CNN: Attorney general: Congress knew scope of spy program

[DeepModem Mom]

Attorney general: Congress knew scope of spy program
Tuesday, January 24, 2006


(CNN) -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales dismissed criticism of the National Security Agency's domestic spying program Tuesday, saying Congress was aware of its scope and approved it "under the authorization to use military force" against terrorism.

His remarks echoed the comments of President Bush, who said Monday that he had briefed key members of Congress on the program.

Many Democrats and some Republicans have disagreed with the president's authorization of the spying without a warrant. Some lawmakers have said they weren't informed of the program's scope during briefings -- nor were they allowed to go public with concerns because of the program's sensitive nature.

The attorney general disagreed.

"As far as I'm concerned, we have briefed the Congress," he said. "They're aware of the scope of the program."...


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/24/nsa.strategy/index.html

[wordpix]

1. so, Gonzo, spying is now "military force?" huh?

[Kablooie]

16. Isn't "military force" legalese for "some force but not a war?"

the words are so specific in legal documents that if they meant we were to have a 'war' they would have said 'war'.

'Military force" specifically avoids the word 'war'.

[cantstandbush]

30. "Congress knew." What part of Congress? The Bushbots and a few

Dems who were muzzled because of being labeled traitors and terrorist sympathizers for exposing what was going on?

[EVDebs]

34. Dem leaders forced by security oaths to remain silent !

They had to handwrite objections to protect themselves for Christ's sake.

[EVDebs]

32. AUMF or Unauthorized Use of Military Force resolutons created this mess

The Sept. 14, 2001, 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html

contains wording :

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

The Iraq resolution contains similar wording

'Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq Oct. 2, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to :
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Both resolutions embed the War Powers Act of 1973 within the resolution. This is curious, since the War Powers Act of 1973 itself would prevent Congress from abdicating ITS authority to declare war, and determine the truthfulness and clarity of the situations and circumstances requiring the committment of military forces of the US.

See War Powers Act of 1973
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

""PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.""

Congress, abdicating its own judgement and shirking the 'collective judgement' requirement of the WPA of '73, in the 'war on terror' resolution of Sept 2001 and also in the Iraq resolution of Oct 2002, has flagrantly empowered the office of the President with the ability to determine by his own means the

'clearly indicate(d) by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or such situations' clause. These circumstances and situations are meant to be clearly truthful and not mere pretexts. By also allowing for President to use 'as he determines to be necessary and appropriate' force as he determines potentially allows for violating the Constitution's protections of individual's 1st and 4th amendment rights within the United States itself against innocent civilians, again, without warrant or justification, only Presidential whim.

It is important to note that the two resolutions embedding the WPA of 1973 would reveal that if Congress were so inclined it could reassert itself and avoid the impending Constitutional crisis that is brewing over the use of domestic spying, as the AG has been implying has been legal. A closer reading of all this material would make even the Constitutionality of the resolutions themselves an issue.

Congress will HAVE to revisit these resolutions in order to make it CLEAR that Bush and the NSA --or whatever intell group acronym is doing domestic spying without a warrant, contrary to the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973-- is in violation of the Congress's express authority, and besides breaking the law (FISA), they are violating the Constitution.

Cease and desist. We have a Constitutional Crisis on our collective hands here, Republican Congress. Get your asses in gear and FIX THIS FREAKING MESS YOU'VE CREATED. Oh, btw, fix the Medicare Drug fiasco you've created on your way out in '06 too !!!!!


Also, the 'inherent war powers' do NOT trump the War Powers Act of 1973
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903276.html

so that argument is moot.

[Richardo]

2. I don't care if you took out an ad in the fucking New York Times.

Listen, you sorry little pissant: your role is to notify the FISA court, not Congress.

Alberto Gonzales: Shit for brains Harriet Miers wannabe.

[Binka]

3. "As far as I'm concerned, we have briefed the Congress," What A Shit

This hubris is going to bring the Nazis down. What an arrogant fucking dwarf. Fuck you Alberto. Bush loves Al because he doesn't even have to kneel to suck his cock.

[Lasher]

4. How could Congress have approved the program?

Congress did authorize military force, but only nine members of Congress had been informed of the program, and these nine were sworn to secrecy. How could they have authorized something they didn't know about?

Terra! Terra! Terra!

[rodeodance]

10. yours is some of the logic that BushInc would not rather have advertized.

