Broke the law? No sweat. Change the law.

There's a report on Truthout (read the story here) about Bush's ongoing battle over the wiretapping issue, and what Constutional Powers he does and does not have. It states, The Bush administration could continue its policy of spying on targeted Americans without obtaining warrants, but only if it justifies the action to a small group of lawmakers, under legislation introduced yesterday by key Republican senators.

The four senators hope to settle the debate over National Security Agency eavesdropping on international communications involving Americans when one of the parties is suspected of terrorist ties. President Bush prompted a months-long uproar when he said that constitutional powers absolve him of the need to seek warrants in such cases, even though the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires warrants for domestic wiretaps.

The program, begun in 2001, was first publicized late last year.

The bill would allow the NSA to eavesdrop, without a warrant, for up to 45 days per case, at which point the Justice Department would have three options. It could drop the surveillance, seek a warrant from FISA's court, or convince a handful of House and Senate members that although there is insufficient evidence for a warrant, continued surveillance "is necessary to protect the United States," according to a summary the four sponsors provided yesterday.

This seems to be becoming a Republican theme. If you're found to be on the wrong side of the law, then it must be the law that's wrong. It's the Berlusconni School of Justice.

I noticed Cheney the other week on one of the Sunday morning programmes come out with the astonishing claim that he, as Vice President, has the power to declassify classified information. You don't have to be a cynic to realise that Dick thinks this might prove useful when "Scooter" Libby comes to trial. It does however prove that Dick's not operating on too many brain cells, as Libby is charged with perjury, not with revealing the status of an undercover CIA officer. Doh!

Now let me see if I follow the logic of Bush's latest attempt to justify his wiretapping activities. Bush and his cronies are changing the rules to bring his actions within them. Hmm, isn't that in itself an explicit admission that - as the rules currently stand - his actions were outwith those rules?

And as those rules are the laws of the USA, this scrambling to rewrite the rulebook only strengthens the case of those of us who say that he broke the law.