Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Harder They Fall

By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive. Posted January 20, 2006.


The Justice Department's response to the warrantless wiretapping scandal reveals the extent of the President's delusions of grandeur.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Matthew Rothschild

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The Bush team keeps granting itself more and more power, including the power unilaterally to deem a law unconstitutional and then to flout that law.

That's essentially what the Justice Department said in the 42-page white paper on the NSA's warrantless spying program which it released on January 19.

With the Bush Administration's typical white-is-black Orwellian speak, it says that this program is "consistent with civil liberties," even though it acknowledges that "individual privacy issues at stake may be substantial."

For Bush and Cheney and Ashcroft, anything goes--including privacy--in the fight against Al Qaeda.

"The Government's overwhelming interest in detecting and thwarting further Al Qaeda attacks is easily sufficient to make reasonable the intrusion into privacy," says the Justice Department document, entitled "Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President."

The gist of the Justice Department's argument is that the President's "inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief" and the Congressional Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) right after 9/11 give him all the power he needs to eavesdrop in the United States without a warrant.

It's not an easy argument to make, since the FISA law, as amended, requires that FISA is the "exclusive means" by which the NSA may engage in domestic surveillance. FISA requires a warrant except in the first fifteen days of an emergency.

Here is the argument. The Justice Department says "FISA expressly contemplates that the Executive Branch may conduct electronic surveillance outside FISA's express procedures if and when a subsequent statute authorizes such surveillance."

That "subsequent statute," the Justice Department says, is the Congressional Authorization of Force. But that authorization doesn't mention amending FISA. And on top of that, the Administration tried to get language into that authorization that would have permitted such warrantless eavesdropping, but the Senate didn't go along, as former Senator Tom Daschle has noted.

"Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the Administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text," Daschle wrote in The Washington Post on December 23. "I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused."

Yet this is the very authority that the Justice Department now claims for the spying!

Nor has the Administration sought to amend FISA to reflect its current interpretation.

Why bother? Instead, it pulls out this trump card: Even "if FISA could not be read to allow the President to authorize the NSA activities during the current Congressionally authorized armed conflict with Al Qaeda, FISA would be unconstitutional."

Why? Because it interferes with the President's power as Commander in Chief.

Here the Justice Department shows just how unlimited it believes that power is.

"The President has inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches and surveillance within the United States for foreign intelligence purposes," the Justice Department asserts. It says there is a "serious constitutional" question as to whether such spying "is such a core exercise of Commander in Chief control over the Armed Forces during armed conflict that Congress cannot interfere with it at all."

Clearly, the Justice Department believes that to be the case. "The NSA activities lie at the very core of the Commander in Chief power," it states. This is especially true in wartime, it argues.

But get this: The Justice Department thinks the President may be able to spy on us without warrants even when there is no war!


Digg!

Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Where is the DOJ white paper?
Posted by: foobar on Jan 20, 2006 10:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where is this "42 page white paper" released by the Justice Department? I can find no reference to it on the DOJ website. What is the title?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Specter's hearing on domestic surveillance
Posted by: patti_s on Jan 22, 2006 10:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was thrilled to hear Arlen Specter call for hearings on the NSA's domestic surveillance of U.S. citizens here in America. Then I discovered that the sole witness in these hearings was Attorney General Gonzalez. What crap is this they are passing off as a hearing. There were more witnesses than that at the unauthorized Democratic hearings (held in a basement room at one of the Senate office buildings, because the Repubs won't grant them a conference room upstairs, seems that even with Congress in recess, the rooms were all in use). Their hearings included some of the most respected Constitutional legal minds of today. These were authorities called on by the Repubs when they were impeaching Clinton.

The Dems also had a gentleman from a non-violent peace group called The Truth. The group was meeting with some Quakers at the Quaker's church in Fla., when the military sent military enlisted men to infilitrate and spy on them.

How does this amount to a hearing Mr Specter? I could be wrong, but I always thought a hearing was when you heard testimony from both sides. I can imagine the questions the AG will be asked and his answers!! Whose testimony will be heard to refute any claims he makes? Patti_s

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Watch out...
Posted by: NamVeT on Jan 30, 2006 11:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
king georgie halibush & company have just about completed their takeover of OUR BELOVED COUNTRY! These sons of dirty mofo's don't care for you or me. Money...Power...these are the things that matter to them. Fear the knock on your door. You will be "displaced" for national security purposes. We need a FULL SCALE REVOLUTION...A MARCH OF MILLIONS to the white house to throw these criminals in jail and then........you know where I'm going with this. You can bet your ass that they are listening and following every move that we make. I say DOWN WITH THESE LOW LIFE BASTARDS.....NOW...NOW...NOW or never.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Beth
Posted by: riley on Jan 30, 2006 2:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not to be alarmist, but there's an excellent article on CounterPunch by Paul Craig Roberts on the renewal of the Patriot Act...which will expire this Friday if not renewed. Bush is doing high pressure here. That article deals with the fact that the renewed proposal establishes a National Secret Service Police force that will be able to make warrantless arrests and extend their power to local police as well. This is to occur at Special Events (usually involving the presence of the President or other VIP). However, the new S.S. will have the power to arbitrarily name ANY event a Special Event. There we have it, ladies and gentlemen. Our own Gestapo. I can't say I haven't been expecting it. But HOW can ANY member of Congress support such a thing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]