Posted on 02/06/2006 6:20:01 AM PST by 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.
---
The protection of the country requires a locus of power that can instantly respond to deter an attack.
That is what "commander in chief" means.
If anyone says otherwise, that's only because they haven't the time or ability to think it through.
The Constitution is quite clear. Only Congress has the power to declare war. According to your argument, the president's position as commander in chief trumps Congress's authority.
We are either a constitutional republic, or we aren't.
Sorry. I can't help it. :-)
The president's and congress's constitutional war powers were debated and defined in the convention in 1787:
"FRIDAY AUGUST 17th. IN CONVENTION
...Mr. MADISON and Mr. GERRY moved to insert "declare," striking out "make" war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks. Mr. SH[E]RMAN thought it stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war."
The vote was 7 to 1.
No law can change this constiutionally determined division of the War Power, whether there is a good or bad president.
Setting aside such a silly argument that only the most ignorant would countenance, the president's Constitutional powers are limited by the Fourth Amendment. One could make the argument that communications to a group at war with us is protected by the Fourth, but no one has yet made a good one IMHO LOL! Feel free to try.
The only undeniably reasonable and constiutional criticism of a Dem president- or of this one- in this case is that the program is not in fact what the president says.
That is an argument one would certainly hear here if a Dem was doing it.
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
As you can see, there are forces available in times of declared war, in times of non-war attack, and in times of peace.
All of these are UNDER the authority of the "Commander in Chief."
Anyone who think the Founders saw a black/white world in which one was either at war or not at war considers them without knowledge of history and of international intrigue.
They weren't stupid.
There was no war in the northwest territory but they provided troops. In fact, Britain still occupied territory (Detroit, for example) that supposedly had been granted the US by the treaty ending the Rev. War. England continually maintained ties to a league of Indians through trader/agents who continued to supply them with weapons, ammunition, and a promise of another war.
From generals St Clair to Harrison, there was no declaration of war against Britain, but there was constant intrigue.
The Founders were not ignorant men.
What you are dealing with is defense of a party over defense of the Constitution. Personally, I'm not too excited by the concept of war powers for a loosely defined war on terror that might last 50 years or more. If there is a crisis, it seems best to declare martial law.
"The Founders were not ignorant men."
I agree 100%...
The argument posed by the Democrats is not one that makes any sense, legally or intelligently, I spoke with one the best legal minds in the Country and he stated, without reservation, that the President has the right and the duty to authorize the use of any and all means to deter the terrorists from further harm to the American people. There is no reason to take the side of the left in this Country, they are doing this solely to damage the Bush Administration. Having Leahy and Kennedy spew their hate, confusion and power grab all to the great harm of our national security is not something I believe does any good. Europe is in harm's way because of this same kind of poisoned thinking, making sure that terrorists are treated with a criminal rather than a wartime authority. Listening to the dangerous nonsense Kennedy and Leahy pontificate on is nothing more than a national disgrace. I protest this hearing and the further harm it will cause to America.
Of course, you are free to argue that he was justified in breaking the law. My point is that there are limits on executive power. But everything Bush's supporters have suggested up to this point leads me to think that they believe nothing is unreasonable when it comes to national security.
Is there a limit to presidential authority in these matters? If so, what is it? How will we know when a president has gone too far? With the courts out of the loop, who determines what is reasonable or unreasonable?
I'm sorry, but I just can't bring myself to blindly trust career politicians for protection.
No.
Of course he didn't break the law.
The law cannot possibly amend the constitution regarding the president's cinc authority, therefore, one must read the law in light of the president's constitutional authority, or one must admit that the law itself is unconstitutional.
It is not possible to break an unconstitutional law.
Well, no one can accuse you of being inconsistent.
A law can not change the Constitution.
That is enough for me, I hope you will at least entertain the opinion of those who wrote the Constitution.
Yeah, you get a lot of "rah-rah hooray for the president" here". If it came out that the president was abusing the Constitution I think you'd find a change of tone. There hasn't been any indication of that and given his consultation with the Intelligence committee it's reasonable to assume there won't be.
The courts are not "out of the loop" on constitutional- as opposed to legislative- restrictions on the president's constitutional war powers. The president's constitutional powers, like anything in the Constitution, are limited and defined by other parts of the constitution. Like I said, no one IMHO has made a reasonable constitutional argument against the president's actions- feel free to try.
Why weren't the Founders much concerned with the president abusing his military powers in defence- but mainly by offensive actions?
It's simple, the state militias were the "first responders" to war of those times. There was no standing federal army of any size. The president didn't even have a federal force to turn against us- and wasn't expected to have one.
Given that he now does have a huge federal army and police that he could turn against the citizenry perhaps the constitution should be amended to reflect that. I don't think so, I think the Founders found the only practical solution to abuse of the War Power in defense- impeachment, but I'd entertain arguments to do so.
I suggest you do not want to trust the conduct of war to a congressional committee (as in the French Revolution), but to the person elected for that specific purpose. Though they are all career politicians.
Earth to Di - you don't run the committee.
I guarantee you the pubbies would not have hearings if GW was a dem. In fact this faction of this "Two-Party Cartel" did not do anything when Bubba searched Aldrich Ames property w/o warrants. If this administration was so worried about leaks they would be indicting the perpitrators. More lip service as the elasticity of our borders continues. Bush can fight a bunch of towelheads but he won't stand up to Biden,Leheay, Teddy, Boxer & Turbin.
Well said. The big problem is why this administration goes along with the commies all of the time. WHERE THE HE!! IS ZELL MILLER?
Your right look at Clintoon and the ECHELON project the DEM'S buried their head in the sand and that was a real domestic tapping job or having HITLERY getting IRS files.
"I guarantee you no one here would be defending the president on this issue if he was a Democrat."
There would be no 'issue' at all if the president was a democrat. The same folk who are squealing "ilegal" would be dead silent and the republicans, understanding the Constitution, law, and good of the country, would be quietly cheering.
In addition, the NY Times would nver have broken the story.
"Like others on this thread, you are ignoring the question I posed: Did the president break the law? If he is required to obtain a court order for such surveillance, and failed to do so, then he broke the law."
You cannot just make such sweeping statements and pretend they are both valid and true.
"Did the president break the law" - No, one supreme court and 4 appeals courts have directly ruled on the issue.
"was the president required to get a warrant for foreign intel" - again no. The foreign inlteligence exception is decades old, well understood, and has been upheld by a host fo federal courts.
Which..brings us back to the first question. A far better question would be..
"As the President has the Constitutional power as CIC to authorize wiretaps of foreign intel and as EVERY court has upheld this power, why would anyone question the activity?"
The answer is simple...Bush hate and the hope for partisan gain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.