Gonzales Suggests Legal Basis for Domestic Eavesdropping

[cal04]

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales suggested on Thursday for the first time that the president might have the legal authority to order wiretapping without a warrant on communications between Americans that occur exclusively within the United States. "I'm not going to rule it out," Mr. Gonzales said when asked about that possibility at a House Judiciary Committee hearing.

The attorney general made his comments, which critics said reflected a broadened view of the president's authority, as President Bush offered another strong defense of his decision to authorize the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without warrants on international calls and e-mail messages to or from the United States. Mr. Bush, in an appearance in North Carolina, told a questioner who attacked the program that he would "absolutely not" apologize for authorizing it. "You can come to whatever conclusion you want" about the merits of the program," Mr. Bush said. "The conclusion is I'm not going to apologize for what I did on the terrorist surveillance program." At the House hearing, Mr. Gonzales faced tough questioning from Democrats and Republicans but declined to discuss many operational details.

Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Wisconsin Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee and one of the administration's staunchest allies, accused the administration of "stonewalling." "Mr. Attorney General, how can we discharge our oversight responsibilities if every time we ask a pointed question, we're told that the answer is classified?" Mr. Sensenbrenner asked. "Congress has an inherent constitutional responsibility to do oversight. We are attempting to discharge those responsibilities." The House and Senate have conducted limited inquiries into the surveillance program, which many Democrats contend is illegal. Republicans on the Senate intelligence panel have agreed on measures to impose new oversight but allow wiretapping without warrants for up to 45 days.


(snip)
At the hearing, Mr. Gonzales inched closer toward acknowledging that intercepting purely domestic calls could be considered legally permissible in his view if the communications involved Al Qaeda. "You would look at precedent," he said. "What have previous commander in chiefs done?" Answering his question, he cited Woodrow Wilson's authorizing the interception of all cables to and from Europe in World War I "based upon the Constitution and his inherent role as commander in chief." Mr. Gonzales said he would use that legal framework to decide whether intercepting purely domestic communications without a warrant was legally permissible. He would not say whether such wiretapping has been conducted.
more
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/washington/07nsa.html?hp&ex=1144382400&en=9aedb40ee43d7452&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[saltpoint]

1. And next week, the Attorney General will introduce his newsly-

assembled endorsement for pouring molten gold down the mouths of dissidents.

This guy is an unstable little monster and needs to be reigned in. I could hardly believe my ears today when Sensenbrenner (sp?) accused him of stonewalling. Not the stonewalling part, but that it came from a committee chairman, a Republican!

[acmejack]

2. Basically, everyone is a potential terrorist.

So we all must be surveilled continuously. ONly this Administration of course is competent(?) to conduct said monitoring so they will have to remain in power until the terrorist threat is no longer operative.

[Neil Lisst]

3. Gonzales is a disgrace to the office of Attorney General

[Rose Siding]

4. Corrupted goper roars like a kitten for the voters

He abandoned his duty long ago.

[Justice Is Comin]

5. Were you able to watch this hearing somewhere ?

[grasswire]

6. why is this not in LBN?

[low_phreaq]

7. I believe it is spelled S-e-n-s-e-l-e-s-s-brenner

Yes, I know I'm not the first one here to come up with that, but it is fitting here.

So, Mr. Sensenbrenner, how does it feel to be stonewalled? I wonder if that's how John Conyers felt when he kept requesting you to hold official hearings on several important matters and you refused? He had to hold "forums" in the basement!

You, sir (and I use that term very loosely) have subpoena power, yet you have failed to use it for the good of the people! You are through, and you will soon have to relinquish that seat to Mr. Conyers!