The DOJ's explicit refusal to obey the law re: NSLs

[maddezmom]

The DOJ's explicit refusal to obey the law re: NSLs
Earlier this week, I wrote about the clear connection between (a) revelations that the FBI has been violating the law with respect to its use of National Security Letters (NSLs) and, specifically, its failure to maintain the requisite records to enable Congress to exercise oversight of NSLs, and (b) President Bush's declaration in the form of a signing statement that he need not comply with those very NSL reporting and auditing requirements. Beyond the signing statement, recent statements made by Alberto Gonzales make this connection as clear as can be.

As I noted in the post below, Gonzales -- in June, 2006 -- appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and either refused to answer or claimed he was unable to answer a long list of questions on countless topics. He agreed at the hearing to provide follow-up answers in writing. But for the next six months, the DOJ ignored that promise and provided nothing. It was only once Democrats took over Congress did the DOJ finally get around to answering those inquiries, and did so in the form of a January 18, 2007 letter from the DOJ's Richard Hertling (recently posted by the FAS here - .pdf).

One of the topics about which Gonzales was asked repeatedly was the President's unprecedented use of signing statements to declare his power to ignore various laws. In particular, Gonzales was asked about the signing statement issued by Bush when he signed the re-authorization of the Patriot Act into law, which is when Bush proclaimed his power to ignore the auditing and reporting requirements concerning NSLs. This is how the DOJ answered those questions in its recent letter:








That is Bush-speak for: the President will comply with the law only to the extent he chooses to. The DOJ's answer then goes on to cite multiple instances where prior Presidents have noted their power to maintain national security and classified information, but none where they proclaimed the right to ignore laws.


more:http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/16/nsl_signing_statement/index.html?source=rss

[Demeter]

1. So Little Time, So Many Impeachments!

Of course, if we got the big ones on the table, and dealt with, then all the little ones could just be indicted and convicted....

[Old and In the Way]

2. They really need to challenge this.

I thought the oath he took was to support the Constitution AND the laws of the land. No where do I recall a clause in the oath to support the laws, as he interprets them. It sure would be a smart thing for Democrats to get a ruling on this. Where's the Supreme Court's position on this issue? Because if they agree with the pResident, then the next Democratic President will have the same inherent powers.