An Impeachable Offense?

[Editor's Note: This is an edited transcript of an interview by Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman about Bush's admission of authorizing NSA to eavesdrop on Americans without court approval.

The full transcript and audio are available from DemocracyNow.org.]

Amy Goodman: The President initially refused to answer any questions about the secret program, but on Saturday [when interviewed by PBS' Jim Lehrer], he spoke openly about it and defended the practice.

President G.W. Bush:We do not discuss ongoing intelligence operations to protect the country. And the reason why is that there's an enemy that lurks that would like to know exactly what we're trying to do to stop them. I will make this point, that whatever I do to protect the American people -- and I have an obligation to do so -- that we will uphold the law, and decisions made are made understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of the American people.

Jim Lehrer: So, if, in fact, these things did occur, they were done legally and properly.

President G.W. Bush: See, you're trying to get me to talk about a program that's important not to talk about, and the reason why is that we're at war with an enemy that still wants to attack. I -- after 9/11, I told the American people I would do everything in my power to protect the country, within the law. And that's exactly how I conduct my presidency.

AG: President Bush admitting on Saturday that he secretly ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop… He later reiterated he would not comment on the program. Doing so would "compromise our ability to protect the people," but less than 24 hours later, after a storm of public criticism, he reversed his position.

The disclosure has led to a bipartisan call for a congressional investigation. In response, administration officials pointed out both Democratic and Republican congressional leaders have been briefed on the program, but former Democratic Senator Bob Graham, who attended the briefings as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told the Washington Post he was never informed of the two key issues to arise from the disclosure. Graham says he was never told the government was eavesdropping on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the country, nor was he told it was bypassing the special courts imposed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA.

Under FISA, the government can obtain warrants directly from a special court that requires almost no evidence or probable cause. Passed by Congress in the 1970s, FISA describes itself and the criminal wiretap statute as "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance…may be conducted."

Several analysts have questioned the administration's decision to not seek court-approved warrants when FISA courts have almost never rejected them. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center, FISA courts have rejected only four of over 15,000 warrant requests made since 1979. That number includes over 4,000 warrant requests since the 9/11 attacks.

The Washington Post notes the revelation marks the third time in as many months that the Bush administration has been forced to defend a departure from previous restraints on domestic surveillance. Most recently, NBC News reported last week, the Pentagon has been conducting domestic intelligence on peaceful anti-war protesters and others.

But the revelation also marks the second time in as many months that one of the country's leading newspapers has withheld information at the request of the Bush administration.

In a November piece on the existence of C.I.A.-run Soviet-era prisons in Eastern Europe, the Washington Post complied with a White House request to withhold information administration officials said could be harmful to national security. In its report Friday, The New York Times revealed it had not only withheld information, but had in fact delayed publishing the story also at the government's request for more than a year.