TIME: How Gonzales Plans to Defend Eavesdropping

[kskiska]

TIME Exclusive: Attorney General will tell Senators that wiretaps target suspects, not innocents

By MIKE ALLEN/WASHINGTON

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales plans to use a Congressional hearing on Monday to lash out at "misinformed, confused" news accounts about President George W. Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program, and to declare it "is not a dragnet," according to administration documents provided to TIME. "I cannot and will not address operational aspects of the program or other purported activities described in press reports," he plans to say in testimony prepared for the Senate Judiciary Committee. "These press accounts are in almost every case, in one way or another, misinformed, confused, or wrong."

According to the documents, Gonzales plans to assert in his opening statement that seeking approval for the wiretaps from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court could result in delays that "may make the difference between success and failure in preventing the next attack." He will compare the program to telegraph wiretapping during the Civil War. In accompanying testimony, the Attorney General plans to leave open the possibility that President Bush will ask the court to give blanket approval to the program, a step that some lawmakers and even some Administration officials contend would put it on more solid legal footing.

In pointed written questions posed in advance by Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Gonzales was asked whether he would "consider seeking approval from the FISA Court at this time for the ongoing surveillance program at issue." According to 11 pages of answers to the 15 questions, Gonzales will reply, "We use FISA where we can, and we always consider all of our legal options."

(snip)

The hearing is likely to delve into whether the White House considered seeking congressional permission for the program and was rebuffed. That could call into question the Administration argument that the President has the authority under his constitutional powers as commander in chief and under a congressional resolution authorizing military force against terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat who was Senate Majority Leader at the time, wrote in the Washington Post in December that White House lawyers had used negotiations over the resolution to seek broader presidential authority within the U.S. and not just overseas. "I refused," Daschle wrote.

more…
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1156499,00.html

[BadGimp]

1. It's still ILLEGAL Asshat!

[Bucky]

18. Yes, but it's "not a dragnet"

Thousands of intercepts and only ten leads. Of which only one panned out to yield an actual terrorist plot: a dude in New York planned to take down the Brooklyn Bridge with... a blow torch!!

Definitely not a dragnet. It's a fishing expedition.

[WCGreen]

2. We know who is responsible for the 9/11 attacks....

Any new attack would not fall under that "mandate" from congress....

As to the Civil War, that was a real war, not a shadow war where anything can be pulled under the cloak of national security...

I find it increadible that the "conservative" republicans would willingly give up rights...

[mrcheerful]

4. Not to mention that it was a war

that was between americans so there was an actual need for spying on americans at that time. I doubt very much that this is whats going on today, how many Rebs are teaming up with muslims to over throw shrub or take away americans freedoms?

[NWHarkness]

3. Innocents?

So, it is now official policy that the government gets to pronounce a person innocent or guilty, without due process?

[LynnTheDem]

5. 1. STILL ILLEGAL. 2. Only "bad Iraqis" in Abu Ghraib...except in FACT

the US military itself then admitted 80%+ of all Iraqis in Abu Ghraib were INNOCENT of any wrong-doing.

Got a suspect?

GET A WARRANT.

[Call me Deacon Blues]

6. The question we need to ask is WHY they're telling us this ahead of time

I think it's a warning to Congress not to ask too many questions. Will they back down? Do I really need to ask?

[awoke_in_2003]

15. "Will they back down?"

No doubt, and Joementum will be leading the retreat.

[WhiteTara]

7. well if that is the defense, I sure hope some

congress critters prepare themselves with some constitutional facts and law and don't let him get by with "lashing out" and force him to state facts and admit mistakes.

[caligirl]

8. He is creating a stand off; who wins: the senate or Gonzo at court.

Nov elections are really the only hope we have of getting to the bottom of this.

[biscotti]

9. I hope Senator Feingold

confronts him on lying under oath in his confirmation hearings, about warrantless spying.

[fooj]

14. They can't replay that video of Shrub saying that

"You know...wiretaps REQUIRE a court order. Nothing has changed." I want them to play it over and over and over and over again!

Peace.

[catnhatnh]

10. I cannot and will not tell you what we're doing....

...and HOW DARE YOU ASK??? OK, yeah-we may ASK YOU TO MAKE IT LEGAL-but so what if we don't???

[otohara]

11. Lie, Lie, Lie and Lie

some more. Silly question.

[goforit]

12. Why does he need to defend a damn thing?...It's GOPland.

[fooj]

13. Blah, blah, blah...

Bottom line- Little Lord Pissypants BROKE THE LAW! Period.

I certainly hope someone mentions the fact that the rat bastards started this program BEFORE 9-11!

Peace.

[Charlie Brown]

16. Daschle deserves more credit than is given him

for standing up to this crap.

[ShockediSay]

17. Without a warrant procedure

Gonzales can't prove the eavesdropping isn't being used for political purposes, for example, against anti-war Quakers

http://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/cnhi/tahlequahdailypress/editorials/local_story_003103443.html?keyword=topstory

or that he favors a secret police state, where torture is business as usual.

[SHRED]

19. "hypothetical"

----

Let's hope Feingold asks what "hypothetical" means in the mind of the 'little torturer'.

-----

Gonzales contends in his 10-page opening statement for Monday's hearing that fighting al-Qaeda "is, in fundamental respects, a war of information," and that asking the FISA court for permission for each intercept "would necessarily introduce a significant factor of delay, and there would be critical holes in our early warning system." Lawmakers in both parties have asked why the Administration could not use a FISA provision allowing petitions to the court after monitoring has begun. Gonzales says there "is a serious misconception" about those provisions, and that the administration could not begin surveillance "without knowing that we meet FISA's normal requirements." He said a FISA application "involves a substantial process" that "consumes valuable resources and results in significant delay," when what is needed is "the maximum in speed and agility."

The opening statement does not address criticism by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), a possible Presidential candidate, that Gonzales misled senators during his confirmation hearing in January 2005. During the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales whether, in his opinion, the President has "the authority acting as commander in chief to authorize warrantless searches of Americans' homes and wiretaps of their conversations in violation of the criminal and foreign intelligence surveillance statutes of this country." Gonzales, whose answer addressed administration policy on torture, replied that the senator was discussing "a hypothetical situation."