At Least The President Didn't Call The Judge An Activist: Subtitle - Toss Another Civil Liberties Brick Onto The War On Terror Conflagration

Maybe W saves such "derogatory" labels as "Bleeping Activist Judge" for behind closed doors or when he thinks the microphone is turned off. But, at least he didn't use the phrase in today's unscripted speechifying.

What we see here is another case of "simply because the President believes warrant-less spying on Americans is legal" doesn't make it Constitutionally appropriate behavior. I would have to agree with Diane Feinstein when she says that we must ensure that the President and his pals understand that they are not above the law.

You know, two things strike me here as operating in the presidential psyche at this point. First, the whole ideology stemming from this self professed commitment to a "culture of life" has W confused. This profound, cult-like attachment to a specific ideology has confounded his thinking about what priorities are most important to the American people. He thinks that it is possible to stop people from dying or being killed, by terrorists or other means. This leads him to subjugate constitutionally protected liberties and freedoms in a devils bargain trade for what he thinks will yield universal "protection" of the people. In doing so, W fails to see that every inch of our civil liberties and freedoms that are discarded as necessary collateral damage into the "war on terror" conflagration is another mile of victory for the terrorists.

Secondly, we see time and again, that the President dualistically believes that the means justify the ends. That is, even as he works to erode the very Constitutional foundation upon which our country rests, he truly believes that it is in our best interest. Like the new embassy being built in Iraq, we shall all suffer when we find out post-W that he has reduced that foundation to quicksand.

Here's the Q & A that prompted my thinking above. What say you?

Q Mr. President, the federal ruling yesterday that declared your terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional -- the judge wrote that it was never the intent of the framers to give the President such unfettered control. How do you respond, sir, to opponents who say that this ruling is really the first nail in the coffin of your administration's legal strategy in the war on terror?

THE PRESIDENT: I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live. You might remember last week working with the -- with people in Great Britain, we disrupted a plot. People were trying to come and kill people.

This country of ours is at war, and we must give those whose responsibility it is to protect the United States the tools necessary to protect this country in a time of war. The judge's decision was a -- I strongly disagree with that decision, strongly disagree. That's why I instructed the Justice Department to appeal immediately, and I believe our appeals will be upheld.

I made my position clear about this war on terror. And by the way, the enemy made their position clear yet again when we were able to stop them. And I -- the American people expect us to protect them, and therefore I put this program in place. We believe -- strongly believe it's constitutional.

And if al Qaeda is calling in to the United States, we want to know why they're calling. And so I made my position clear. It would be interesting to see what other policymakers -- how other policymakers react.