Hearings underway on warrantless-search program

The Senate Judiciary Committee kicked off its hearings on the president’s warrantless-search program just minutes ago, with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appearing as the only witness (so far). I’m cautiously optimistic that the session will be productive, but time will tell. Here are a few things to consider as the day gets started.

* At least on the surface, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) comes into the hearings with a healthy degree of skepticism.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ explanations so far for the Bush administration’s failure to obtain warrants for its domestic surveillance program are “strained” and “unrealistic,” the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman said Sunday.

Sen. Arlen Specter, whose committee has scheduled hearings Monday on the National Security Agency program, said he believes the administration violated a 1978 law specifically calling for a secretive court to consider and approve such monitoring.

* As part of the White House’s political defense, Gonzales wrote an op-ed for today’s Wall Street Journal defending the domestic-spying program. There weren’t any new arguments per se, but Gonzales did argue that it is “inconceivable” that Congress’ post-9/11 resolution “does not also support the president’s efforts to intercept the communications of our enemies.” It’s an argument rejected by all serious people, on both sides of the aisle, inside the political world and out. The argument may be common in op-eds, but I doubt Gonzales will be relying on this tack today — committee members will know better.

* Much of what we know about the warrantless searches comes from media reports, based on leaks from intelligence officials. Gonzales will insist this morning that news reports have often been “misinformed, confused or wrong.” This opens the door to a small problem for the administration — the Bush gang is unwilling to share pertinent details about the program with lawmakers. In other words, Gonzales will tell senators, “You’ve been misled by inaccurate news accounts.” Senators will ask, “OK, so what’s the accurate information?” to which Gonzales will likely respond, “I can’t tell you.”

* A month ago, the New York Times reported that telecommunications companies have been cooperating with the administration on warrantless searches. Today, USA Today names names: “The National Security Agency has secured the cooperation of large telecommunications companies, including AT&T, MCI and Sprint, in its efforts to eavesdrop without warrants on international calls by suspected terrorists, according to seven telecommunications executives.”

* The WaPo had a big front-page item on the NSA story yesterday, confirming earlier reports that Bush’s wiretapping isn’t very good at producing leads on actual bad guys. The Post also noted that the NSA relies on telecom filters, which aren’t terribly effective.

* Deputy Director of National Intelligence Michael Hayden, who has taken a leading role in defending warrantless searches, appeared on a couple of the Sunday-morning talkshows and was asked if innocent Americans had been targeted through Bush’s program. Hayden suggested the NSA would not, but didn’t answer the question directly.

Stay tuned.

Is it inappropriate to consider what (their) ulterior motives for spying on Americans may be? I never see examples, and yet, isn’t that what really nags? We have no idea what they are looking for and how they plan to use it, and yet I believe most of us feel that if we knew the whole truth, it would be incomprehensible. I was looking for news and articles the other day and typed the words “president spying” in my Google search bar. My hard drive started “whirring” wildly, and I had a tough time turning of my computer. I didn’t try it again, and it may have been a strange coincidence, but the fact that it alarmed me at all is minimally one example of how this program affects us psychologically.

  • He’s a ruse. He’ll exploit every progressive argument and then in the end either endorse it or make recommendations to make it legal.

  • Um, according Unclaimed Territory (Glen Greenwald), Gonzales was NOT sworn in, so he’s testifying but not under oath. So much for Specter’s “healthy skepticism”.

  • 1. Attorney Alberto Gonzales won’t be sworn in, even though the last time he testified under oath he misled the committee about the program. Leahy noted he was sworn the other two times he appeared before the committee. Leahy appealed the ruling of the chair and asked for a roll call vote. via Think Progress

    Looks like they’re trying to keep his perjury indictments to a minimum.

  • beans — Even though I spend a fair amount of time wearing the old tin-foil hat my gut tells that you need to worry more about investing in a new hard drive. That noise is probably an early warning sign that it’s getting worn out.

  • There was a time when no “conservative” worth his salt would have given Gonzalez’s case the time of day. What has happened to these people!

    “Plenary power” indeed. “Unitary executive” my ass. Balder and dash.

    Spooked by a bunch of guys with box cutters. Unable to handle a dose of what the Brits have lived with for almost a century.

    I have to believe the plenary power advocates are very canny tub-thumpers who are appealing to the Armaggedon set and the bedwetters. I ask you, can anyone by nature be as stupid as Orin Hatch seems to be on a regualr basis. There just has to be some other explananation.

    As for Gonzalez. looking through those big brown cow eyes is like looking like an open window into an empty yard.

  • I’m picturing Gonzalez using a Wallace Shawn/Vizzini voice when he calls it

    “INCONCEIVABLE”

    What a fine choice of words there Al!

  • Comments are closed.