Senators Question Gonzales on NSA Wiretaps

Associated Press Writer ^ | 1 minute ago 2/6/06 | KATHERINE SHRADER

[Dubya]

WASHINGTON - Senators raised doubts about the legal rationale for the Bush administration's eavesdropping program Monday, forcing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to provide a lengthy defense of the operations he called a vital "early warning system" for terrorists.

[ozoneliar]

I am taking Con Law right now, and my Prof. while not hitting us over the head with his opinions, has opined on this subject several times.

Anyhow, depending on how this issue is resolved will have a major impact for the future. Previous attempts by Congress to pass partisan resolutions have occasionally ended up screwing that party over. This NSA debate can end up coming to haunt the Democratic party in the future

[originalbuckeye]

When is someone going to point out that going to the FISA court would expose too many people to the info being gleaned? I think most people in the country realise that there are people within the gov't structure who would love to leak info that would help Al Qaida. We are slowly being destroyed from within.

[ozoneliar]

When is someone going to point out that going to the FISA court would expose too many people to the info being gleaned?

The integrity of the court was never an issue. The issue ostensibly is how expeditously the court can grant the authorization.

[Cicero]

Well, keep in mind that this is AP, one of the leaders of the Fifth Column that wants to destroy our country.

Just look at that first sentence. "Senators raised doubts about the legal rationale for the Bush administration's eavesdropping program Monday, forcing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to provide a lengthy defense . . . ."

Thy could just as well have started the article with: "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales spoke out strongly on the constitutionality of the Bush administration's eavesdropping program in response to carping criticism by Democrats on the committee . . . ."

But, of course, that's not part of their game plan.

If this goes to the courts, I think Roberts and Alito and the rest of SCOTUS will have something to say about the constitutional rights of the POTUS in defending our country against its enemies.

[ozoneliar]

If this goes to the courts, I think Roberts and Alito and the rest of SCOTUS will have something to say about the constitutional rights of the POTUS in defending our country against its enemies.

The way the Court comes down on this issue will be a litmus test for the Court's future.

[originalbuckeye]

I know that's the official issue. My problem is that the possible leaking is more important. They ask 'why don't they get the authorization after the fact?'. I say this lets too many people know the intel. I'm sure there are people in FISA that would love to be the next 'whistleblower' feted by the MSM, DNC, etc.

[Toespi]

"We are slowly being destroyed from within."

I believe that the actions of so many left-wing politicians is not just politics as usual. I trully believe that this is an effort to intentionally undermine this nation, thus weakening our power and credibility which will allow a socialist takeover of the government. Afterall, these people are being elected in areas of the country that are either incredibly liberal or culturally and financially dependent on government assistance. Just because they have been elected to a public office in the United States, does not mean they believe in the Constitution, actually they would prefer it to burn along with this country.

[carlr]

They ask 'why don't they get the authorization after the fact?

In this day and age of cell phones that can be changed from day to day my question is just what exactly do you get the retroactive warrant for?

If a given phone is only used on a rotational basis to phones here in the US operating the same way and we had to apply for the warrant every "new" use the mountain of paperwork and wasted time would be staggering.

[sarasmom]

"The integrity of the court was never an issue"
I vehemently disagree with that statement!
When dealing with real-time tactical and/or strategic intelligence sources and methods, especially during war, the integrity of every individual link in the chain is subject to continuous, intensive and intrusive daily questioning of integrity.
But not by the the public, not by the media, and only by an extremely limited number of elected/appointed government officials, few of whom actually qualify for the security clearance levels required, but all of whom have been made aware of, and agree to abide by, the immediate and lethal penalties of unauthorized disclosure.

[YOUGOTIT]

From what I heard today the democrats are supporters of terrorist and want to tell them what we are doing to try and catch or stop their attempt to kill Americans. From the questions asked they were trying to let the terrorist know what we were doing in our actions to catch them. Just like any traitor they give aid and comfort to the enemy.

They are scum and anyone who votes from one of these is worse scum.

