Karen
01-23-2006, 12:31 PM
Senate Democrats continue to engage in misleading and outlandish charges about this vital tool ("][/url]LEGAL
Divide and Conquer
The White House is desperately trying to portray the controversy about President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program as partisan squabble. Yesterday, Scott McClellan said, "The NSA's terrorist surveillance program is targeted at al Qaeda communications coming into or going out of the United States . ... [url="https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060122.html). ... It defies common sense for Democrats to now claim the administration is acting outside its authority." In fact, some of the harshest criticisms have come from Republicans. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said, “There is no doubt that this is inappropriate (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601825.html).” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the law required domestic surveillance to be approved by a special court and "I don’t know of any legal basis to go around that. (https://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/no-legal-basis/)" Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was asked if he thought the program was legal and responded, "I don't think so (https://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/22/mccain-wiretaps-illegal/)." The truth is that members of both parties believe Bush broke the law.
ADMINISTRATION RAISES LEGAL ARGUMENT FROM THE DEAD: On Thursday, the administration released a 42-page legal defense of Bush's warrantless surveillance program. The core of it is a radical argument the administration has been forced to distance itself from in the past. The most recent legal defense asserts that President Bush is the "sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs (https://rawstory.com/other/justicerawstory.pdf)." Similarly, to justify torture of foreign detainees, a 2002 Department of Justice memo argued that laws may not "place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat (https://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm), the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response." After the 2002 memo was made public, the administration withdrew it (https://msnbc.msn.com/id/6772750/from/RL.5/). Nevertheless, as the Washington Post notes, the arguments in the administration's 42-page legal defense "call into question Congress's ability to prevent the administration from engaging in torture or cruel and inhuman treatment (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/22/AR2006012200779.html)." All the arguments contained in the administration's document have been comprehensively (https://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/19/crs-report/) rebutted (https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf) by the Congressional Research Service.
ADMINISTRATION CONTRADICTS ITSELF: The administration argues that, in addition to the President's unchecked power over anything he deems related to security, the power to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance was granted by Congress in 2001 (https://rawstory.com/other/justicerawstory.pdf) through the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against al Qaeda. (Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) disagrees. Asked if the 9/11 resolution authorized the warrantless domestic surveillance program, Brownback replied, "It didn’t in my vote (https://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/08/brownback-on-nsa/).") The administration's claims on this issue are not even internally consistent. On the one hand, the administration argues Congress gave them this power. But Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claims that the administration didn't go to Congress for the authority because Congress would have rejected them. At a press conference on Dec. 19, Gonzales said, "We have had discussions with Congress in the past -- certain members of Congress -- as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible (https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html)."
OUT OF LEGAL ARGUMENTS, ADMINISTRATION LAUNCHES PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN: Fox News reports that, beginning today, "The Bush administration is launching a campaign to go on the offense against criticism of its wiretapping program (https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182335,00.html)." The effort includes events by Gonzales and former NSA director Mike Hayden, as well as a photo-op by President Bush at the NSA this Wednesday.
Divide and Conquer
The White House is desperately trying to portray the controversy about President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program as partisan squabble. Yesterday, Scott McClellan said, "The NSA's terrorist surveillance program is targeted at al Qaeda communications coming into or going out of the United States . ... [url="https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060122.html). ... It defies common sense for Democrats to now claim the administration is acting outside its authority." In fact, some of the harshest criticisms have come from Republicans. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said, “There is no doubt that this is inappropriate (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601825.html).” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the law required domestic surveillance to be approved by a special court and "I don’t know of any legal basis to go around that. (https://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/no-legal-basis/)" Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was asked if he thought the program was legal and responded, "I don't think so (https://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/22/mccain-wiretaps-illegal/)." The truth is that members of both parties believe Bush broke the law.
ADMINISTRATION RAISES LEGAL ARGUMENT FROM THE DEAD: On Thursday, the administration released a 42-page legal defense of Bush's warrantless surveillance program. The core of it is a radical argument the administration has been forced to distance itself from in the past. The most recent legal defense asserts that President Bush is the "sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs (https://rawstory.com/other/justicerawstory.pdf)." Similarly, to justify torture of foreign detainees, a 2002 Department of Justice memo argued that laws may not "place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat (https://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm), the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response." After the 2002 memo was made public, the administration withdrew it (https://msnbc.msn.com/id/6772750/from/RL.5/). Nevertheless, as the Washington Post notes, the arguments in the administration's 42-page legal defense "call into question Congress's ability to prevent the administration from engaging in torture or cruel and inhuman treatment (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/22/AR2006012200779.html)." All the arguments contained in the administration's document have been comprehensively (https://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/19/crs-report/) rebutted (https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf) by the Congressional Research Service.
ADMINISTRATION CONTRADICTS ITSELF: The administration argues that, in addition to the President's unchecked power over anything he deems related to security, the power to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance was granted by Congress in 2001 (https://rawstory.com/other/justicerawstory.pdf) through the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against al Qaeda. (Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) disagrees. Asked if the 9/11 resolution authorized the warrantless domestic surveillance program, Brownback replied, "It didn’t in my vote (https://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/08/brownback-on-nsa/).") The administration's claims on this issue are not even internally consistent. On the one hand, the administration argues Congress gave them this power. But Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claims that the administration didn't go to Congress for the authority because Congress would have rejected them. At a press conference on Dec. 19, Gonzales said, "We have had discussions with Congress in the past -- certain members of Congress -- as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible (https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html)."
OUT OF LEGAL ARGUMENTS, ADMINISTRATION LAUNCHES PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN: Fox News reports that, beginning today, "The Bush administration is launching a campaign to go on the offense against criticism of its wiretapping program (https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182335,00.html)." The effort includes events by Gonzales and former NSA director Mike Hayden, as well as a photo-op by President Bush at the NSA this Wednesday.