Q: Warrantless *domestic* wiretaps OK? AG: "I'm not going to rule it out"

[solypsist]

Warrantless Wiretaps Possible in U.S.

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 7, 2006; Page A03

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales left open the possibility yesterday that President Bush could order warrantless wiretaps on telephone calls occurring solely within the United States -- a move that would dramatically expand the reach of a controversial National Security Agency surveillance program.

In response to a question from Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) during an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Gonzales suggested that the administration could decide it was legal to listen in on a domestic call without supervision if it were related to al-Qaeda.


Attorney Alberto Gonzales testifies on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, April 5, 2006 before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing on his department's fiscal 2007 budget needs. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)
Attorney Alberto Gonzales testifies on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, April 5, 2006 before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing on his department's fiscal 2007 budget needs. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook) (Dennis Cook - AP)
NSA: Spying at Home

* Bill Would Allow Warrantless Spying
* Senate Intelligence Panel Frayed by Partisan Infighting
* Panel on Eavesdropping Is Briefed by White House
* Paper Said to Show NSA Spying Given to Post Reporter in 2004
* Justice Dept. Role in Eavesdropping Decision Under Review

More Stories
Partial Transcript
House Judiciary Committee Hearing on the Department of Justice
Read the initial comments of Attorney General Roberto Gonzales and the House Judiciary Committee chair and ranking member.

"I'm not going to rule it out," Gonzales said.

In the past, Gonzales and other officials refused to say whether they had the legal authority to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on domestic calls, and have stressed that the NSA eavesdropping program is focused only on international communications.

Gonzales previously testified in the Senate that Bush had considered including purely domestic communications in the NSA spying program, but he said the idea was rejected in part because of fears of a public outcry. He also testified at the time that the Justice Department had not fully analyzed the legal issues of such a move.

In yesterday's testimony, Gonzales reiterated earlier hints that there may be another facet to the NSA program that has not been revealed publicly, or even another program that has prompted dissension within the government. While acknowledging disagreements among officials over the monitoring efforts, Gonzales disputed published reports that have detailed the arguments.

"They did not relate to the program the president disclosed," Gonzales testified. "They related to something else, and I can't get into that."

Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos played down Gonzales's remarks, saying he "did not say anything new" about the NSA program.

"The Attorney General's comments today should not be interpreted to suggest the existence or non-existence of a domestic program or whether any such program would be lawful under the existing legal analysis," Scolinos said in a statement.

The NSA program, which was first revealed publicly in media reports in December, has been the focus of sharp criticism from lawmakers of both parties and prompted a recent call by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) to formally censure Bush for violation of federal surveillance laws.

The criticism from both parties continued yesterday. At one point during Gonzales's testimony, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (Wis.), the committee's Republican chairman, accused the attorney general of "stonewalling" for refusing to discuss how the NSA program was authorized.

"I think that saying that how the review was done and who did the review is classified is stonewalling," Sensenbrenner said. "And if we're properly to determine whether or not the program was legal and funded -- because that's Congress's responsibility -- we need to have answers, and we're not getting them."

Administration officials have acknowledged that Bush issued an order in October 2001 authorizing the NSA to intercept phone calls and e-mails between the United States and overseas in which one of the parties was suspected of some link to al-Qaeda. Gonzales and the Justice Department have argued that the program is constitutional and was effectively authorized by Congress when it approved the use of force against al-Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Many Democrats and some Republicans say that Congress did not intend any such authorization, and that the program violates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which created a special court to oversee clandestine surveillance within the United States. Lawmakers are considering several proposals to legalize the program in some way, whether by incorporating it within FISA or authorizing it separately.

In a news release, Schiff, a former federal prosecutor, called Gonzales's testimony about intercepting domestic calls "disturbing." He said it "represents a wholly unprecedented assertion of executive power."

"No one in Congress would deny the need to tap certain calls under court order, but if the administration believes it can tap purely domestic phone calls between Americans without court approval, there is no limit to executive power," he said.

During his testimony, Gonzales said he was constrained in what he could disclose about the highly classified program. "I do not think we are thumbing our nose at the Congress or the courts," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6040600764.html

What a power grab. I can't believe people don't mind.

[Strike For The South]

Youd figure the things like the "constitution" and "bil of rights" might have some bearing on this suituation. Oh well to many in this country are blind sheep ready to do the GOPs bidding

[Redleg]

What a power grab. I can't believe people don't mind.

Interesting. It seems Congress now needs to respond to the possiblity that Mr. Gonzales brings to the table by insuring that the President no longer has the authority to even attempt such a policy.

