MIAMI _ For U.S. President George W. Bush the year 2006 will start briskly. The first question will be whether he broke the law when he authorized eavesdropping on the phone and e-mail communications of hundreds, maybe thousands, of American citizens _ without court-approved warrants.

      Bush maintains his actions were legal. His critics in the Republican Party are not so sure. Only an independent investigation will be able to determine that.

      In a recent radio address to the nation, Bush admitted he ordered the National Security Agency "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al-Qaida and related terrorist organizations." The official version suggests that the wiretapped conversations were those of people in the United States calling others abroad. But, this may not be wholly accurate; it is possible that contacts made within the country were also monitored.

      The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), authorized in 1978, is unequivocal. Spying on American citizens in the United States is prohibited. But if it has to be done, as in the case of people suspected of being foreign agents or terrorists, permission from a special court judge must be sought first. If this isn't executed, it's a violation of the law.

      Bush, however, assured Americans that his actions were "...consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." This, of course, has yet to be proved. Which is why it is important to carry out congressional hearings or name an independent investigator. The Bush administration cannot investigate itself. And as long as doubt lingers, his presidency will be tainted.

      That doubt is already having its consequences. The American Civil Liberties Union bought a complete page in The New York Times in which the image of Bush appears next to former President Richard Nixon, who was forced to resign for breaking the law. The first paragraph on the page read:

      "The last time a United States president claimed that he alone had the unilateral power to tap phones without a judicial order, that incident ended in the national disgrace known as the Watergate scandal."

      Watergate is not the only case. Between 1952 and 1974, the government kept secret information on about 75,000 Americans, many simply for opposing the Vietnam War.

      Spies are among us. Bush has already publicly acknowledged that he issued the surveillance order starting in 2002. But, is that legal?

      The president's argument hinges on his war on terror. He says that two of the hijackers _ Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar _ who crashed an airliner into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, made phone calls from the United States to al-Qaida members abroad and that his administration learned about it too late. Bush doesn't want something like this to happen again. For that reason he authorized the interception.

      Nevertheless, why didn't Bush get FISA-required court warrants last year? The official response is that it's a very slow and bureaucratic process. Maybe so. But that is the law. There's no other. If he doesn't like it, he should have done something to change it.

      Bush's motives, however, cannot be easily criticized. Nobody wants, of course, another terrorist attack on the United States like the one that claimed almost 3,000 lives four years ago. However, even the president has to abide by the law, however commendable his motives not to do so may be.

      As reporters, however, we are obliged to doubt everything. Even the White House. In the same way that journalist Edward R. Murrow questioned the abuses of anti-communist Sen. Joe McCarthy _ as is chronicled marvelously in the film "Good Night and Good Luck" _ it is up to us now to ask the hard questions about the war on terrorism.

      We journalists made the huge mistake of believing the arguments of the United States and Great Britain in March 2003 prior to the war in Iraq. Not only were there no weapons of mass destruction but there were no links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, as they assured us there were.

      The New York Times reported a few days ago that the supposed link between Iraq and al-Qaida came from a prisoner in Egypt _ Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi _ who invented that connection to avoid being mistreated by his interrogators. And on that lie, the U.S. government based its justification for the war. There is no doubt that, as reporters, we did a poor job before the Iraq conflict. And we should recognize that fact in order for it never to happen again.

      That's why is it is imperative now to ask questions. A whole lot of them. A journalist's principal social responsibility is to reveal abuses of power, no matter who is involved. And right now what we want to know is whether the president crossed the line.

      At stake is the security of knowing we live in a country of laws and that our privacy will not be violated at the decision of just one person, no matter how well-intentioned that person wishes to appear.