Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Will Congress Demand the Truth?
by Judd Legum, Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney, Amanda Terkel and Payson Schwin
The Progress Report
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will testify today before the Senate Judiciary Committee and defend the legality of President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program. One year ago, he appeared before the committee under oath and misled them about the same program. Today he will advance a radical legal theory of unchecked executive power that has already been resoundingly rejected by the Supreme Court. Constitutional expert David Cole explains, "Bush tried this theory out on the Supreme Court in the Guantanamo cases, when he argued that it would be an unconstitutional intrusion on his Commander in Chief powers to extend habeas corpus review to Guantanamo detainees Not a single Justice on the Court accepted that radical proposition. But that hasn't stopped Bush from asserting it again." Congress has an obligation to move beyond Gonzales's recycled rhetoric and learn the truth.
MEDIA MISCHARACTERIZES DEBATE AS PARTISAN SQUABBLE: In a preview of today's testimony, the Washington Post reports that Gonzales will argue that the program was authorized by Congress in September 2001, as part of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against al-Qaeda. The Post asserts that "congressional Democrats have said they did not intend to order domestic surveillance." Actually, it's not a partisan issue. Yesterday on Meet the Press, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), said "that contention is very strained and unrealistic. The authorization for the use of force doesn't say anything about electronic surveillance." Other prominent conservatives -- including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) -- have also objected to the administration's legal justifications.
LIMITED MYTH CRUMBLES: President Bush has claimed the program is limited to terrorist "operatives inside of our country." On Sunday, the Washington Post reported, "Intelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat." Michael Hayden, who headed the NSA at the program's inception, has been asked repeatedly if the program targeted political opponents and has dodged the question each time.
ADMINISTRATION CAN SUBMIT PROGRAM FOR CONFIDENTIAL INDEPENDENT LEGAL REVIEW: If the administration is confident about the legality of its warrantless domestic surveillance program, it should put the entire program before Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for an independent legal review. Arlen Specter suggested this course of action yesterday on Meet the Press. Specter said the court "has really an outstanding record of not leaking, out of being experts, and they would be preeminently well-qualified to evaluate this program and either say it's OK or it's not OK. And if they said it was OK, it would give the American people great reassurance; and if they said it wasn't OK, knowing all the facts, then that ought to be changed." Specter said he asked the administration if White House officials would do this and their reply was "unresponsive."
TELCOMS AIDING AND ABETTING: USA Today reports that the "National Security Agency has secured the cooperation of large telecommunications companies, including AT&T, MCI and Sprint, in its efforts to eavesdrop without warrants" on United States citizens. According to company executives, "MCI, AT&T and Sprint grant the access to their systems without warrants or court orders." Rather, "they are cooperating on the basis of oral requests from senior government officials."
*************************************************************************
by Judd Legum, Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney, Amanda Terkel and Payson Schwin
The Progress Report
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will testify today before the Senate Judiciary Committee and defend the legality of President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program. One year ago, he appeared before the committee under oath and misled them about the same program. Today he will advance a radical legal theory of unchecked executive power that has already been resoundingly rejected by the Supreme Court. Constitutional expert David Cole explains, "Bush tried this theory out on the Supreme Court in the Guantanamo cases, when he argued that it would be an unconstitutional intrusion on his Commander in Chief powers to extend habeas corpus review to Guantanamo detainees Not a single Justice on the Court accepted that radical proposition. But that hasn't stopped Bush from asserting it again." Congress has an obligation to move beyond Gonzales's recycled rhetoric and learn the truth.
MEDIA MISCHARACTERIZES DEBATE AS PARTISAN SQUABBLE: In a preview of today's testimony, the Washington Post reports that Gonzales will argue that the program was authorized by Congress in September 2001, as part of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against al-Qaeda. The Post asserts that "congressional Democrats have said they did not intend to order domestic surveillance." Actually, it's not a partisan issue. Yesterday on Meet the Press, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), said "that contention is very strained and unrealistic. The authorization for the use of force doesn't say anything about electronic surveillance." Other prominent conservatives -- including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) -- have also objected to the administration's legal justifications.
LIMITED MYTH CRUMBLES: President Bush has claimed the program is limited to terrorist "operatives inside of our country." On Sunday, the Washington Post reported, "Intelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat." Michael Hayden, who headed the NSA at the program's inception, has been asked repeatedly if the program targeted political opponents and has dodged the question each time.
ADMINISTRATION CAN SUBMIT PROGRAM FOR CONFIDENTIAL INDEPENDENT LEGAL REVIEW: If the administration is confident about the legality of its warrantless domestic surveillance program, it should put the entire program before Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for an independent legal review. Arlen Specter suggested this course of action yesterday on Meet the Press. Specter said the court "has really an outstanding record of not leaking, out of being experts, and they would be preeminently well-qualified to evaluate this program and either say it's OK or it's not OK. And if they said it was OK, it would give the American people great reassurance; and if they said it wasn't OK, knowing all the facts, then that ought to be changed." Specter said he asked the administration if White House officials would do this and their reply was "unresponsive."
TELCOMS AIDING AND ABETTING: USA Today reports that the "National Security Agency has secured the cooperation of large telecommunications companies, including AT&T, MCI and Sprint, in its efforts to eavesdrop without warrants" on United States citizens. According to company executives, "MCI, AT&T and Sprint grant the access to their systems without warrants or court orders." Rather, "they are cooperating on the basis of oral requests from senior government officials."
*************************************************************************
Comments:
Post a Comment
