Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune

Since news broke that President George W. Bush has routinely authorized spying on Americans by the super-secret National Security Agency, the defense by the administration and its supporters makes essentially two points: other presidents have done the same, and the wiretapping activities of the NSA are justified.

Even if true, neither argument justifies this president's action.

When this issue arose in earlier years, the answer was to establish an equally secretive judicial panel to hear and issue warrants authorizing these extraordinary spying expeditions. President Bush and his advisers decided to bypass this official process, arguing the threat of terrorism is so dire that normal rules can and must be avoided, always an argument to beware.

Taking the two defenses in order, just because a former president might have taken the same shortcut does not make it right. ...

Going through the judicial warrant process is vital to maintaining our cherished freedom from government oppression. The secretive process set up for judicial second-guessing of these domestic spying missions is flimsy enough, allowing government agents to proceed without public disclosure, the basic defense in our society against official excesses, but it does so to protect national security.

... The Constitution gives the chief executive a good deal of prerogative to conduct war, but its essence is the protection of individual freedom. These principles come into conflict most starkly when presidents spy on their citizens. The conflict was reconciled by the establishment of the secretive judicial panel to hear such requests. The president -- any president -- must use this process. The constitutional sovereignty of citizens will be protected, and the security of the nation will not be jeopardized.