Presidential Prior Restraint

Well, it's hit the fan now. In response to a New York Times story, President Bush has admitted to eavesdropping on suspected Al Qaeda operatives and sympathizers without the proper court-ordered warrants. He has assured us, however, that his actions weren't unlawful, but rather well within the bounds of his presidential privilege and, in fact, part of his sworn duty to protect the country from terrorists.

But controversy is swirling over this latest peek into the Bush White House. Some commentators are even reminding us that "abuse of power" was one of the counts Nixon would have faced back in 1974 had Ford not pardoned him and saved us all the bother of impeachment proceedings. I'm not a lawyer, so I suppose I shouldn't even try to weigh such matters, but it does strike me that spying on people without due process is at least as bad, presidentially speaking, as lying about fooling around with flirty White House interns.

Still, what upsets me most about this whole matter is that Bush was so concerned about keeping it secret he called the publisher and editor of the New York Times to the Oval Office to "ask" them not to tell anyone, as they finally did last week after an entire year. It's time to draw a line. Already, we've heard tales of Bushites planting upbeat stories in the Iraqi press. We know they've paid American journalists to write nice stories about them in U.S. papers and even planted pseudo-journalists in White House press conferences to be sure someone asked the "right" questions. But when a president sits down with the top executives of the nation's No. 1 newspaper and makes it very clear what he does or does not want to see in print, that's what real journalists call prior restraint.

Simply defined, prior restraint is suppression of the truth. It's the status quo in societies ruled by dictators, who must control the media in order to control the citizenry. But it is anethema in a democratic society, governed ultimately by an informed electorate. That's because prior restraint distorts our view of reality. If left uncovered, it will even distort the record of history, leading to untold ramifications as time goes on. In short, prior restraint of the media is a violation of the worst degree. And when it comes directly from the president's office, how else can we interpret it other than as an executive end run around the First Amendment to the Constitution. Which may do us all good to revisit: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."