Attorney General Is Asked to Testify on Spy Program - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

charlie7 · #1 01-09-2006, 02:33 PM

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday that he had asked Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales to testify publicly on the legality of President Bush's top-secret domestic spying program.

A prominent conservative on the committee said he was troubled by the legal arguments the Bush administration had presented for authorizing the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance on people in the U.S. without getting warrants from a special federal court established to approve them

But GOP Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas said, "There was no discussion in anything that I was around that gave the president a broad surveillance authority with that resolution."

Looks like there is division in the ranks

boneheaddoctor · #2 01-09-2006, 02:35 PM

lets see Clinton adn Carter get grilled too......they did the same thing. Of course you aren't going to hear the left calling for that to happen.

charlie7 · #3 01-09-2006, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

lets see Clinton adn Carter get grilled too......they did the same thing. Of course you aren't going to hear the left calling for that to happen.

YOU ARE WRONG!

boneheaddoctor · #4 01-09-2006, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie7

YOU ARE WRONG!

Prove it....

charlie7 · #5 01-09-2006, 02:58 PM

Clinton, Carter also authorized warrantless searches of U.S. citizens

Another tactic conservatives have used to defend the Bush administration has been to claim that it is not unusual for a president to authorize secret surveillance of U.S. citizens without a court order, asserting that Democratic presidents have also done so. For example, on the December 21 edition of Fox News's Special Report, host Brit Hume claimed that former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton issued executive orders "to perform wiretaps and searches of American citizens without a warrant."

But as the ThinkProgress weblog noted on December 20, executive orders on the topic by Clinton and Carter were merely explaining the rules established by FISA, which do not allow for warrantless searches on "United States persons." Subsequent reports by NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell and The Washington Post also debunked the conservative talking point while noting that the claim was highlighted in the December 21 RNC press release.

From ThinkProgress, which documented how internet gossip Matt Drudge selectively cited from the Clinton and Carter executive orders to falsely suggest they authorized secret surveillance of U.S. citizens without court-obtained warrants:

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

What Carter's executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

DieselAddict · #6 01-09-2006, 02:59 PM

I personally don't see the big deal about this spying. So what if someone listens to your phone conversation? Unless you're discussing your plan to bomb the white house, you have nothing to worry about. I'm more worried about innocent people getting locked up indefinitely at Gitmo or innocent people being executed throughout the US.

boneheaddoctor · #7 01-09-2006, 03:00 PM

Spin away that doesn't make it true.....

the Democrats argued till they were blue in the face Clinton never committed perjury either.....but he clearly lied under oath and that is the definition of perjury......

AMGod · #8 01-09-2006, 03:01 PM

He will say the same thing everyone else testifying repeats that will get upheld all the way to the Roberts, Alito, and Scalia dominated Federal Supreme Court. Now, the Senators and Representatives that leaked it may hang for treason.

boneheaddoctor · #9 01-09-2006, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMGod

He will say the same thing everyone else testifying repeats that will get upheld all the way to the Roberts, Alito, and Scalia dominated Federal Supreme Court. Now, the Senators and Representatives that leaked it may hang for treason.

I keep waiting for Howard Dean to go off on another rant with spittle flying and him foaming at the mouth....its overdue...

AMGod · #10 01-09-2006, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

I keep waiting for Howard Dean to go off on another rant with spittle flying and him foaming at the mouth....its overdue...

He is the best GOP base mobilizer in history.

boneheaddoctor · #11 01-09-2006, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMGod

He is the best GOP base mobilizer in history.

You have a good point there......

charlie7 · #12 01-09-2006, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

Spin away that doesn't make it true.....

the Democrats argued till they were blue in the face Clinton never committed perjury either.....but he clearly lied under oath and that is the definition of perjury......

Gee whiz try to stay focused Ok?