WASHINGTON — Is it legal for the president, acting on his own authority and without a court warrant, to order federal officials to eavesdrop on people within the United States?
President Bush gave one answer to that question Saturday, saying he was justified in ordering the National Security Agency to spy on "people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."
But a Supreme Court decision more than 30 years ago raises questions about Bush's position. And several legal experts note that a special court exists that could rule on the surveillance requests.
As a result, the controversy over the program Bush approved is not likely to end quickly.
In making his case, Bush argued that the program was targeted, not an open-ended one that encompassed a group of people, such as Muslim men. Moreover, the NSA was listening to "international communications" made by possible terrorists, he said.
And the purpose of the spying was clear: "to detect and prevent terrorist attacks" by intercepting the calls of plotters, the president said.
But Bush did not explain why he chose to bypass the procedure established in a 1978 law for such operations. That measure requires the approval of a special court before conversations can be intercepted and recorded. The court may authorize warrants to obtain "foreign intelligence" information if the target is linked to "international terrorism."
Throughout his administration -- and especially since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- Bush has been aggressive in asserting executive powers. And part of his explanation for approving the spying program fits this pattern.
Bush said his decision was "fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities." And the president's lawyers have maintained that the commander in chief has the "inherent" authority to act in the interest of national security, even if he overrides the law.
But the Supreme Court did not accept that claim when it was tested in the past.
In 1972, the justices unanimously rejected President Nixon's contention that he had the power to order wiretapping without a warrant to protect national security. The decision came in the case of three men who had allegedly plotted to bomb a CIA facility in Michigan. After the ruling, charges in the case were dismissed.
