Trust

An intelligence official confirms that Bush personally approved eavesdropping without a warrant, and offers up the line of defense:

The official said that, since October 2001, the program has been renewed more than three dozen times. Each time, the White House counsel and the attorney general certified the lawfulness of the program, the official said. Bush then signed the authorizations....

During the reviews, government officials have also provided a fresh assessment of the terrorist threat, showing that there is a catastrophic risk to the country or government, the official said.

"Only if those conditions apply do we even begin to think about this," he said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the intelligence operation.

Need we explain this? Apparently, yes.

The purpose of a system of checks and balances is not to have the executive approve itself (ooh, Miers and Gonzalez approve of something the best president ever (!!) has done-- who'd have thought?). And if ""only conditions of... catastrophic threat" are used to justify the use of unwarranted eavesdropping-- then surely those conditions could easily be presented to a (Bush-appointed) judge, and a warrant obtained.

The more the administration argues that the eavesdropping was only done in limited and justified cases, the more they make the point that the secret executive order was never needed. If you have reason to suspect a specific individual or group of terrorist activity, you get a warrant. The only reason to not get a warrant is because you are, in fact, abusing or misusing the intelligence services for political reasons.