Hell has officially frozen over. I know this for a fact because I just read an editorial opinion article written by George Will that I agreed with wholeheartedly. Never, ever in this lifetime did I expect to agree wholeheartedly with George "Neo-Conservative" Will on any current event but...I do now.

The topic of the editorial printed in "The Washington Post" was President Bush's decision to sign an executive order authorizing warrantless wiretaps on American citizens. Read Will's editorial at http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122105F.shtml Will breaks ranks with his fellow conservatives on this issue saying that "the decision to authorize the National Security Agency's surveillance without the complicity of a court or Congress was a mistake." In the column, Will actually calls on the President to stop pressing for more power and to cooperate with Congress and the courts in the war on terror. I also found myself cheering on our own Senator Lindsey Graham (again a hell freezing over moment in my life) when he appeared on "Meet the Press" last Sunday and implied that President Bush's decision may have been illegal but almost certainly violated the Constitutional right to privacy. True conservatives that are willing and able to be honest would NEVER support warrantless wiretaps on American citizens. The right to privacy as American citizens would seem to be one of those few points' conservatives and liberals can agree on. Thankfully, a few brave Republicans with their morals still intact have stepped forward to cry foul. Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is one example, "I took an oath of office to the Constitution. I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president."

Yes, the president requires the ability to act quickly to uncover potential acts of terrorism but the current system offers that as an option. This is the way the system works according to former presidential advisor, Sidney Blumenthal in an article in Salon.com, http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/12/22/spy_scandal/print.html "From its inception in 1979 through 2002, covering the period when Bush began spying, the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court issued 15,264 warrants. In 2003, the court rejected four applications, and the next year it rejected none. In its entire history, those four are the only rejections. William Rehnquist, the late chief justice of the Supreme Court, appointed all the sitting FISA judges. Nearly all are inclined to presidential prerogative. Its proceedings are ex parte, that is, secret. The FISA statue stipulates that the government can wiretap first and apply for a warrant later, within 72 hours. So long as it can provide "probable cause," the court will approve."

And while President Bush owned up to his actions when forced to do so by recent published reports in The New York Times, he appears to have deliberately lied about his intentions and his actions to win support of the Patriot Act. Check out Bush's shifting public position on government wiretaps of US citizens at http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/ . The article that includes the quote is entitled "Did Bush lie about wiretaps to cover up his spying program?" In April, 2004 he said this, "Now by the way, anytime you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires a wire tap requires a court order. Nothing has changed by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think 'Patriot Act,' constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." Keep in mind, the fact that when these words fell from President Bush's lying lips, he was already conducting warrantless wiretaps on US citizens and had been doing so since 2003. According to Sidney Blumenthal and others, President Bush has personally authorized more than three dozen warrantless wiretaps since October 2001.

Why wouldn't President Bush simply comply with the current procedure and apply for the warrants after the fact? Some speculate that he and his advisors simply couldn't provide the FISA court with probable cause for the wire taps. Attorney General Gonzales has spoken of surveillance being undertaken by "reasonable basis" not probable cause. Considering the fact that this administration started a war by distorting intelligence and basically telling boldfaced lies to the American public, it's highly probable that many of these wire taps were undertaken with less than probable cause.

This administration and this president are out of control and Congress must have the courage to rein them in and adhere to the Constitution while waging their War on Terror. George Will summed things up fairly well when he said, "Charles de Gaulle was thinking of Otto von Bismarck not pressing his advantage in 1870 in the Franco-Prussian War--that genius sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. In peace and in war, but especially in the latter, presidents have pressed their institutional advantages to expand their powers to act without Congress. This president might look for occasions to stop pressing." Amen to that.