Gonzales: Wiretaps Essential; Specter, Plan "Defies Logic"
Tuesday February 7, 2006
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified -- but not under oath -- for eight hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, asserting the Administration's warrantless wiretapping program is both vital and legal. At the close of the testimony, Chair Arlen Spector (R-PA) said the assertion that program is legal "just defies logic and plain English." The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, established in the wake of Watergate and illegal wiretaps, sets up a special court that senators said should have first reviewed the wiretaps.
The President insists -- in press conferences and in his State of the Union address -- that the wiretapping program is essential to the "war on terror." However, the Washington Post reported over the weekend that fewer than 10 citizens or residents a year have "aroused enough suspicion" to justify interception of domestic calls -- even though as many as 5,000 people have had their international calls monitored.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a former lawyer for the Air Force, joined Specter in criticizing the White House. As did Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), who said "he wanted to review whether changes were needed in the 1978 intelligence law to permit this type of monitoring." However, Senators John Cornyn (R-TX), Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) supported the Administration.
Under questioning from Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT), Gonzales "admitted that this expansive legal theory was created between the time that Congress rubber-stamped a go-to-war-in-Afghanistan resolution just a few days after Sept. 11 and when it approved the Patriot Act a month later."
Analysis and Critique
The Boston Globe wrote that "Gonzales defends the indefensible."
The libertarian Cato Institute said,"The overriding issue that's at stake in these hearings is the stance of the administration that they're going to decide in secrecy which laws they're going to follow and which laws they can bypass."
As Jacob Weisburg writes in Slate, "the arguments issuing from the White House threaten the concept of checks and balances as it has been understood in America for the last 218 years. Simply put, Bush and his lawyers contend that the president's national security powers are unlimited. And since the war on terror is currently scheduled to run indefinitely, the executive supremacy they're asserting won't be a temporary condition."
Attorney Andrew Cohen wrote in January that:
Among the articles of defense: a 42-page (pdf) document from the Justice Department that defends the warrantless wiretaps. Cohen continues:
Although Gonzales refused to answer pointed questions from the Senate Committee, he managed to stay on-message throughout his testimony and questioning. In his opening statement, Gonzales dropped the word "enemy" 10 times and "al Qaeda" 20 times. In the process, he managed to suggest "that those who questioned the legality of the program were aiding the terrorists." This technique has served the Administration well for 4+ years, and, based on this hearing, its effectiveness has not come to an end.
The President insists -- in press conferences and in his State of the Union address -- that the wiretapping program is essential to the "war on terror." However, the Washington Post reported over the weekend that fewer than 10 citizens or residents a year have "aroused enough suspicion" to justify interception of domestic calls -- even though as many as 5,000 people have had their international calls monitored.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a former lawyer for the Air Force, joined Specter in criticizing the White House. As did Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), who said "he wanted to review whether changes were needed in the 1978 intelligence law to permit this type of monitoring." However, Senators John Cornyn (R-TX), Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) supported the Administration.
Under questioning from Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT), Gonzales "admitted that this expansive legal theory was created between the time that Congress rubber-stamped a go-to-war-in-Afghanistan resolution just a few days after Sept. 11 and when it approved the Patriot Act a month later."
Analysis and Critique
The Boston Globe wrote that "Gonzales defends the indefensible."
The libertarian Cato Institute said,"The overriding issue that's at stake in these hearings is the stance of the administration that they're going to decide in secrecy which laws they're going to follow and which laws they can bypass."
As Jacob Weisburg writes in Slate, "the arguments issuing from the White House threaten the concept of checks and balances as it has been understood in America for the last 218 years. Simply put, Bush and his lawyers contend that the president's national security powers are unlimited. And since the war on terror is currently scheduled to run indefinitely, the executive supremacy they're asserting won't be a temporary condition."
Attorney Andrew Cohen wrote in January that:
[T]he White House is couching the controversial initiative in military terms. So "electronic surveillance" now is referred to by Justice Department officials as "signals intelligence activities" and the program itself now is labeled as a "core military" function that acts as an "early-warning system" designed to prevent future terror attacks. Suspected terrorists, meanwhile, are "enemy forces" the warrantless surveillance of whom result from "tactical military decisions" necessary as "a fundamental tool of war."A great tribute to Orwell. Big Brother is listening.
Among the articles of defense: a 42-page (pdf) document from the Justice Department that defends the warrantless wiretaps. Cohen continues:
The first time you read the "White Paper," you feel like it is describing a foreign country guided by an unfamiliar constitution. The second time you read the memo, you have plenty of questions, legal and otherwise, about many of the assertions it contains. The third time you read it, you wonder if the conservative Supreme Court won't, in the end, somehow recognize its breathtakingly broad view of executive power.Former President Jimmy Carter, who signed FISA legislation in 1978, has called the warrantless wiretaps "disgraceful and illegal" and the arguments presented by Gonzales " ridiculous."
Although Gonzales refused to answer pointed questions from the Senate Committee, he managed to stay on-message throughout his testimony and questioning. In his opening statement, Gonzales dropped the word "enemy" 10 times and "al Qaeda" 20 times. In the process, he managed to suggest "that those who questioned the legality of the program were aiding the terrorists." This technique has served the Administration well for 4+ years, and, based on this hearing, its effectiveness has not come to an end.
From around the blogosphere: Broken Fang, BuzzFlash, Decision '08, Jesus' General, Glenn Greenwald, Martin's Musings, NSA Scandal, Peter Stanislaw, Silence Is Not An Option
Technorati Profile
Technorati tags:
FISA,
Patriot Act,
Politics
gada.be tags:
FISA,
Patriot Act ,
Politics