Has Bush caved on NSA wiretap surveillance?

You may recall about a year ago when the nation first learned that the Bush administration, in secret, had asserted the right to conduct warrantless wiretaps on domestic conversations, without any judicial oversight. The key part of the debate wasn’t, as conservatives argued, about whether or not to conduct surveillance on suspected bad guys; it was whether or not the administration could sidestep the law.

At the time, administration officials argued, unpersuasively, that they couldn’t bother with warrants or checks and balances. That was pre-9/11 thinking. Even with the FISA court’s provisions that allow retroactive warrants up to 72 hours after the fact, the administration said they needed unchecked power. If you disagreed, you were soft on terror.

In a very interesting twist, the Bush gang seems to have reversed course.

The National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program will be subject to court approval, according to a new letter from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to lawmakers.

The NSA program, dubbed the “Terrorist Surveillance Program,” had been criticized for spying on Americans without warrants from a U.S. court. Now, according to Gonzales’ letter, the program will operate under approval by the secret FISA court.

Gonzales is slated to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow.

I assume there has to be a catch, but based on Gonzales’ letter, it seems the Bush administration will finally do what Democrats said he should do — conduct surveillance with oversight from the FISA court.

The letter, sent to Sens. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, certainly seems as if the administration is taking the opposition position of what it has said in defense of warrantless searches for the last year.

[A]ny 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….

Although, as we have previously explained, the Terrorist Surveillance Program fully complies with the law, the orders the Government has obtained will allow the necessary speed and agility while providing substantial advantages. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the President has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires.

Maybe there’s some loophole here that’s not in the plain text. Maybe White House officials will say they’ll comply with the law, but will end up blazing their own trail. Who knows.

In the meantime, it certainly appears as if the Bush gang has given up on one of the more controversial, and legally dubious, aspects of their counterterrorism strategy.

And on a purely political note, the Bush gang also seems to have cut off at the knees every right-wing supporter who said the domestic surveillance program was absolutely necessary, had to be kept separate from FISA, and could not be altered under any circumstances.

Update: Dems respond.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy just issued a statement in which he says he welcomes Bush’s decision to “seek approval for all wiretaps from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as the law has required for years.” “The issue has never been whether to monitor suspected terrorists but doing it legally and with proper checks and balances to prevent abuses,” Leahy says in the statement. “Providing efficient but meaningful court review is a major step toward addressing those concerns.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer takes a significantly different tone in a statement of his own, saying that Bush’s decision “flies in the face of the fundamentals of American justice, which, when the balance of power is divided, require that these things should be done with full debate, and with full review.” Schumer says the Gonzales announcement “can give little solace to the American people, who believe in the rule of law and ask for adequate judicial review. And why it took five years to go to even this secret court is beyond comprehension.”

Now that Bush was elected to a second term, the administration can screw up on terrorism and not pay a political price. The domestic spying was always about maintaining political power.

  • Even when they give in on something their ultimate goal is to keep their power to do the same thing again. So instead of having the power ripped out of Bush’s hands, he has “decided” to not reauthorize the program right now. Avoiding getting a definite “no”.

  • This couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the Democrats now control the Congress, could it?

  • now how does this square with the comment being reported on msnbc.com, where gonzales maintains that judges are unqualified to rule on matters of national security policy, and should simply defer to the will of the president on such matters? whatever happened to checks and balances? this guy makes me really nervous, and i believe him…..not at all…….

  • While I’d like to see this as a victory. The Bush administration is finally starting to be pulled into line by a Democratic congress. However, I doubt this is the case. My first guess would be that the people, information, systems, or whatever have be taken over by another program which is still secret and will not be discussed.

    We need to look very closely at the language used when they are asked questions about this in the following days. Someone needs to ask if they are any other programs that have taken over any of the responsibilities of this one. Have any of the key people moved? Has the equipment used to tap key data lines been removed? That sort of thing and pay VERY careful attention to how they answer.

    Given Cheney’s opinions on presidential powers this can’t be taken at face value.

  • Bush makes the rules, Bush changes the rules, Bush decides whatever he wants to decide. Perhaps his new position has somethng to do with Democratic oversight in the Congress. I bet he doesn’t want to open that particular can of worms and have to explaim why he tapped the phone of the Quaker meeting house, and the local peace and justice center, or the Democratic party headquarters..

