Today, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter will convene the Judiciary Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and NSA’s Surveillance Authority. The guest at this roast will be Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. We know a lot about the day’s events already: Senator Specter has supplied us with 15 questions, and the Democratic committee members with six ‘questions’ of their own (more on that in a moment). We also know roughly the message Gonzales will try to convey, both from recent speeches and a preview that has been published in TIME.
Here, then, is a little Q & A that I hope both the uninitiated and the obsessed may find helpful.
Q: What’s this all about, then?
A: On the 16th of December, the New York Times released a story, apparently under pressure of being scooped by the imminent release of the book “State Of War
Q: So?
A: So, that’s a potentially very big deal, because people are a little leary of domestic surveillance by the government, particularly in the post-Nixon era.
Q: So we’re talking wiretapping Americans?
A: That’s a good question, and the answer isn’t straightforward. Gonzales says, essentially, yes: the Administration has authorized a program limited in scope that targets communications where one end is a known or suspected terrorist. Others, myself included, have argued that data-mining or packet-sniffing is involved. Adding to the confusion, there are actually two post-9/11 NSA surveillance programs that are often jumbled together, whether intentionally or from ignorance: the President’s, and a program authorized by Michael Hayden when he was at the NSA.
Q: So why the hearings? Isn’t Specter a Republican? What does he hope to accomplish?
A: Whoa, whoa, settle down, one at time. Yes, Specter is a Republican, though one who hasn’t always stayed on the reservation. On a cynical level, Specter could be trying to control the debate, knowing that some sort of Congressional response is inevitable.
The real reason Specter is holding this hearing, though, is territorial; as a Senator, he resents the Administration for bypassing the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court that Congress had intended to supervise operations of this sort. He also has a vested interest in countering the Administration’s expansive view of executive power.
Q: So, is the President’s program legal? Will the hearing settle that?
A: Oh, my naive young friend - does a hearing settle anything? The President claims he has two areas of authority that he relied on: one, his inherent power to protect the public during a time of war, and two, the Authorization to Use Military Force passed by Congress in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
Most congressional leaders, however, say they did not intend to give the President this authorization, and if they had, it would have been explicit. Specter, on their behalf, will also question the AG on why the administration didn’t seek to have the authorization included in the Patriot Act, when the Congress was at its most compliant.
Q: So why didn’t the President go to the FISA court, or amend the Patriot Act?
A: What am I, a mind-reader?
Q: What will the Democrats use this hearing for?
A: Unfortunately, the Democrats will do what they do best, from all indications. Russ Feingold intends to call the AG a liar, and judging by the six ‘questions’ put forward by the Democrats, they intend to make this hearing a referendum on the ‘imperial presidency’ of George W. Bush. I say that because their questions are not questions at all, but rather requests for massive amounts of documentation more in line with discovery during a criminal trial than any good faith effort at contributing anything of value to the debate.
Q: Bottom line, then: what will come out of this hearing?
A: Worst case, probably nothing more than a few bad headlines for the Administration. Best case, at least from Specter’s perspective, would be some sort of commitment from the Administration to pull back a bit and submit to FISA or some other more active oversight.
http://decision08.net/2006/02/06/the-quick-and-dirty-guide-to-the-nsa-hearing/