White House Shifts Course on Spy Program
WASHINGTON (AP) - A year after disclosure of a domestic spying program that President Bush maintained was within his authority to operate, the administration shifted its position and said it would seek the approval of an independent panel of federal judges.
The program allowed the National Security Agency - without a court-issued warrant -to monitor phone calls and e-mails between the United States and other countries when a link to terrorism was suspected. Bush secretly authorized the program shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told senators in a letter Wednesday that ``any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.''
So now, Bush has caved in on the illegal spying. Maybe.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says that the spying program will now be done legally through Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is what they were supposed to do all along, but they did not. Therefore, they broke the law.
Although the secret court was established precisely to review requests for domestic surveillance warrants, the White House insisted that such oversight was not required by law and, in fact, would slow efforts to stop terrorists. Bush maintained the warrantless program's existence was ``fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities.''
Last August, a federal judge in Detroit declared the spying program unconstitutional, saying it violated the rights to free speech and privacy and the separation of powers. In October, a three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based appeals court ruled that the administration could keep the program in place while it appeals the Detroit decision.
That appeal, which was scheduled to be heard on Jan. 31, will now likely be rendered moot, said one Justice Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the government has not yet officially decided whether to drop its case.
At the time, they said they did not have to obey FISA. What happened to all their arguments about that?
Now that they have lost two judicial trials on this issue and there are going to be investigations into this matter because the Democrats control Congress, the Bush administration say that they will obey FISA. Whether or not the court dicisions and/or the threat of investigations is their motivation to all of a sudden stop their law-breaking has yet to be determined. So why are they doing this?
The American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the government over the program, called the Justice Department's announcement ``a quintessential flip-flop.''
``The NSA was operating illegally and this eleventh-hour ploy is clearly an effort to avoid judicial and congressional scrutiny,'' said ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero. ``Despite this adroit back flip, the constitutional problems with the president's actions remain unaddressed.''
Have they had a change of heart? Are they asking for forgiveness because they realized they were breaking the law? Or did they know they were breaking the law all along? Are they just pretending to obey the law because they found some loophole? Are they just lying? What reason do we have to trust them?
Regardless of the answers, I feel this is like a thief saying he has stoped thieving and does not expect to be punished or to have to pay for his past crimes because he said he would not commit anymore crimes.
As if all this was not infuritating enough, Gonzales also said this recently:
Gonzales: Judges unfit to rule on anti-terror policy
WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy, ramping up his criticism of how they handle terrorism cases.
In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday, Gonzales says judges generally should defer to the will of the president and Congress when deciding national security cases. He also raps jurists who "apply an activist philosophy that stretches the law to suit policy preferences."
Gonzales wants us to just forget all that "checks and balances" stuff, the basis of our Constitution and government. Remember that this guy is the head of the Justice Department; he is the one who is supposed to be defending the law and the Constitution. Instead, during his time in office, he has done nothing but argue that the law and Constitution are garbage and that the President's power overrides everything else.
Gonzales needs to be fired immediately. He is more of a threat to our system of government than any enemy we have known in our history.
And then there is this:
Gonzales Discusses Attorney Vacancies
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats want to take away Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' power to replace U.S. attorneys who fall out of favor and return that authority to federal district judges.
Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Mark Pryor of Arkansas complained Tuesday that the White House is using an obscure provision in the newly reauthorized USA Patriot Act to reward Republican political allies with jobs as federal prosecutors.
"The Bush administration is pushing out U.S. attorneys from across the country under the cloak of secrecy and then appointing indefinite replacements," Feinstein said.
"It appears that the administration has chosen to use this provision, which was intended to help protect our nation, to circumvent the transparent constitutional Senate confirmation process to reward political allies," Pryor said in the joint Democratic statement.
Not true, Gonzales told The Associated Press.
"We are fully committed to ensuring that with respect to every position we have a Senate-confirmed, presidentially appointed U.S. attorney," Gonzales told editors and reporters during an interview Tuesday.
"We in no way politicize these decisions," he added.
U.S. District Court judges, Gonzales said, tend to appoint friends and others not properly qualified to be prosecutors.
Better that judges do the hiring than the White House, say Democrats, who have introduced legislation to return the appointment process to the courts.
[...]
At issue is whether the administration is using an obscure provision in the terrorism-fighting USA Patriot Act to oust federal prosecutors and replace them for the duration of the Bush administration with White House allies.
The intent of the law was to ensure continuity of law enforcement when federal prosecutors are lost in terrorist attacks or other crises. Under it, the attorney general would be permitted to appoint replacements, indefinitely, without Senate confirmation.
In the year since the reauthorization took effect, 11 federal prosecutors have resigned or announced their resignations -- some at the urging of the Bush administration, Gonzales said. He described a range of reasons for ousting sitting U.S. attorneys, from their job performance to their standing in their communities, and noted that federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president.
I am not a lawyer, so I cannot really make detailed arguments about all of these issues, but Glenn Greenwald is a lawyer and does make really detailed arguments about the Bush administration's moves. He has a lot to say about Bush's flip-flop on FISA:
FISA and the President -- together again
Nothing to celebrate
Update: I am not the only one who is skeptical about Bush's new attitude towards FISA. Here are two posts from DailyKos on the topic:
Warrantless Wiretapping Still?
Taking Credit Where Credit Isn’t Due
Also, on the topic of firing Gonzales, another DailyKos post talks about impeaching him and mentions another one of his attacks on the Constitution. This time he insidiously contorts logic to claim that not every citizen is assured the right of habeas corpus despite what the Constitution says:
Impeach Gonzales
No comments:
Post a Comment