Posted on 01/20/2006 8:12:54 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Democratic senators took the Bush administration to task Friday for four years of domestic spying, while the president fought back with a planned embrace of the intelligence agency that is carrying out the effort.
In preparation for Senate hearings, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts noted that President Bush asserted in 2004 that "when we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
That Bush statement came at the same time the National Security Agency was engaging — at the president's direction — in warrantless eavesdropping on Americans.
"If President Bush can make his own rules for domestic surveillance, Big Brother has run amok," Kennedy said in a statement.
Introducing a proposed Senate resolution, Kennedy and Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont rejected White House assertions that congressional action after Sept. 11 authorized warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States.
A joint resolution of Congress authorized the use of force against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, but it "says nothing about domestic electronic surveillance," Kennedy declared.
Pushing back, Bush plans a Wednesday visit to the NSA, where he will reassert his claim that he has the constitutional authority to let intelligence officials listen in on international phone calls of Americans with suspected ties to terrorists.
"We are stepping up our efforts to educate the American people," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said of the trip to the NSA, based at Fort Meade in Maryland. McClellan called the program "a critical tool that helps us save lives and prevent attacks. It is limited and targeted to al-Qaida communications, with the focus being on detection and prevention."
Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, said the new audio tape of Osama bin Laden threatening attacks on American soil "is a vivid reminder why we must continue to intercept communications between al-Qaida overseas and potential operatives in the United States."
On Monday, deputy national intelligence director Mike Hayden, who led the National Security Agency when the program began in October 2001, will speak on the issue at the National Press Club.
On Tuesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is delivering a speech on the program in Washington.
Gonzales also plans to testify Feb. 6 about the secret program before the Senate Judiciary Committee where Kennedy and Leahy are members.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department on Wednesday issued a 42-page legal justification for the eavesdropping program, an expanded version of a document the agency sent Congress last month.
"Making their argument longer didn't make it any better," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (news, bio, voting record), D-Md., a Judiciary Committee member. He said Bush's secret approval of warrantless eavesdropping had made congressional debate on the Patriot Act meaningless.
The NSA's warrantless eavesdropping program is "an intelligence operation in search of a legal rationale," said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.
"What the president ordered in this case was a crime," added Turley, who said House Republicans are establishing a terrible precedent by not holding oversight hearings.
To fend off criticism, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove and White House spokesman Scott McClellan referred to statements by John Schmidt, a Clinton administration associate attorney general who defended the program.
Schmidt wrote last month in the Chicago Tribune that Bush's authorization of the NSA surveillance is consistent with court decisions and Justice Department positions under prior presidents.
Is there someone in the DNC that I can send money to to encourage them in this idiotic pursuit? OBL is issuing new threats against this country, and the Democrats are trying to raise an outcry over the rights of one of his pals in Detroit? Knock yourself out Howard Dean. I'm sure the American public is just as outraged as you are.
Domestic spying my a$$!
We're intercepting communications from our enemy!
Ok...gonna go against the grain here for debate and say NO. I don't want Hillary to have this power. No sitting President should have the power to ignore the founding documents of the US of A.
That said....do I think that the President had the good faith intent to protect the nation from harm? Absolutely and should be viewed under this light. ie..."Dem's can blow me". However...
My argument would be that regardless of this fact the duty of the Office of the President is to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the United States of America first and foremost and by doing so they protect all of us.
As a strict constitutionalist, I want no excuses for future presidents that we don't agree with to have powers over me that are subjective to selective interpretation. Too much room for abuse. This is too important a topic to give up these rights considering more people die every year of falling down stairs and car accidents then in all the history of terrorism. Once we give gov't too much power over us we'll never get it back.
My 2 cents for a Friday night.
Just as a reminder, Billary will do any damn thing they want if they are in the WH and no law or lack of a law are going to stop them. I get tired of hearing this "What if Hidelbeast was in the WH . . . . .
I know what you mean...and those that say NO they don't want HER to have that power...
So, Bush shouldn't NOW...are being scary silly...because, I don't know what is going to happen between now and when President Bush leaves office...BUT, if an attack happens, that could have been stopped...
Because of political fallout...then our country will be doomed anyway!
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.