, or how much of a grey area it is. Get one guy to write you a justification, ignore all other opinions, and (when necessary) keep claiming with a straight face “It’s perfectly legal, the lawyers have said so.” Forestall or stonewall all discussion. Avoid or postpone Congressional oversight. If oversight becomes inevitable, keep it as toothless and ineffectual as possible. If anyone raises inconvenient questions, invoke “If you’re not with us, then you’re with the terrorists”.

One might be able to have some kind of respect for the Bush men if one heard them say: “Look, we did what we felt we had to. It may not be cut and dried whether the President has the authority to order this kind of warrantless surveillance by the NSA. We thought he does, so we went ahead with it. If it turns out he doesn’t, we’ll accept the blame and take the consequences.”

Unfortunately, that’s precisely what we’re not hearing and what we have no realistic hope of hearing. I haven’t seen or heard a single admission by any administration official or spokesman that there is any question of whether the President had the legitimate authority to order the NSA surveillance.

What we have heard over and over again is: “We did what had to be done to keep America safe. Of course the President has the authority to do it. To question the President’s action is shameful and inexcusable, it is craven, it is cowardly, and an act of political grandstanding besides. If it somehow turns out it wasn’t okay, there will, of course, be no blame or consequences. Unless you count medals. Or statues of John Yoo, with the sun shining out of his ass.”

It is all just a game to them, and the game is absolute power. They don’t seem to have any interest in using this absolute power for the greater good. So it must be all about penis envy, and power for power’s sake. Meanwhile, the market for prostitutes who have passed the bar exam (and their briefs) will continue to be strong.

I have decided to console myself by working on my first play. It will be in classical Theater of the Absurd style. A Justice Department lawyer will produce an opinion that Bush has the constitutional legal authority to hop on one foot and pronounce “Off with his/her head!” That such pronouncement is a legally binding order of the Commander-in-Chief, exempting those who execute it from prosecution for crimes against both humanity and common sense. Scott McClellan (who has been found, in NSA intercepts, to be complaining in recent weeks that he’s not receiving equal time on 1115.org any more) will hold a briefing to explain to the Washington press corps how and why the President having this power is proper and fitting, and essential if we are to win the Global War on Terror, get our troops out of Iraq and balance the budget in our lifetimes. He will be in the middle of explaining why questioning Bush’s right to this power is the moral equivalent of planting IEDs in Iraq with your very own hands, when a U.S. Open ball-boy in tennis attire will scurry across the stage, and hand Scottie a note. To chants of “Tell! Tell! Tell!” from the reporters, Scottie will read out the note. And it will say “Run, Scottie, Run! The President has just started to hop on one foot, and the slip of paper he’s holding in his hand says ‘Scott McClellan’.” Will Scottie get away? Will he hop off on one or both feet, leaving his head behind? You’ll just have to wait for the off-Broadway production, won’t you?