I wonder if the spinless politicians will actually call Mr. Gonzales's bluff and begin to draft legislation to remove the Presidential Authority for the Authorization of Force, (that will insure that the President actually begins to listen to them) and to repeal the acts in which allow for warrantless wiretaps. It is within the purview of Congress to draft such legislation and force a constitutional crisis on this issue concerning Presidential Powers.

I would suggest if you find this statement of Mr Gonzales to be a power grab that you actually write not only your congressman but your senator. Edit: Not an email one - I have found that those are often ignored or lost in the "shuffle." If you believe that this warrants action by congress write a letter and send it certified mail - along with getting as many others from the same political district writing and sending the same type of letter, but not the same exact letter - all sending them certified mail, this often gets the attention of the spinless politicans.

[Divinus Arma]

nevermind. I though this was for international calls. I have a bit of a prob with solely domestic calls. We need judicial oversight for domestic calls. I'm as much of a hawk as anyone here, but I think we draw the line here.

Should there be an exception in exigent circumstances? I find that reasonable and prudent. These things do take time and on rare occasion there may be situations requiring immediate action.

[Spetulhu]

Should there be an exception in exigent circumstances? I find that reasonable and prudent. These things do take time and on rare occasion there may be situations requiring immediate action.

Immediate action? IIRC you can start the wiretap immediately and get a warrant up to three days later if there's need for quick action.

[Xiahou]

nevermind. I though this was for international calls. I have a bit of a prob with solely domestic calls. We need judicial oversight for domestic calls. I'm as much of a hawk as anyone here, but I think we draw the line here.

Well, if it's non-citizens, I could care less if its domestic. If domestic means between citizens- that's not so good unless there's judicial oversight.

Should there be an exception in exigent circumstances? I find that reasonable and prudent. These things do take time and on rare occasion there may be situations requiring immediate action.

Im sure the administration would tell you already that they wouldnt do that unless it was an extreme circumstance.

[Major Robert Dump]

This is what happens when shortsighted, knee-jerk, naive people make laws with lines like "...to investigate terrorist activities" followed by the little phrase "....or other criminal behavior."

[Ice]

or other criminal behavior."

They always managed to fit that part in, eh?

[yesdachi]

If they want to hear me talk about how my kid was at daycare or what we need at the store or why I think Lone Wolf and cub was a better series than Blade of the immortal go for it I got nothing to hide. Of course I would hope they would be a little more focused than just wiretapping the country but if they wanted to I really don’t care.

I would like to point out that I really wouldn’t care if it was an R or a D in office wanting to do this but I think some people would. Just like some kids wont do something their mom asks them to do but they will when grandma asks.

[solypsist]

i think the point of all this is that with this system in place, there'd be nothing to legally stop the current admnistration (whoever that may be) from, for example, listening in on phone calls of its political opposition, or popular political figures.
the other side - and us citizens as well, of course, wouldn't have that option available to us.
it's hard to have a democracy when the ruling government is able to have every advantage on what is supposed to be a "level playing field." explain to me how this policy is different from fascist policies of government.

[yesdachi]

i think the point of all this is that with this system in place, there'd be nothing to legally stop the current admnistration (whoever that may be) from, for example, listening in on phone calls of its political opposition, or popular political figures.
the other side - and us citizens as well, of course, wouldn't have that option available to us.
it's hard to have a democracy when the ruling government is able to have every advantage on what is supposed to be a "level playing field." explain to me how this policy is different from fascist policies of government.

As long as the goal of the wiretapping is to find terrorist activities I don’t see how listening in on their political opposition would be acceptable, as a matter a fact it would be a clear break in the law unless there is some reasonable doubt that their opponents were fraternizing with terrorists (not likely). I would hope there would be some checks and balances built into the system just like there is currently. One cannot just pick a number and start a tapping now, I don’t see how it would be any different when/if it were expanded from international to domestic.

[Blodrast]

So then you wouldn't mind the cameras in your houses, either, would you ? (As it's been suggested by, what was it, Dallas or Austin's chief of police ?)
I mean, since you have nothing to hide and all that, why would you mind ?

Better yet, perhaps sometime in the future an agent to not-so-subtly check up on you every couple of hours, to make sure you're not harboring any evil thoughts... I mean, it's really all in the interest of deterring terrorists, y'know.

Better yet, why not have the government know _everything_ about you _all_ the time, like what you eat, what time you go to sleep, and so on - this way we can identify potentially "dangerous" individuals earlier - which will all make for a better society for all of us

What is that, I'm exaggerating ? Of course, we'll take it one small step at a time, don't worry.
By the time enough people wake up, it's always too late.

[Redleg]

So then you wouldn't mind the cameras in your houses, either, would you ? (As it's been suggested by, what was it, Dallas or Austin's chief of police ?)

