Gonzales Calls NSA Eavesdropping 'Lawful'

Las Vegas Sun ^ | 6 Feb 06 | Kathryn Shrader

[xzins]

Gonzales Calls NSA Eavesdropping 'Lawful' By KATHERINE SHRADER ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says the Bush administration's electronic eavesdropping program "may make the difference between success and failure" in stopping the next terrorist attack. But even before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Monday, Democrats accused the administration of depriving Congress of information about the program.

Suggesting Republicans too may have tough questions for Gonzales, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., called Gonzales' legal explanations to date "strained and unrealistic."

In a statement prepared for the hearing, Gonzales called the monitoring program "reasonable" and "lawful." He lashed out at the news media for stories he called often "misinformed, confused or wrong."

"As the president has explained, the terrorist surveillance program operated by the (electronic-monitoring National Security Agency) requires the maximum in speed and agility, since even a very short delay may make the difference between success and failure in preventing the next attack."

His arguments reiterated those defending President Bush's decision to allow the NSA to eavesdrop, without first obtaining warrants, on people inside the United States whose calls or e-mails may be linked to terrorism.

But in his prepared remarks, Gonzales said he could not discuss how the program works, as skeptics of the program have demanded. "An open discussion of the operational details of this program would put the lives of Americans at risk," he said.

The program has sparked a heated debate about presidential powers in the war on terror since it was first disclosed in December.

Gonzales argued that Congress did, in fact, authorize the president in September 2001 to use military force in the war on terror.

He noted that the legislation "calls on the president to protect Americans both 'at home and abroad,'" and "to take action to prevent further terrorist attacks 'against the United States.'"

But congressional Democrats have said they did not intend to order domestic surveillance.

News accounts have suggested the program vacuums up vast amounts of communications and sifts through them for possible links to terrorists. Gen. Michael Hayden, the nation's No. 2 intelligence official, rejected that, saying on Sunday that the NSA first establishes a reason for being interested in the calls or e-mails.

"This isn't a drift net over Lackawanna (N.Y.) or Fremont (Calif.) or Dearborn (Mich.), grabbing all communications and then sifting them out," Hayden said of three U.S. cities with sizable Muslim populations.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told Specter last week that he should compel the Justice Department to turn over classified legal opinions on the program, using subpoenas if necessary.

Specter said Sunday he's open to that. "If the necessity arises, I won't be timid," he said.

The Judiciary Committee's Democrats also want Specter to call more administration officials for questioning, including former Attorney General John Ashcroft and ex-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey. Comey reportedly objected to parts of the program.

---

[ChuckShick]

But even before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Monday, Democrats accused the administration of depriving Congress of information about the program.

AP looking at it's crystal ball again?

[xzins]

But in his prepared remarks, Gonzales said he could not discuss how the program works, as skeptics of the program have demanded. "An open discussion of the operational details of this program would put the lives of Americans at risk," he said.

They want the operational details. Apparently, they're flumoxed about how we're finding these terrorists. We all know that once they find out the details that they'll be leaked.

This is a crucial issue for America. The president should not back down...no matter what law the congress passes.

The ultimate fallback position is the constitutional power called "Commander in Chief"

[Paloma_55]

Whether or not Gonzales is right, Bush did what he was given legal advice to do.

As I read the authorization from Congress, Bush could have ordered a nuclear strike. Listening to phone calls without a court order seems substantially within that authority.

[xzins]

They are intent on finding how the program works so they can gut it.

It's as if they WANT attacks on this country.

[xzins]

I agree.

The commander in chief must have "immediate reaction" authority or the term "commander in chief" means absolutely nothing.

It would become "commander after consultation."

[rhombus]

They are intent on finding how the program works so they can gut it. It's as if they WANT attacks on this country.

They just want an impeachment trial. The NY Times has already drawn all sorts of connections with Nixon.

[ASA Vet]

This is a crucial issue for America. The president should not back down

Agreed. In fact he must continue to order the tracking down and punishment (hanging) of those who leaked the classified information.

[gulfcoast6]

Why doesn't Spector do the honorable thing, retire.

[xzins]

Or at least go public about his recent conversion to Islam...

:>)

[xzins]

Jay Rockefeller could be first in Rockefeller Center. Might as well make it a media event.

He's the big kahuna of leakers; I'm nearly convinced.

[jackbenimble]

Gonzales seems like a legal light weight to me. He lacks gravitas. I think the President had both Constitutional and Statutory authority for the eavesdropping and I am thankful that he did it. But sometimes the person making the argument is more important than the content of the argument. Ever since Gonzales proved that he didn't understand the meaning of citizenship when he described illegal immigrants as "otherwise law abiding citizens" I have a hard time taking the guy seriously. I'm glad he is not defending me!

[sheltonmac]

The commander in chief must have "immediate reaction" authority or the term "commander in chief" means absolutely nothing.

Our constitutional republic must have limits on political power or the term "constitutional republic" means absolutely nothing. If we are supposed to applaud the president's behavior, then why tie his hands at all? Why not grant him supreme dictatorial powers and be done with it?

The fact remains that Congress ignored its constitutional duty. Only Congress has the power to declare war, but it passed a resolution that gave that authority to one man. That isn't how our system of checks and balances is supposed to work. Either we're a constitutional republic, or we aren't.

As far as this domestic surveillance issue goes, we only need to answer one question: Did the president break the law? If he is required to obtain a court order for such surveillance and didn't get it, then he broke the law. Period. We can't assume that just because this man is a Republican and pays lip service to his Christian constituents that he is automatically above criticism. We have constitutional and legal restrictions in place for a reason.

I guarantee you no one here would be defending the president on this issue if he was a Democrat.

[K-oneTexas]

Public executions may bring the public and the leaker's to an undeniable point ... "If you can't pay the price .. don't do the crime"

[IrishMike]

Rocherfellar and Leahy........ I'm all for empeachment hearings, lets start here !

[xzins]

Read the constitution, sm.

The cinc power relates to the military protection of the country.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States

I was active duty during the term of Bill Clinton, and I guarantee you that we had no problem recognizing his authority, the need for his authority, and the requirement to submit to that authority.

That Clinton used it unwisely -- especially by desecrating those soldier lives in Somalia -- and earned reproach for his cowardice-- has nothing to do with the reality of his authority and the necessity that the cinc have it.

[trebb]

But in his prepared remarks, Gonzales said he could not discuss how the program works, as skeptics of the program have demanded. "An open discussion of the operational details of this program would put the lives of Americans at risk," he said.

Exactly what the Dims and MSM want to happen.

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

"But in his prepared remarks, Gonzales said he could not discuss how the program works, as skeptics of the program have demanded. "An open discussion of the operational details of this program would put the lives of Americans at risk," he said."

Alberto Gonzales is our nation's Attorney General, which involves a great deal. And yet, some think he is to be under their thumb and tell them everything and anything they want to know regarding our nations' security. Is that absurd, or what...

[sheltonmac]

That Clinton used it unwisely -- especially by desecrating those soldier lives in Somalia -- and earned reproach for his cowardice-- has nothing to do with the reality of his authority and the necessity that the cinc have it.

You believe Clinton was acting within his authority as commander in chief in Somalia? How was that in any way related to defending the Constitution or protecting the country?

My point is that the Constitution sets binding limitations on political power--and that includes the commander in chief. To argue that the president is above those limitations is to argue in favor of a dictatorship.

[mysterio]

Stop making sense.