[EVDebs]

35. See post #32, R's are using pretext of the AUMF's

But ignoring that they're a violation of the Constitution itself !

[shoelace414]

5. and at least one member of congress has reservations

and put it in a letter that was ignored by Cheney

[BrotherBuzz]

28. Senator Rockefeller

July 17, 2003
Dear Mr. Vice President,

I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, and Chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.

Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance.

Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or techical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.

I appreciate your consideration of my views.




Most respectfully,

Jay Rockefeller

[Bonhomme Richard]

6. If a guy sends a note to the bank and say's..........

he is going to rob it, then robs the bank, according to Gonzales then it's OK.
That, of course, is if you believe they did that.

[rodeodance]

7. Recommend this

[Mithras61]

8. I only have a few problems with the claims this Nit makes...

1) It was specifically excluded from the authorisation to use military force. _Bush requested it and it was denied.

2) The requirement to brief "Congress" is in reality the requirement to brief the Intelligence Committee. In fact, only SOME members of the Intel Committee were briefed, as if it were a foreign operation (not a domestic one)

3) DOMESTIC spying is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States if it is conducted without a warrant (and yes, you did conduct spying on a purely domaetic basis, not just on people calling Al Quaeda)

4) Warrantless spying on international calls is a violation of the 1978 Foriegn Intelligence Surveilance Act, as amended in 1995. The act was put in place to prevent the sorts of abuses you and the NSA have performed. The "quick response" defense is purely BS, since you can apply for the warrant for up to 72 hours after the fact (that is, no excuses for not having one based on "we have to be able to respond quickly to...")

5) It doesn't matter WHO was aware of the scope of the program if it isn't specifically authorized in law or in the constitution. You still have to have a warrant to spy on Americans domestically (there are NO EXCEPTIONS for this), and you still have to have a warrant (even if it is obtained after the fact) to spy on Americans making overseas calls(again, there are NO EXCEPTIONS!).

6) _Bush is NOT Commander in Chief in a Time of War. War has not been decl;ared by Congress, so officially, no war exists. If no war exists, you CANNOT be Comander in Chief in a Time of War.


Gawd, I get tired of this same old STUPID argument from them.

Edited to add a tag that I forgot...

[WePurrsevere]

11. Yes exactly and well said. It's what I keep trying to get across...

none of the rest matters except that spying on American citizens without a warrant is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

War has not been officially declared by Congress so Bush is NOT a "war" president and therefore does NOT have "war powers" granted to him.

As for "exceptions" I couldn't believe when I read the following from Find Law (bolding mine):

2 Nevertheless, the Court frequently asserts that ''the most basic constitutional rule in this area is that 'searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment--subject only to a few specially established and well-delineated exceptions.'' 3 The exceptions are said to be ''jealously and carefully drawn,'' 4 and there must be ''a showing by those who seek exemption . . . that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative.'' 5 While the record does indicate an effort to categorize the exceptions, the number and breadth of those exceptions have been growing.

(btw- I had posted the above in a different DU thread but felt it was appropriate to what you had said so am repeating it here... hopefully that's ok.)

[MissMillie]

18. Couldn't have said it better myself

thanks!

[Just Me]

19. We have criminals running the country.

Never in my most creative imagination would I have EVER dreamed that a presiding President of the United States would publicly confess to the commission of a federal crime, in violation of federal law and the Constitution and the peoples' due process and privacy rights, and in breach of his oath of office.

Yet, where is the outrage in the media or by "the people"? :shrug: It's freaky!

This nation has become dysfunctional.

[redqueen]

27. Well put. If only rethugs could think so logically...

we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

[rodeodance]

9. I think Gonzalas just slipped--He said they went to congress to ask--see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=225023&mesg_id=225023

[underpants]

12. Same MO as with the Iraq vote and at the UN

They did this with the Iraq War vote when it was suddenly no longer about going to the UN with a "united front" but was a vote to attack Iraq.

They did it with the "no automaticity" claims at the UN. As soon as the Security Council voted to send inspectors back in and to revisist the matter it suddenly became a vote to "AUTHORIZE WAR!!!"

That is what they did. They are doing it again. Changing their story as soon as they get something passed. "Signing statements" are the same thing.

Rove is no genius he just doesn't have the any morals or understand how adults are supposed to behave. In fact he takes advantage of people acting civil in completely childish manner.

