| Monday, February 06, 2006 |
| The spy hearings, take three |
Finally, some substantive questions from a Republican...
four setups and two questions from John Kyl, which focused on Congressional oversight. Said Kyl (paraphrasing):
Mr. Gonzales, you say four things are true: 1. That Article II has always interpreted as allowing the president to do what is needed to wage war, including collecting intelligence.
2. When Congress passed the authorization for force, it reasserted the president's inherent authority and authorized war fighting, and statutory authorization is contemplated in the FISA language except as authorized by statute.
3. The 1978 FISA law is really not well suited to the kind of program being conducted here, including the 72 hour provision.
4. There are arlready checks and balances, reauthorization every 45 days by president, briefings to members of Congress and Inspector General review.
And the questions:
1. Re Sen. Biden's question about whether or not if this program is really necessary why shouldn't it also apply to "al-Qaida terrorists A and B" who both happen to be in the United States? (Gonzales says no legal analysis has been done on that so far, because that's not what Bush authorized...) Kyl said that analysis should be undertaken, because if the administration is right, there is no less reason to do domestic to domestice surveilance than to surveil foreign calls. ...
2. Also, Biden, Grassley and Kennedy asked what happens if the administration is wrong? How can we be assured that there is no improper surveillance? Said Kyl: "It seems you might consider either in the presidential directive some kind of after action review to the eight members of Congress who are currently briefed into the program, to determine whether it is being used as intended, whether somebody might have been surveilled who should not have been, if so, how that happened and what's being done to assure it doesn't happen again, plus whether any damage has occurred and whether the program is having the intended result, i.e., that important information is being generated.
(Gonzeles is very reluctant to contemplate a reopening of the FISA rules. Why is that?)
When his turn came, Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl asked whether the administration, if it finds the FISA 72 hour rule "too burdensome" would at least agree to after-action review by Congress or the FISA court to determine no abuses of the program had occurrred.
Gonzales essentially said "we're happy to listen to your ideas, but no. That would inform the enemy..." Paraphrase:
KOHL: Is there anything the president cannot do in a time of war, or can the president assign to himself any power without congressional authority?
AG: The president's authorities are not limitless...
KOHL: If the NSA collects info on an American who proves to be innocent, which news reports say has happened, what happens to that info?
AG: The fact that they wash out doesn't mean we should stop investigations. But re what is done with the info? Can't say. Gonzales is refusing to answer "on security grounds..." More on Kohl's questioning from Think Progress.
11:58 a.m.: We've got our fist protester. Specter gaveled him down once after he called Gonzales a fascist and said the administration needs to get a warrant before spying on Americans...
12:00 p.m.: Sen. Mike Dewine made the very good point (and he's a Republican!) that presidents are always stronger when they come to the Congress for statutory authority, even in a time of war. Good man.
Here's the AP rundown so far.
Tags: politics, News, Bush, national security, NSA, government, spying, president, hearings, impeachment |
posted by JReid @ 11:54 AM   |
|
|
|
|
