The president, as commander in chief, has asserted his authority to use sophisticated military drones to search for Osama bin Laden, to deploy our armed forces in combat zones, and to kill or capture al Qaeda operatives around the world. No one would dispute that the [The Authorization for Use of Military Force] supports the president in each of these actions.We already know this is the argument. We also know the argument of those who oppose the program. What will be interesting today will be to see how well Gonzales will be able to defend the program under hard questioning and how far the Senators will be willing to go when they know that part of the answer, explicit or insinuated, will inevitably be that if they oppose the program they do not care enough about national security.
It is, therefore, inconceivable that the AUMF does not also support the president's efforts to intercept the communications of our enemies. Any future al Qaeda attacks on the homeland are likely to be carried out, like Sept. 11, by operatives hiding among us. The NSA terrorist surveillance program is a military operation designed to detect them quickly. Efforts to identify the terrorists and their plans expeditiously while ensuring faithful adherence to the Constitution and our existing laws is precisely what America expects from the president....
The AUMF is broad in scope, and understandably so; Congress could not have catalogued every possible aspect of military force it was endorsing. That's why the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the detention of enemy combatants--a fundamental incident of war-- was lawful, even though detention is not mentioned in the AUMF. The same argument holds true for the terrorist surveillance program. Nor was the president's authorization of the terrorist surveillance program in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA bars persons from intentionally "engag[ing] . . . in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The AUMF provides this statutory authorization for the terrorist surveillance program as an exception to FISA.
Lastly, the terrorist surveillance program fully complies with the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Like sobriety checkpoints or border searches, this program involves "special needs" beyond routine law enforcement, an exception to the warrant requirement upheld by the Supreme Court as consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
February 6, 2006
What Gonzales will say about the surveillance program.
Today, Attorney General Gonzales will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the Bush administration's surveillance program. He's got a column in the WSJ this morning, which presumably reflects what he will say:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
I think this is much ado about nothing. Bush insists that he has authority to do what he's doing. Democrats insists he does not; but they hasten to add, rather plaintively, that if only he'd ask them for the authority to do what he's doing, they would be eager to oblige.
(But if what Bush is doing is so reprehensible (illegal), why would Democrats be so willing to sanction it?)
Alas, the obvious and simple resolution to this national security debate seems lost in terminal partisanship. And, there's bound to be more political posturing and bloviation of predictable talking points during these hearings than we were treated to during the recent Alito hearings....
I think that Gonzales is probably the best Administration person for this. Whenever I have seen him before, he has come across as very slick and articulate. I am sure that they are thanking John Ashcroft now for retiring.
I think a lot of the Democratic opposition to this program is caught between a rock and an unyielding object. A lot of their base is screaming for Administration scalps, but they know that if they are seen as responsible for shutting down this program, and then there is another 9/11 type terrorist attack on our soil, they will be held accountable by enough of the population that they can expect to stay out of power for at least the next generation.
And, thus I think, the tactics of screaming about civil liberties, while not really doing that much to stop the program.
David:
You assert that FISA was outdated, and make the "pre-9/11 mindset" argument. But such generalities are distracting from the specific facts. How was FISA inadequate? How was it outdated? How indeed should it have looked in a post-9/11 world? The administration eschewed changes to FISA, and Bush then stated on the campaign trail that court orders were being sought for any and all domestic surveillance.
Further, it is reasonable to assume that terrorists living in the U.S. may be expected to make international calls knowing they were immune under FISA from being monitored.
How's that again? I am aghast at how widely this basic assertion is made without a specific basis. Questions usually prompt a retreat into generalities regarding the menace of terrorism. Naturally, it sounds like this is going to be Gonazales' touchstone in the hearings.
Plenty of good, honest discussion here. It will be interesting to compare & contrast with the "quality" of discourse this topic will receive in the Senate Judiary Committee, home of the Alito Grill.
I'm hoping for another Kennedy red-faced rant, myself, his renowned concern for common citizens being what it is and all.
That is an interesting point regarding another terrorist attack. Politically, the revelation about this program will only intensify paertisanship if we are attacked again. Republicans will blame the left for the attack because of the security leaks in the program. Democrats would be wise to let the program go on.
Wow. For someone with a reputation for being polished, I was astounded that Attorney General Gonzalez essentially acknowledged that programs are ongoing that involve warrantless domestic-domestic tapping.
I'm willing to chalk up one "Sir, the program that I'm talking about today, yes, is limited
to international calls." to error, but how many times did he use that formulation today? And in response to softball questions from friendlies like Sen. Sessions!
I think there may be partisan differences in tone, but I think after today that the Congressional hearings will be very bi-partisan in substance.
I also think that Sen. Graham made an important observation that the Administration's hyper-expansive interpretation of the AUMF, if persisting, may make it more difficult to secure additional resolutions in the future.
Alberto: President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale.
What's amazes me is that not only are these guys incompetent, but all of you folks fall over yourselves trying to best rationalize and defend these liars.
The Sloanbot I can understand, he was programmed that way. But the rest of you shills? Hayden the patently absurd lawyer that says that Gonzales is the bestest of the best?
Praise Jebus!
ah, the talking points
terrorists study our laws . . .right, i'm sure the 9/11 hijackers who spent their nights in strip clubs spent their days in law libraries.
and, even if they did "study our laws," what would they find? that, given probable cause, their communications could be tapped!
and, after abu gharaib, i'm sure it would be evident to any terrorist that this administration will not let mere laws impede their war.
david's talking point bashed down. next?
Post a Comment