Tune your TVs to C-Span on Monday. Things might get pretty heated in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even the Republican Chairman Arlen Spector says he ain't buying Gonzales's explanations for the warrantless wiretaps. Senator Feingold has already accused Gonzales of misleading the Committee during his confirmation hearings. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001318_pf.html) I think he's fixing to tee off on Alberto.

Should be good. Could Alberto's 15 minutes be getting ready to run out? Maybe he and Harriot Myers can go open a lawfirm somewhere.

One more possibility you didn't mention.

Maybe they'll buy it.

B

I haven't made any predictions beyond the prediction that Gonzales will be on the hot seat.

I haven't drawn any conclusions about the legality of the wiretapping program, but I also haven't heard any pursuasive arguments in support of the program.

"persuasive argument" would be the goal of Gonzales. Whether he meets that goal will be most dependent upon the degree to which we are open to his argument.

B

The extent to which he reaches that goal depends equally on two things: his ability to find legitimate legal authority to support his argument and our ability to keep open minds. I don't think the open mind part is more important than the legal authority part.

So far, no unexpected argument. AG says everything is groovy, Democrats express fear and loathing.

B

As far as I know there is a special court that was set up to approve wiretaps like the ones Bush used. He did not go to them therefore it was illegal.
Also his remark that he kept "Key members of Congress" informed is besides the point.
They made this court because Gerald Ford? was doing the same thing and Congress decided that the president shouldn't have the power to decide such things. That power should be in the people (Congress).
Anyway should be intersting to see what happens.

BTW I don't personally care either way if he was wiretapping legally or not.

DAnny

__________________
1984 300SD Turbo Diesel 150,000 miles

OBK member #23

(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination

Listen to the C-SPAN hearing concerning this.

According to sworn testimony the non-FISA wiretaps were between suspected foreign agents abroad and persons in the USA. The A.G. asserts that the resolution by both houses of Congress to use force against agents and countries that support agents empowers the president to eavesdrop. This doesn't subvert FISA because FISA is concerned with domestic surveillance, only. The A.G. and others then cite precedent from Geo Washington to Bill Clinton. I don't think there is any "there" there. But maybe there will be more this P.M. that will lead somewhere.

There have been hints at activities and presidential findings that are far more intriguing as far as Constitutional authority and law are concerned. But because the hearings are restricted to the eavesdropping question, the A.G. is able to avoid questions in regards to those other activities. Hopefully the Democrats will make the case in public that these hints deserve additional hearings.

B

FINALLY, a useful line of questioning.

Joe Biden wants to know who has oversight. Everybody else seems happy that the Congressional leaders and the chairmen of House & Senate Intel committees are informed but Biden wants to know whether specific information and actions by NSA are being scrutinized. No specific answer from Gonzales.

Gonzales is one smart mofo. He out-lawyers every one of those guys.

B

I was in my car for a while this morning and caught part of Biden's questioning. Biden started down a promising path, but then let Gonzales off the hook. I hope somebody forced Gonzales to give a clear answer about the scope of authority claimed by the President. The only theory Gonzales has given that makes any sense at all is the C-in-C argument. Gonzales clearly wants to avoid giving a full explanation of that argument because, taken to its logical conclusion, it would authorize the President to wiretap anybody, anywhere, including within the United States, with no oversight by the courts or Congress. If that's the administration's position, we need them on the record saying so. If that's not their position, well, then they have no position.

EDIT: BTW, do you have C-Span radio in your area? They have a station in DC (90.1 FM). It's sweet. I think XM and/or Sirius have it as well.

I've been home sick with the flu since Friday afternoon. I'm feeling okay today but just didn't want to infect staff so I stayed home to make sure. Damned if I'm gonna watch soaps and Oprah, so when you mentioned teh hearings I plopped myself on the couch with a carton of yoghurt to hear what they had to say.

Lindsey (sp?) Graham also pursued a useful line of argument that I think if used in common with Biden, could make the whole eavesdropping program a lot more palatable.

If I understand it correctly, Gonzales claims three arguments in support of administration policy.

The first is the FISA is subject to reinterpretation as specified within the FISA law if subsequent action by Congress takes precedent. They assert that the resolution for military action against terrorists provided an expansion, since in order to attack terrorists you have to have intelligence on them.

Second, FISA applies to domestic surveillance, not international. Since this narrowly framed program is designed specifically for that particular combination, it does not violate FISA.

And finally, even if 1 and 2 fail, as CinC he has been empowered by act of Congress to conduct military ops against any entity involved with 9/11.

I don't think that any of the committee members made any headway whatsoever against these arguments. However, Graham and Biden (and Spector's closing comments) I think scored points on Congressional Oversight (or lack thereof).

Incidentally, Gonzales argued that the Administration had kept Congress informed and by implication, the leadership that had been informed needed to talk to the Judiciary Committee about the Judiciary Committee's concerns.

All in all, I think it was a good day for separation of powers and Congressional oversight. It will be interesting to see how the punditocracy spin and twist and flagellate the actual content of the hearings to match their own little agendas.


Oh yeah, and Gonzales came across as a man who can argue toe to toe with anybody.


Bot

The problem with his theory is that the specific prohibitions in FISA overide the general authority granted in the AUMF. That's straight from Statutory Construction 101.I don't believe for a minute that their program is narrowly tailored. That's not how these people operate. More to the point, though, FISA specifically prohibits warrantless wiretaps of conversations unless neither side of the conversation involves a "United States person." That prohibition applies even if one end of the conversation is overseas and even if the conversation involves foreign policy/national security. That language is in Section 102(a)(1) of FISA. Similar language appears in other parts of FISA. So, that's strike two on Alberto, IMHO.With that one, he might have fouled one off to stay alive at the plate, but in the end, this looks like it's going to be strike 3. This argument says the President can wiretap anyone, anytime, with no accountability to anybody. He can't even be questioned about it. I'm no Constitutional expert, but that result sounds too crazy to be legit.

Gonzales is really spinning when he says that FISA is just one tool and that the warrantless wiretap program is another tool to compliment FISA. That's pure baloney. FISA is not a tool. FISA is an obstacle, and thank God for it.

I would suggest that instead of dismissing it as spin that it maybe revealing when the AG says that a restrictive law is a tool.

Your point concerning FISA and international calls with the USA is exactly the point of dispute between the Exec and Congress.

B

Who does he work for?


BTW this thread is a fine analysis. Thanks for the many insightful comments!

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"