Alberto Prepares For His Closeup

Time.com has an article previewing Attorney General Gonzales' defense in this week's spy program Senate hearings. Apparently, "administration documents" were provided to Time detailing Mr. Gonzales' planned statements. First Sen. Specter's questions are leaked in advance, now Gonzales' answers? At this rate, why not just leak the whole hearing online in advance to save time? Karl Rove will look into that.

Also, given that we know that Mr. Gonzales likely perjured himself during his confirmation hearings last year on this wiretapping issue, Sen. Specter must insist on having Gonzales sworn in. If he does not, the hearings are already suspect.

Here's the article-
How Gonzales Plans to Defend Eavesdropping

TIME Exclusive: Attorney General will tell Senators that wiretaps target suspects, not innocents

The Attorney General should note that the targets aren't the main issue, it's the law. And Bush broke it. Besides, there is simply no way they can prove no innocent Americans were targeted (because there were no warrants and, therefore, no record of who was wiretapped). In addition, numerous FBI officials reported that the NSA provided them with a large amount of collected data, most of which lead to "dead ends or innocent Americans". There are also numerous reports, done by Newsweek and others, of the Pentagon spying on protestors and keeping detailed databases of their activities. The unnecessary secrecy of this program alone warrants (pardon the pun) suspicion that similar activities were being conducted by it.

Furthermore, a new report in today's Washington Post reveals that at least 5,000 Americans have been subject to warrantless wiretapping (and more have been subject to other surveillance). Government officials revealed to the Post that "nearly all of them [were dismissed] as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat".

So that issue cannot be dismissed by Gonzales so easily.

Anyway, here are some highlights from the Time article and my reactions...

According to the documents, Gonzales plans to assert in his opening statement that seeking approval for the wiretaps from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court could result in delays that "may make the difference between success and failure in preventing the next attack."

How did FISA cause a delay? In wartime, they have up to 15 days to file for the warrant after beginning surveillance! If it takes their legal people more than that to file the paperwork, fire them all now.

The only hint at an answer comes here-

Lawmakers in both parties have asked why the Administration could not use a FISA provision allowing petitions to the court after monitoring has begun. Gonzales says there "is a serious misconception" about those provisions, and that the administration could not begin surveillance "without knowing that we meet FISA's normal requirements."

The normal process has been described by even FISA's defenders as a rubberstamp process. They have almost never rejected a warrant and I doubt they've rejected any since 9/11. Again, if a 72-hour emergency provision, and 15-day wartime provision, isn't enough to get the legal paperwork done, you have some poor lawyers. Also, the question is begged- what was the administration having the NSA do that they didn't think would meet FISA's "normal requirements"?

And can when we trust Specter to be non-partisan in these hearings?

Specter has said that warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens is "wrong," but Senate aides say he has concluded Bush acted in good faith.

Yes, after Iraq and Katrina, I totally still have faith in his leadership too.

And regarding the authorization-

Gonzales says President Bush reviews and reauthorizes the program "approximately every 45 days."

Yes. And if there's trouble with uppity Justice Dept. officials who question the legality of illegal actions, Gonzales and Andy Card make hospital visits to an ill John Ashcroft.

And what about Congress?

The hearing is likely to delve into whether the White House considered seeking congressional permission for the program and was rebuffed. That could call into question the Administration argument that the President has the authority under his constitutional powers as commander in chief and under a congressional resolution authorizing military force against terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Yes. The White House did seek congressional permission and was turned down. Tom Daschle reported that the administration did ask for such blanket authorization and Congress refused to enter it into the Afghanistan resolution. Furthermore, numerous Senators (including Republicans) confirmed that this resolution didn't authorize such extra-legal powers for the President.

And...

Some administration statements have suggested Bush went ahead with the program after concluding that Congress would reject legislation specifically authorizing it.

Not only would Congress not have rejected such legislation (Congress went along with everything after 9/11, no matter how heinous), but they in fact offered it. In 2002, Republican Sen. Michael DeWine introduced legislation which would've eliminated some FISA barriers. The Bush administration dismissed this legislation, stating the Patriot Act changes were already adequate and that eliminating those barriers would be unconstitutional.

Of course, the administration had already secretly eliminated those barriers. How unconstitutional of them.

As for the "Clinton did it too!" argument, well that's already been debunked.

Bottom is this- Whatever issues the administration had with the FISA system (assuming they were legitimate) were for them to bring to Congress so they could be resolved. The President does not have the right to break laws he finds inconvenient.

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." (April 20, 2004)

Let's find out if that's still the case.