[warrens]

13. This is desperate spin

Apart from a couple of GOP hacks, no one has said they were briefed accurately. It looks like they told them part of it, but kept the "U.S. citizens" part out of the briefing. They're now trying to say that authorization to go after Saddam if all other measures failed authorizes pissing on the constitution.

Even a lot of the wingnuts are getting kinda edgy about this crap.

[Mithras61]

14. Well, they sort of HAVE to spin this...

If they don't, then they have to admit to the multiple felonies that are at stake. If lying about a blowjob in a trial that does NOT relate to his actions as President is an impeachable offense, then how much worse is it to violate multiple laws & the Constitution itself?

[badgervan]

25. A Controlled Judiciary

I just learned that one third of the federal judgeships in the country have been quietly filled by sycophants of bush/cheney/rove.
This is not good.

[jarab]

15. Why don't the appropriate Dems call him a liar?! n/t

...O...

[Ilsa]

17. If they don't like something, they just lie, over and over

until people believe them. I am so sick of their bullshit that I'm glad I live so far away and can't be tempted.

[rustydog]

20. We knew Nazis were exterminating the jews...That didn't make it legal!

these bastards need to be imprisoned.
terrorist spy operation my ASS.
Since when are the Quakers Terrorists? Since when is a non-violent anti-war group a threat to the national security and how long have they been in contact with binLaden?

[mom cat]

21. Lies, lies, lies!

[dethl]

22. It shouldn't matter that Congress knew (if they really did know)....

What matters is that our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are being VIOLATED.

I really wonder how much Congress was really told.

[MrPrax]

23. The amazing part...

Is not these mob guys explainig that since 'our friends' knew we whacked the guy, it was OK...it more the so-called journalists that are actually treating this excuse from none other than the attorney general as even a legitimate talking point.

You think one--just one--would simply say, 'no dice, Sir...the complaints put forward is that the NSA spied on American citizens engaged in legal activities domestically , not terrorists engaged in illegal activities abroad...even if you told Congress, Congress doesn't have the authority to violate the Constitution either?'

[EVDebs]

36. Right on. It doesn't even pass the "Laugh Test" let alone "Smell Test"

The R's really know how to put on a show, don't they ? The laughingstocks of the Western Hemisphere. It's a good thing the Dems have been the minority party thoughout all of this.

[orleans]

24. isn't the one where cheney whispered it to rockefeller

and said you can't let anyone else know.

so rockefeller HAND WROTE a letter back to cheney so his staff wouldn't see it on his computer--saying something to the effect that he needed to know more about this program before he could approve it or say anything about it?

he knew it was wrong.

the shrubbery calls that briefing congress?

i think randi had a link to this paper on her website; it was a pdf if i remember correctly. read the chicken scratch of rockefeller's lone letter and let the country decide if that equals "briefing congress".

[Dr Fate]

26. "Take our word for it." n/t

n/t

[Triana]

29. "military force" does NOT equal SPYING....

...those are two very different things. I'm sure there are some bu$hbot buttkissers out there who will buy this load of dung but I certainly do not. This Gonzo is a slimey hookworm.

[Rex]

31. The arrogance from this group is matched only by their blood lust.

So Mr. Pro Torture dismissed the Congress by saying they knew all about it. Nope, not true, another lie...so who will hold these guys accountable? Certainly not their Congress-critter Repuke slaves. As usual, it will be up to a Dem to set things right. :(

[msongs]

33. the repub PR campaign is effective, don't you think and dont you

wish the dems were as good as the repubs at this sort of thing?

stay on focus, keep repeating, ignore criticism, keep moving forward.

seems to work or they would not do this.

this puts the dems and others on denial status and takes the initiative.

course it helps that the media falls for it as well.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/dean2008.htm

edit: forgot to add never apologize for ANYTHING

[EVDebs]

37. Disagree. The R's Bullshit isn't being swallowed by anybody with brains

[leftchick]

38. Gonzales Says NSA Criticism Misleading ( protesters too!)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gonzales_nsa

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended the Bush administration's domestic spying program Tuesday and suggested that some critics and news reports have misled Americans about the breadth of the National Security Agency's surveillance.