Actually it was on corners and on buildings in an area of Dallas that has experience a high crime rate for years. IT was tested on Greenvile Avenue which has past record of muggings, rapes, beatings, and other criminal activity during the hours of darkness. DId it work - ask the business owners in the area, they were not happy when the city decided to move the Cameras from their area into the downtown district areas of the city.

I mean, since you have nothing to hide and all that, why would you mind ?

Do you mind survillance cameras at train stations, and other public gathering places. How about the cameras that are located in just about every bank, and convience stores in the United States?

[Blodrast]

Actually, it was proposed in apartments as well, like I said:

clicky Dallas News

Houston's police chief proposed Wednesday placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls, and even private homes as a way of combatting crime with a shortage of police officers.

Sure, it wasn't approved - this time. Fear not, it will be proposed again, and again...until eventually it is approved. Events like 9/11 (hopefully nothing like that will happen again) would help create enough panic/paranoia to pass these.

Secondly, I wasn't referring to banks and such. No, I don't mind cameras in banks - that's a public place, or the institution's right to protect itself if it wants to. I don't mind them in train stations, etc, either (although I'm not entirely sure how useful they are, but that's not my problem or my concern).
I do mind them in private places - or places that should be private, anyway.

[Redleg]

Actually, it was proposed in apartments as well, like I said:

clicky Dallas News

Houston isn't Dallas or Austin now is it? Care to guess why they suggested Apartment Buildings and complexes?

Sure, it wasn't approved - this time. Fear not, it will be proposed again, and again...until eventually it is approved. Events like 9/11 (hopefully nothing like that will happen again) would help create enough panic/paranoia to pass these.

Monitoring of public places is within the purview of the city government in which the public place is located in.

Secondly, I wasn't referring to banks and such. No, I don't mind cameras in banks - that's a public place, or the institution's right to protect itself if it wants to. I don't mind them in train stations, etc, either (although I'm not entirely sure how useful they are, but that's not my problem or my concern).
I do mind them in private places - or places that should be private, anyway.

The only place private that was been mentioned is the home, and most likely it would be at the convience and request of the home owner. Or in the context of what the Police Chief stated.

And Hurtt said if a homeowner requires repeated police response, he thinks it is reasonable to require camera surveillance of that property.

And while you did not directly refer to banks and such - your attempt left that area open for discussion. If you have a problem with being monitored by the government and/or private security firm - I suggest that you never leave the confines of your private home.

[Blodrast]

Nitpicking - does it really matter that it was Houston, and not Dallas or Austin ?
I didn't remember, and it makes absolutely no difference to me. How does the fact that I didn't remember the exact city (and mind you, it's still a big city, not a village) pertain to the actual discussion ?

Since I already said that I'm ok with public places, why mentioning that again ? I already said I don't care about those. I thought it was clear from my posts my main issue is with the private places - like homes.

And yes, I do have a problem with being monitored by the government "for my own good".
I'd rather they let me choose when, if and how to be monitored, than have everything imposed. To each his/her own.

[Redleg]

Nitpicking - does it really matter that it was Houston, and not Dallas or Austin ?
I didn't remember, and it makes absolutely no difference to me. How does the fact that I didn't remember the exact city (and mind you, it's still a big city, not a village) pertain to the actual discussion ?

Since the reason that the city was even thinking about it was stated in the article and is important to the overall issue as it relates to that city. A police force that is decreasing in numbers, a city that faced a sudden influx of population that it was not prepared for. If you bothered to read the article completely - you would of discovered that the context of the measure is completely different then the context of a warrantless wiretap. If you payed attention you might have understood why the Police Chief was advocating such a situation.

Since I already said that I'm ok with public places, why mentioning that again ? I already said I don't care about those. I thought it was clear from my posts my main issue is with the private places - like homes.

Again look at the context of the article and why the Police Chief brought it up. Apartment Building Complexes often have monitoring equipement alreadly in place. Your attempting to make a point about the article in relationship to the warrantless wiretaping issue that is not relative nor is it the same comparsion.

If you have no problem with the monitoring of public places - the context and content of the article is makes your point mote to the issue of monitoring and even the subject of this thread, warrantless wiretaps.

The monitoring of public places and large areas where people gathering being tied into the Building Permits for those type of facialities is different from the Federal Government attempting to surpass its constititutional authority.

And yes, I do have a problem with being monitored by the government "for my own good".
I'd rather they let me choose when, if and how to be monitored, than have everything imposed. To each his/her own.

The area's that the Houston Police Chief was advocating to have building permits that require Monitoring devices are places where the police have a history of having to respond to. The private homes that the Police Chief was advocating monitoring devices for - are places where the police have a history of multiple calls concerning. So the monitoring is not for your own good, but for the overall protection of the community.

Your mixing the apples with the tomatos.