Alberto Gonzales Sets the Record Straight on Surveillance

well if alberto gonzales said so, it makes it so....

anyways my concern is not on whether we should spy - i have no problem with that - it is the fact that this is an end-run around checks and balances which have an important purpose in our constitution...

put another way, would you have wanted/want clinton or even john kerry or god forbid Hillary (i'm a democrat but even I hate carpetbaggers) to have this power/authority? you see where concerns can arise....

 

I always love TJ's thread titles, as if they are in the definitive. He didn't set anything straight today- he spent the whole time avoiding answering the questions.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060206/D8FJT5V00.html

By KATHERINE SHRADER

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senators raised doubts about the legal rationale for the Bush administration's eavesdropping program Monday, forcing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to provide a lengthy defense of the operations he called a vital "early warning system" for terrorists.

A handful of Republicans joined Democrats in raising questions about whether President Bush went too far in ordering the National Security Agency's monitoring operations. The senators were particularly troubled by the administration's argument that a September 2001 congressional resolution approving use of military force covered the surveillance of some domestic communications.

"The president does not have a blank check," said Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who wants the administration to ask the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the program.

"You think you're right, but there are a lot of people who think you're wrong," Specter told Gonzales. "What do you have to lose if you're right?"


Gonzales didn't respond to Specter's proposal directly. "We are continually looking at ways that we can work with the FISA court in being more efficient and more effective," said the former Texas judge.

Under Bush's orders, the ultra-secret National Security Agency has been eavesdropping - without warrants - on international communications of people in the United States whose calls and e-mails may be linked to Muslim extremists.

During the daylong committee hearing, Gonzales and the senators reached as far back as eavesdropping ordered by President Washington and delved into court decisions surrounding presidential powers and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Gonzales repeatedly defended the current program as lawful, reasonable and essential to national security. He said the president's authority was strongest in a time of war, and he called the monitoring operations an "early warning system designed for the 21st century." He said no changes in law were needed to accommodate the monitoring.

"To end the program now would be to afford our enemy dangerous and potential deadly new room for operation within our own borders," he said.

Democrats pressed Gonzales for details about the program and other similar operations, almost all of which he would not provide. They've asked Specter to file subpoenas for classified legal opinions on the subject.

"The president and the Justice Department have a constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws," said Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the committee's top Democrat. "Nobody is above the law, not even the president of the United States."

Leahy asked if the administration has authorized the opening of U.S. citizens' mail. Throughout the hearing, Gonzales chose his words carefully. "We're only focused on international communications where one part of the communication is al-Qaida," he said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked if the Bush administration had issued "any other secret order or directive" that would be prohibited by law. Said Gonzales: "The president has not authorized any conduct that I'm aware of that is in contravention of law."

Republicans, too, were skeptical. Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, said Bush's power - and the country - would be stronger if he came to Congress for statutory authorization.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said future presidents could be hurt when they seek authorizations to use force because the Bush administration interpreted Congress' post 9/11-resolution so broadly.

And Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., said he wanted to review whether changes were needed in the 1978 intelligence law to permit this type of monitoring.

Gonzales tried to paint eavesdropping as less heavy-handed than firing missiles or holding terrorists in detention. He noted the Supreme Court found it was appropriate to detain an American citizen for fighting alongside al-Qaida. "How can it be that merely listening to al-Qaida phone calls into and out of the country in order to disrupt their plots is not?" Gonzales asked.

He also tried to downplay reports of dissent within the Justice Department. To his knowledge, he said, no one had reservations about the program under discussion. But Gonzales said he could not tell Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., whether some department officials felt they needed private legal counsel.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., asked Gonzales to help him reconcile public comments from Bush administration officials. Some have said the program is not a "drift net" vacuuming up communications. Yet Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told one publication that the NSA was culling from "thousands" of phone numbers.


Democrats repeatedly questioned the truthfulness of Gonzales and Bush, citing statements they'd made about wiretapping before the program became public. In one dustup, Democrats sought - and failed - to have Gonzales sworn in.

Specter said the committee would hold at least two more hearings, which may include Gonzales. Specter has also invited former Attorney General John Ashcroft to testify.

 

What kind of message does it send to the followers of the "Party of Responsibility" that the Attorney General of the United States would not be sworn in for an appearance before the Senate? And don't tell me it was ll Specter's doing... cowardly Republicans forfeiting their Constitutional power to the WH. Sad.

This was, to my mind, a little scary...

