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."