  • I think that they are doing something else, that there is some other program now in existence that sort of obsoletes this one.

  • And on a purely political note, the Bush gang also seems to have cut off at the knees every right-wing supporter who said the domestic surveillance program was absolutely necessary, had to be kept separate from FISA, and could not be altered under any circumstances.

    Word. That was my fist thought. My second was, if the program complies with the law, as Gonzalez claims, why change it?

  • Now that Bush was elected to a second term the administration can screw up on terrorism and not pay a political price. The domestic spying program has served its purpose. It was always about maintaining political power.

    Fixed it for you.

    Oh, and above should be “first thought,” not “fist thought.” Preview is your friend.

  • This is an odd contradiction with Gonzo’s assault on the constitution as reported today at msnbc.com. They are up to something outrageous – I just know it.

  • abc news has an article now as well. one of gonzo’s quotes when they are looking at who is qualified to be appointed to the judgeship – “We want to determine whether he understands the inherent limits that make an unelected judiciary inferior to Congress or the president in making policy judgments,” Gonzales says in the prepared speech. “That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our country.”

    be afraid. be very afraid.

  • The catch is why investigate a program that is no longer controversial/illegal. I would imagine any investigation would have turned up a lot of embarrassment..

    Man it must suck for Bush to have to deal with those ‘pesky liberal subpoenas’ (say it like the bad guy in ScoobyDoo).

  • ScottW. (#15), You touch on this, but is there anything saying that past actions cannot be investigated? So now they say that they will bring it under FISA (even though it supposedly complied with the law all along). Big deal. What happened in the past? Why can’t that still be investigated? Just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this.

  • Reversals on wiretapping AND Bush’s possible global warming admissions in the state of the union address???
    I’m guessing Bush wants to protect his upcoming plans for attacking Iran with some non-essential accomodation to the party in power.

  • “it certainly appears as if the Bush gang has given up on one of the more controversial, and legally dubious, aspects of their counterterrorism strategy.”

    My concern is that this is ALL about appearances. They may thow the dogs a few bones to keep them off their tail, but does anyone here believe that Bush will cease to abuse power just because the Dems control Congress? The Judiciary Committee would be well served to keep peering behind the facades to make sure there is substance to their claims of relenting to judicial oversight.

  • I’m curious about the timing. Why now? Why not wait till Friday afternoon–which is standard Bush Administration operating procedure–to release politically embarrassing news? Is it because Gonzales was about to testify before the Senate tomorrow? This issue has been cooking for nearly a year, so what’s the rush?

  • From AP:

    “Gonzales said a judge on the secret FISA court recently approved a government proposal allowing it to target communications into and out of the United States when probable cause exists that one person is a member of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization.”

    “White House spokesman Tony Snow said the new rules approved by the court addressed administration concerns.”

    “The president will not reauthorize the present program because the new rules will serve as guideposts,” Snow said.”

    So there are new rules? Maybe that’s why they caved, perhaps these “new rules” gave Bush the power that his “illegal” program was always seeking?

  • Now that the Pentagon is handling the spying, it won’t be necessary to get subpoenas anyhow. It’s just part of the war effort.

    Hey, at least we didn’t drop napalm on your dog. Shut up and smile!

  • Soooo… “the President has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program”. Can we now all agree that the president is objectively pro-terrorist? He wants the protect the terrorists’ right to privacy. He wants to do what the “pro-terrorist” Dems wanted him to do awhile back.

    Or maybe he wants Democrats to “heal the nation” and not impeach him for violating the constitution. Which of course he freely admitted doing.

    To the Dems: You will let this criminal off at your own peril. We the progressive voters will “Lieberman” any Dem that lets the constitution of the USA be violated, and then allows the perpetrators to walk, rather than fight them at every opportunity.

  • Defend, Defend, Defend. Accuse others of being ‘with the terrorists’, or Un-American, or woosies who don’t ‘have the stomach’ to do whats necessary. Insist that you have “all the legal authority” you need. Then capitualte? Something smells rotten in Denmark. And it ain’t the alcohol on dickless cheney’s breath.

  • JRS Troll Jr says: perhaps these “new rules” gave Bush the power that his “illegal” program was always seeking?