Gonzales said the warrantless surveillance is critical to prevent another terrorist attack within the United States and falls within President Bush's constitutional authority and the powers granted by Congress immediately following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

At a Georgetown Law School Forum, Gonzales said the nation needs "to remember that ... it's imperative for national security reasons that we can detect reliably, immediately and without delay" any al-Qaida related communication entering or leaving the United States.

As he spoke, more than a dozen students stood silently with their backs turned to the attorney general. Outside the classroom where Gonzales was to speak, a pair of protesters held up a sheet that said, "Don't torture the Constitution."

Gonzales cautioned his listeners about critics and journalists who have mischaracterized details about the program. "Unfortunately, they have caused concern over the potential breadth of what the President has actually authorized," he said.




Members of the audience stand up and turn their backs on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, rear, as he speaks at Georgetown University Law School Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2006. Answering the Bush administration's critics, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that warrantless surveillance is critical to prevent another terrorist attack within the United States. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

:yourock:

[ClintonTyree]

39. Boy, do they need Alito on the SC...........

before the human waste products hit the circulating air device. We need a filibuster of Alito more now than ever. If Alito is conformed they'll have the votes to complete the coup and control every single aspect of our government. :scared:

Speedy Gonzales is such a ass licking toady it's sickening. I can't believe only a dozen students turned their backs on Speedy. Still, it's an unprecedented act and lets the BFEE know that people are watching. Hopefully the entire house of cards will come crashing down soon.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

40. Torture Czar is at it again...

whoring for the * admin by rubber stamping torture & illegal spying & now he is out defending it. If it ever came to criminal trails the Torture Czar should be one of the main ones indicted. Then he could be sent to Gitmo.

Good that the protesters are getting some exposure. Keep it up.

[Kagemusha]

41. If the details are so benign why not tell them to the FISA court?

We're expected to believe the administration on faith where there is no penalty for perjury (a law school rather than a courtroom). Sure, reporters have reported a different tune than Gonzales and Bush, but that's because we don't believe them.

[peaches2003]

42. Just ask the right question, somebody!!!

Why the hell doesn't some reporter just ask Bush, Gonzalez or one of the toadies why they just don't apply for the warrant AFTER the wiretap is done, AS THE FISA LAW ALLOWS??? They always say time is of the essence with these wiretaps, but then nobody follows up and point blank asks them why just don't do the damn wiretap and then apply to the FISA court.

We all know they can't do it that way because they are wiretapping people who would NEVER get approved to be spied on- like political enemies. But isn't there a journalist around who will just put them on the spot and ask the damn question!!!?

[Brooklyn Michael]

43. "reliably, imediately, and without delay"

Well, since the FISA warrants can already be gotten on extremely short notice - hell, they can even get them retroactively, after the fact - that would seem to just leave the need to get them "reliably". And since FISA has approved something like 99.7% of all warrants requested - as long as they show "probable cause" in accordance with the 4th Amendment to the Bill of Rights - that would seem to be pretty damn reliable.

So....Little Al....Why don't you just go and get the warrant through the FISA courts?

Wait, don't hurt your pretty little head...I'll answer for you....

Because if you had to tell FISA what you really wanted the warrants for, they would turn you down because the reason you want to wiretap Americans has NADA to do with terrorism, and EVERYTHING to do with wanting to illegally spy on your political enemies!*

*Note - I'm really not much of a conspiracy buff, but with the relative ease of getting a FISA warrant, and since I've never even heard of any super-crunchy-ultra-lefty-liberal types that are against spying on terrorists (which the FISA courts would certainly approve of), then I can only assume there's an UNconstitutional reason for this NSA program.

[leftchick]

44. Very well said...

:applause:

[Brooklyn Michael]

49. Thank you!

:blush:

[colonel odis]

45. there needs to be much, much more of that form of protest.

shout at them, unfurl a sign, rush the stage and you'll end up in the pokey.

but silent disrespect such as that sends a very strong message. wouldn't it be great if that became a symbol in the final days of the bush administration?

[sarcasmo]

46. Kick and Nom for the Students taking it to the NAZI.

[leesa]

47. Lies. 8 members of Congress knew and they were sworn to secrecy.

[HuffleClaw]

48. reduced to outright lies ?

"They're aware of the scope of the program." <=-- not according to those who were 'briefed'. and again, he has absolutely no business defending bush's action in this. its the complete OPPOSITE of what he should be doing. his JOB is to uphold the laws of the land, not to defend its lawbreakers.