 

I like how the chairman of the investigating committee has already made his decision on this issue.

 

Forgot to add a link to the portions of the hearing I quoted in the above post...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020600931.html

 

what could possibly go wrong?

 

Bless you Trader_Jorge. One of the few bastions of truth on this board. Keep it up brotha.

 

Hey! If this domestic spying program is soooo legal, then Gonzales should have no problem testifying under oath, right?

This hearing. like all other republican oversight hearings of this administration is a sham.

 

This exchange was the funny and scary all rolled up in one:


From Atrios


BIDEN: Thank you very much.


General, how has this revelation damaged the program?


I'm almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaida folks didn't think we were intercepting their phone calls.


I mean, I'm a little confused. How did it damage this?


GONZALES: Well, Senator, I would first refer to the experts in the Intel Committee who are making that statement, first of all. I'm just the lawyer.


And so, when the director of the CIA says this should really damage our intel capabilities, I would defer to that statement. I think, based on my experience, it is true -- you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance.
But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.


http://atrios.blogspot.com/


Seriously, where do they get these guys?

 

Rove Threatens Republican Senators... Support The President On Wiretapping Or Else...

-----------------------

Rove counting heads on the Senate Judiciary Committee

The White House has been twisting arms to ensure that no Republican member votes against President Bush in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation of the administration's unauthorized wiretapping.

Congressional sources said Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who votes against the president. The sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November.

"It's hardball all the way," a senior GOP congressional aide said.

The sources said the administration has been alarmed over the damage that could result from the Senate hearings, which began on Monday, Feb. 6. They said the defection of even a handful of Republican committee members could result in a determination that the president violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Such a determination could lead to impeachment proceedings.

Over the last few weeks, Mr. Rove has been calling in virtually every Republican on the Senate committee as well as the leadership in Congress. The sources said Mr. Rove's message has been that a vote against Mr. Bush would destroy GOP prospects in congressional elections.

"He's [Rove] lining them up one by one," another congressional source said.

Mr. Rove is leading the White House campaign to help the GOP in November’s congressional elections. The sources said the White House has offered to help loyalists with money and free publicity, such as appearances and photo-ops with the president.

Those deemed disloyal to Mr. Rove would appear on his blacklist. The sources said dozens of GOP members in the House and Senate are on that list.

So far, only a handful of GOP senators have questioned Mr. Rove's tactics.

Some have raised doubts about Mr. Rove's strategy of painting the Democrats, who have opposed unwarranted surveillance, as being dismissive of the threat posed by al Qaeda terrorists.

"Well, I didn't like what Mr. Rove said, because it frames terrorism and the issue of terrorism and everything that goes with it, whether it's the renewal of the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretapping, in a political context," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm

 

All this and yet you still won't answer my simple question.

You currently have an Incomplete on that exam Mr. Jorge.

It will soon turn to an F.

 

Alberto said his responses would not change, with or without the oath. Alberto's resolve to tell The Big Lie despite all consequences is commendable and worthy of a future medal of honor.

BTW lying in front of Congress is an criminal offense, with or without an oath.

 

Looking at the responses in this thread, he's probably scratching his head and regretting that he didn' really read the article he posted. Damn google, they just find you articles with your keywords, but never remind you whether it's in positive or negative aspects.

 

republican lindsey graham called the spying "dangerous" and arlen spector has had nothing but harsh words for this illegal spying. do you consider graham and spector to be liberals?

 

Here I'll post it again.

and remember kids, no helping Mr. Jorge, he needs to do this work on his own to get credit.

TRUE OR FALSE

A permanent resident alien, Mohammad Jafari in Dearborn, MI makes a phone call to a cell phone registered to an O. Bin Laden in Pakistan. The President authorizes a wiretap on that individual without a court order. Since this an international call the President has not violated FISA.

 

And yet ALL of this is avoidance of the issue. The issue is NOT whether we should intercept communications from suspected terrorists. The issue is whether the president should have to get a court order, which can be obtained up to three days after the fact, in order to legitimately intercept these communications as required by law.

I guess GWB is above the law after all. Karl Rove will see to that.

 

Hoooo boy, I'm glad lil t started this thread. The hilarity continues-


Alberto: President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/06.html#a7043

You can't beat that with a stick.

 

Were they analog or digital wiretaps?

 

in all honesty
I just want to curb their ability to eavesdrop on American Citizens

Rocket River