    1) When Gonzales and Snow become believable on any issue, hell will freeze solid.

    2) If the “new rules” were needed to make Bush’s warrentless spying program legal, then he should have requested those changes, rather than violate the law. Surely if they were reasonable, a Republican congress would have approved them, right? But since the “new rules” were apparently needed to make his spying comply with the law, then he was violating the law, and should be impeached.

    Even a simpleton like you must be able to see the logic.

  • Right you are RacerX. The SOB rubbed it in everyones’ face when he could, and now he expects to walk around scott-free with that swank and arrogant smirk like the King of England, hiding behind cheney’s and gonzales’ skirt. IMPEACH!, or you are an enabler and a co-conspirarator! He violated the Constitution, his oath of office, and international law. He deserves ‘equality under the law’. Impeach and prosecute!

  • So NSA will now comply with the law and get their court orders first. But will DoD? Or some other program we don’t even know about?

    Alternatively, they won’t be able to get FISA authorization because there’ll be no FISA — none of the judges will get security clearance.

    I’m not getting excited yet; there are too many possible ways of skinning that cat. The only thing I can be certain of is that they won’t obey the law, one way or another.

  • Does the Bush administration get a mulligan on this? That is, to me it seems similar to one of my students saying, “Over the past few years I have reserved the right to cheat on tests, but (admitting no guilt for my hypothetical past behavior) I promise not to do so in the future.” Will the issue of acccountability be raised?

  • JRS—“kumbaya” without the mandatory suffix of “my lord?” You shock us, sir!

    And as for this “cave-in” by Das Boosh, I should like to revive three little words brought to us by that dreadful ReaganGod of the GOP:

    “TRUST, BUT VERIFY.”

  • “IMPEACH!, or you are an enabler and a co-conspirarator!”

    “We the progressive voters will “Lieberman” any Dem that lets the constitution of the USA be violated, and then allows the perpetrators to walk, rather than fight them at every opportunity”

    First, Racer, wipe the foam off your lips please! It is quite unbecoming.

    Second, last time I looked Joe was still a US Senator (with all his senority rights intact) and Lamont was left sucking his thumb and holding his lil’ blanky, yet still earning big money on his millions in his bank account! Now he is truely a “progressive”!

    From AP: “Gonzales said the administration began exploring options for seeking FISA court approval for the program in the spring of 2005, well before it was publicly disclosed at the end of that year, creating a firestorm of criticism.”

    Perhaps FISA just works slow?

  • This could be what it appears to be on its face, but I highly doubt it. It just wouldn’t be like Dubya to give up executive power unless he’s already found a way to grabbed more power from somewhere else — someplace that’s more difficult to uncover. Nice to have a leader with such credibility.

  • What…it’s a good sign that Bush claims to be obeying the law now? How do we know that he’s obeying FISA now? How do we know what other laws he’s breaking. And, if he could break FISA laws based on the unitary executive theory, which he hasn’t disavowed, then what’s to stop him from doing it again anytime he wants? Should we feel better that Bush can open our mail, obtain our financial information, detain us indefinitely without habeas, but he’s going to obey FISA?

    All this means is that there was no reason for him to disobey FISA in the first place. And this is just a PR move.

  • Only in America.

    Why don’t we just give up? Let’s pass Enabling Laws. Make Bush a Fuhrer. Suspend the Bill of Rights. Do you think anyone would notice?

  • ***Make Bush a Fuhrer.***
    ————Alibubba

    Only if he immediately crawls into a bunker and shoots himself. Otherwise, I’m going to keep the tar on to boil, and the chicken-feathers handy….

  • Has Bush caved on NSA wiretap surveillance?

    No.

    Read Gonzales’s letter closely. He not only does he claim that what was being done previously was legal, he also claims that the new orders cover what was being done previously. These new FISC orders – which do not evidently deal with the key issue of obtaining a warrant – apparently offer “substantial advantages”. (my guess: the evidence obtained from all surveillance will be admissable in court.)

    Basically, this letter tries to retroactively legalize what was being done previously, and authorize a continuation of the warrantless surveillance. It’s the Military Commissions Act all over again, and I am delighted to see that Schumer, for one, has smelt the rat.

  • Comments are closed.