The Department of Justice yesterday released a 42-page defense of President Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program.
But the defense is really just a formal and expanded version of answers Attorney General Alberto Gonzales provided at a press conference last month . And no doubt, it will be the backbone of Gonzales' testimony before the Senate next month.
Senators should be prepared — the administration is using significant leaps in logic to justify the their circumvension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which says that the National Security Agency must obtain a warrant before conducting surveillance.
Want to understand the hoops Gonzales has to jump through to justify the illegal program? Here's the administration's arguments, in his own words:
WHAT THE LAW SAYS
The administration is well aware of FISA.
GONZALES: (T)he Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides — requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow — there is — unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires.
So then ...
ADMINISTRATION LEAP OF LOGIC
GONZALES: Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.
Gonzales admits that "there's nothing in the authorization to use force that specifically mentions electronic surveillance." He also admits: "We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be — that was not something we could likely get."
Seems pretty cut and dry. Gonzales builds a convincing case against the administration's program. But Gonzales — who President Bush said personally approved the surveillance program, when Gonzales was White House Counsel — isn't relying on facts.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
well done David, thanks! But I'm still waiting for that story about something you like about the Bush administration
2 - IgnatiusReilly
That's an odd statement, EO. Do you ask Bambanek and the like about writing positive pieces about the left?
3 - david r. mark
Eric, I didn't write about this, but I was pleased with the White House reaction to the whole Bill O'Reilly-led assault on the use of "Happy Holidays."
Unfortuntaely, the warrantless spying program is more important and worthy of every American's attention.
4 - Matthew T. Sussman
He threw one hell of a first pitch before Game 3 of the '01 World Series. You can't argue with that.
5 - david r. mark
True, and he's a snappy dresser.
But none of that will make their violation of FISA go away. Nor will it turn their spin into truth.
6 - Matthew T. Sussman
I don't know, David, that pitch sure was amazing. You should write more about it
Focus on the pitch.... always on the pitch .................. you're getting sleepy ................
"GET HIM, BOYS!"
7 - Bing
Don't hold your breath Eric. Bush could cure Cancer and AIDS on the white house lawn and give the cure away for free and David would still find something about it to bash Bush about.
8 - troll
the best thing about Bush and his administration is that his term in office is more than half over
troll
9 - Dave Nalle
I reached the same conclusion weeks ago without needing any hints from Gonzales. The rationale based on the AUMF is obvious based on the administration's actions and what the AUMF says. It's a perfectly sensible interpretation of the law - certainly reasonable enough to protect the administration from any kind of prosecution for past actions, though a clear court ruling could shut down future wiretaps.
Dave
10 - david r. mark
Bing, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you talk smack all the time? Give me a break.
Sorry to infringe on the bubble you want around you. Don't confuse you with the facts, right?