For months, the president and top [tag]administration[/tag] officials have vigorously defended Bush’s [tag]warrant[/tag]less-search program by emphasizing that their only interest is in international communications. Asked why they don’t just expand their power to purely domestic phone [tag]calls[/tag], everyone — from [tag]Bush[/tag] to [tag]Alberto Gonzales[/tag] to [tag]Michael Hayden[/tag] — said the administration had the [tag]authority[/tag] to do this, but it just isn’t willing to go there.
Yesterday, the administration shifted its stance a bit.
Attorney General Alberto R. [tag]Gonzales[/tag] left open the possibility yesterday that President Bush could order warrantless [tag]wiretaps[/tag] on telephone calls occurring solely within the United States — a move that would dramatically expand the reach of a controversial National Security Agency [tag]surveillance[/tag] program.
In response to a question from Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) during an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Gonzales suggested that the administration could decide it was legal to listen in on a domestic call without supervision if it were related to al-Qaeda.
“I’m not going to rule it out,” Gonzales said.
This may sound ridiculous, but I was actually kind of pleased to see the admission. The administration’s old argument was frustratingly stupid, so yesterday’s concession at least brought a touch of ideological consistency to the Bush gang’s reckless disregard to the rule of law.
In February, asked to explain why it’s okay to [tag]listen[/tag] in on calls with one [tag]American[/tag], but not two, Gonzales said:
“Senator, think about the reaction, the public reaction that has arisen in some quarters about this program. If the president had authorized domestic surveillance, as well, even though we’re talking about Al Qaida-to-Al Qaida, I think the reaction would have been twice as great. And so there was a judgment made that this was the appropriate line to draw in ensuring the security of our country and the protection of the privacy interests of Americans.”
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) called the argument “incomprehensible,” which was the appropriate adjective.
First, there’s no reason the White House, four years ago, had to worry about “the public reaction.” This was a confidential surveillance program; the public wasn’t going to find out. Second, the Bush gang isn’t supposed to be worried about public outcry — according to their rhetoric, they’re far more concerned with preventing terrorist attacks than popularity.
And third, if an al Queda terrorist is talking to another al Queda terrorist, and they’re both on American soil, the Bush administration is suddenly concerned with protecting privacy interests?
Yesterday’s argument makes a lot more sense. Bush has the power, Gonzales effectively argued, to circumvent the law, the courts, and Congress, [tag]tap[/tag] anyone’s [tag]phone[/tag], anywhere, whenever he wants to, with no checks, oversight, or restraints. And he may exercise this power, in secret, at any time, and may have already done so. It was nice of Gonzales to finally clear this up for us.
As for the details about how the administration is using this dubious power, Gonzales refuses to provide any details, even to inquisitive lawmakers. Yesterday, even Republicans got fed up.
The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee pointedly criticized Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Thursday for “stonewalling” by refusing to answer questions about the Bush administration’s warrantless eavesdropping program.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said Gonzales was frustrating his panel’s oversight of the Justice Department and the controversial surveillance by declining to provide information about how the program is reviewed inside the administration and by whom.
“How can we discharge our oversight if, every time we ask a pointed question, we’re told the program is classified?” Sensenbrenner asked Gonzales near the start of a lengthy hearing on the department’s activities. “I think that … is stonewalling.”
When Sensenbrenner is being critical of the Bush gang in public, you know things are going poorly for the administration.