In courtroom, 2 sides debate spying's legality

The question: How much power should the president have?
DETROIT FREE PRESS
DETROIT -- In vigorous arguments that offered clashing views on the limits of state authority, the U.S. Justice Department and civil rights advocates squared off in a packed Detroit courtroom for a hearing on whether the government's domestic surveillance program violates the U.S. Constitution.
The talk inside U.S. District Court on Monday morning went to the core of what should define American government and was followed across the country by legislators and citizens debating an essential question: How much power should the president have?
Making its case in court for the first time, the government argued that the president needs as much power as necessary to secure the country, especially as al-Qaida continues to threaten the United States with terrorist attacks. But an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said that President Bush can't violate the law while trying to protect the country.
The federal judge hearing the case, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, set July 10 as the next court date to address the government's state secret arguments. Taylor did not say when she might make a ruling.
An attorney with the Justice Department, Tony Coppolino, cited the actions of past presidents during war as precedents.
Sept. 11
He told the court that a congressional resolution approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks allowed Bush to authorize wiretaps. But Coppolino stopped short of describing how the program operates, saying that doing so would reveal national security secrets and help the country's enemies. Thus, he said Monday, the case should be dismissed.
Bush is permitted to take "all necessary and appropriate means" to defend Americans, Coppolino said. Referring to the actions of former Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt during World Wars I and II, Coppolino added: "You need to know what the enemy is doing in the United States."
Still a threat
Coppolino repeatedly referred to al-Qaida during his 50-minute talk, saying that the terrorist group "attacked and killed thousands" and "threatens to attack us again."
For that reason, he said, the U.S. government must be allowed to eavesdrop on the phone calls and e-mails of Americans in some cases.
He stressed that any surveillance is "narrowly and specifically focused on al-Qaida."
It was standing room only inside the courtroom, as attorneys, civil rights advocates, local Muslims and journalists crowded inside for a hearing that advocates say is the first on the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program.