What’s at stake in the spying debate

Jacob Weisberg writes:

[T]he Senate hearings on NSA domestic espionage set to begin next month will confront fundamental questions about the balance of power within our system. Even if one assumes that every unknown instance of warrant-less spying by the NSA were justified on security grounds, the arguments issuing from the White House threaten the concept of checks and balances as it has been understood in America for the last 218 years. Simply put, Bush and his lawyers contend that the president’s national security powers are unlimited. And since the war on terror is currently scheduled to run indefinitely, the executive supremacy they’re asserting won’t be a temporary condition.

And this isn’t something that will go away when Bush leaves office. Future presidents are unlikely to renounce these kinds of powers once the precedent has been established. Just as the Clinton administration laid the groundwork for many of the powers now being claimed by the Bush administration, I’m sure President Hillary Clinton (heaven help us!) will be more than happy to use the tools bequeathed to her by Bush should the situation arise.