Financial Times Editorial - Tapping into fear

Tapping into fear
Published: February 13 2006 02:00 | Last updated: February 13 2006 02:00 Copyright by the Financial Times

President George W. Bush's description of a terrorist plot for a September 11-style attack on Los Angeles came at just the moment that Congress was flexing its muscles over what many constitutional lawyers claim is illegal wiretapping by his administration. This might be a coincidence; it might be cynical politics. Either way, the revelations should not deter Congress from asserting its authority and that of the courts on the wiretap issue and the broader conduct of the war on terror.

The existence of the plot Mr Bush described is not new. Mr Bush mentioned it in a speech last October. The plot was rolled up in early 2002; its instigators are in custody. Most of the terror plots that have come to light since 2002 have been less sophisticated and more local in scale. Al-Qaeda's ability to organise elaborate terror attacks appears to have been at least partly degraded by US pursuit.

Nonetheless, the details of how a global network of terrorists put together the Los Angeles plot are of more than historic interest. They remind Americans that the threat they face is real. Al-Qaeda has not been finally defeated and it has spawned a new generation of self-starter terror groups. The US cannot afford to let its guard down. This struggle could last for a generation.

However, it is precisely because the war on terror could last for a generation that it needs to be put on a sound political and constitutional footing. This means support from both parties and an equal partnership between each branch of government. This is what is at stake in the wiretap controversy.

No sensible observer disputes the need to monitor suspected terrorists' communications to guard against future plots. The question is, who should authorise such activities?

The US has a system for approving wiretaps set up by an act of Congress. The designated court meets in secret and, in an emergency, can issue warrants retrospectively. This system may need updating better to deal with new terrorist threats. But if so the administration could ask Congress to amend it. Bypassing it entirely violates the basic principle of the separation of powers.

A war on terror that lasts for a generation cannot be built simply on an extremely expansive claim of executive prerogative. It needs to rest on the expressed consent of all three branches of government. Bush loyalists tempted to give the White House a free pass should remember that the next president could be Hillary Clinton.

Some Republican members of Congress, in particular Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have shown courage in calling the White House to account on wiretapping. Their continued leadership is essential: this should not be a party political issue. As Mr Specter says, if the White House believes warrantless wiretapping is constitutional it should establish this in the courts. If it does not, Congress may have to compel it to.