[HawaiianGecko]

 

Many keep repeating that you can tap immediately and have 72 hours to go to the court and get a warrant. That's not so. Before you can tap you have to have a person in charge of an intel agency such as the Director of CIA, FBI Director etc., sign off on the request. If that takes so much as 5 minutes you've missed the call.

Secondly, and I learned this today for the first time watching the proceedings, if you tap and then fail to get the warrant you are required by law to inform the person the wiretap was directed towards that they were being tapped. (I cleaned my ears out and rewound the TIVO to listen to that remark a couple of times)

When Senators keep asking in total bewilderment why the NSA didn't use FISA, the latter comment above makes perfect sense to me why not. They may not have gleaned pertinent information from that 1st call, but will in subsequent calls.

[mrsmith]

"The issue ostensibly is how expeditously the court can grant the authorization. "

Not even the most important part of "the issue".

At the constitutional convention the framers decided to take away from congress the power "to make war".

When we elect a president we have one person who is responsible for defending the country from attack. If a committee ( a 'Committee of Public Safety' ala the French Revolution) in the congress is to usurp that power they must get the Constitution amended.

[Non-Sequitur]

"We are continually looking at ways that we can work with the FISA court in being more efficient and more effective," said the former Texas judge.

Here's where I'm having some problems with all this. If the President believes he has the authority to conduct the surveillance in the national interest then why go to the FISA court at all? If he feels bound by law to go to the FISA court in some cases then why isn't he obligated in all cases? It's the apparent picking and choosing that has me puzzled. Either he is bound by FISA or he isn't. And if he is then he's bound in all the cases. If he isn't then he shouldn't be going to the court period.

[ozoneliar]

I vehemently disagree with that statement!

A)Nobody from the Administration has questioned the integrity of the court

B)Nobody from the Administration has alleged that the members of the Court lack the proper security clearances. I'm sure that all memebers of the court have had extensive background checks/clearances.

What evidence do you have that credibly challenges the integrity of the Court. So far all I have seen is rampant speculation. There are far more important issues to address , rather than impugning the integrity of the Court.

[G Larry]

Some of the Senators are being a horse's A$$, just because it's convenient.
These particular clowns KNOW what's going on AND WHY IT IS CONSTITUITONAL AND LEGAL.
They are playing stupid because it furthers their cause.

[DugwayDuke]

No, the issue is not how expeditious is the court. The issue is whether the President has to get approval from a court on how he will conduct a war.

[mrsmith]

" It's the apparent picking and choosing that has me puzzled. Either he is bound by FISA or he isn't. And if he is then he's bound in all the cases. If he isn't then he shouldn't be going to the court period. "

His inherent powers are not absolute!

I think it obvious that some suspicious communications will not fall within his inherent powers and he needs congressional authorization to intercept them.

The Fourth Amendment is one significant restriction that he can be surer of obeying by following congress's legislation and the court's rulings.

[I_Like_Spam]

I don't understand the purpose of these hearings anyhow.

There isn't any dispute as to the facts here. Mr. Bush has admitted he had terrorist phone calls listened to without getting warrants. The president also asserts that it is legal.

The Democrat leadership, on the other hand, doesn't dispute Mr. Bush's surveillance activities. They only assert that it is illegal to listen into al-quaeda communications unless a warrant is procured.

Since there is no dispute as to the facts, only the law, hearings are pointless. Senators Spector, Leahy, et al can call a hundred legal experts, AG's, former AG's, judges, to give their opinions. But opinions are just that, opinions, and everyone has one. Nothing will be resolved in these hearings it seems.

As a question of law, this is a question for the courts. An aggrieved islamofascist or islamofascist network has to file suit in court against the president and explain how they were damaged by the NSA program. Then the federal judiciary can do its job, and adjuciate the matter.

Until that happens, there isn't really a definite answer to the question. And until there is an aggrieved party coming forward, this entire case is moot.

[Big Mack]

No, They are playing stupid because they are stupid.