Law is Reactive, not Proactive

As such, it is completely immaterial whether Bush violated the law with wiretapping (or detaining suspects, for that matter). Preventing further attacks was his primary mission since 9/11. Potentially violating the law to accomplish that mission was his duty, if it was necessary.

Just as we expect soldiers and police to risk their lives to protect us, we have a right to expect our leaders to take risks, even to include violating the law, to protect us from dangers. In no way does this mean that if Bush violated the law that he should not be punished for it, however, in the same way that soldiers sometimes lose their gamble and die.

The law will react to transgressions, but the system is built to operate so slowly, that the risk of violating the law will often bear the fruit the violation was intended to do. For example, internment of Japanese was clearly unconstitutional, but it was not until after the war that the law caught up with the act. Whether internment prevented an attack by the Japanese is not really the issue, just that there were none, which was the point of internment.

So maybe Bush will burn for this decision, but that does not mean he was wrong to do it: I expect no less from the person entrusted with his position.

I see nothing wrong with expecting our leaders to risk imprisonment in order to do what they think is right. It is a small price to pay to fulfill their duty: much smaller than we ask of our soldiers and police.