Skip navigation
Alerts  Newsletters  RSS  Help  
MSN HomeHotmail
MSNBC News
U.S. News
Politics
Crime & Punishment
After the Storms
U.S. Life
U.S. Security
Education
Environment
Race in America
Only on MSNBC.com
WP.com Highlights
Peculiar Postings
News Video
U.S. News
World News
Business
Sports
Entertainment
Health
Tech / Science
Weather
Travel
Blogs Etc.
Local News
Newsweek
Multimedia
Most Popular
NBC NEWS
MSNBC TV
Today Show
Nightly News
Meet the Press
Dateline NBC
MSNBC ClassifiedsShoppingJobsPersonals with Perfectmatch.comAutosReal Estate with HomePages.com
Advertisement
Sponsors:
MSNBC Home » U.S. News » U.S. Security

Gonzales makes case for surveillance program

Republican chairman reminds him president ‘does not have blank check’

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington
Kevin Lamarque / Reuters
U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defends the Bush administration's warantless spying program before members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill Monday.
  RSS FEEDS ON MSNBC.COM

Add these headlines to your news reader

International Terrorism News 
U.S. Security News 
FREE VIDEO
Launch
Specter interview
Feb 5: Tim Russert of NBC’s “Meet the Press” speaks with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter.

Meet the Press

MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 3:12 p.m. ET Feb. 6, 2006

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales insisted Monday that President Bush is fully empowered to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants as part of the war on terror. He exhorted Congress not to end or tinker with the program.

Gonzales’ strong defense of Bush’s program was challenged by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and committee Democrats during sometimes contentious questioning.

Specter told Gonzales that even the Supreme Court had ruled that “the president does not have a blank check.” Specter suggested that the program’s legality be reviewed by a special federal court set up by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement

The attorney general sidestepped the question directly, just saying, “Obviously, we would consider and are always considering methods of fighting the war effectively against Al Qaida.”

However, he said that court was already quite familiar with the program. He also said he did not think the 1978 law needed to be modified.

And, said Gonzales, “To end the program now would afford our enemy dangerous and potential deadly new room for operation within our borders.”

White House reaction
At the White House, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan declined to say how the administration would respond to Specter’s suggestion that the program be reviewed by the special federal court. McClellan said he didn’t want to provide “on-the-spot analysis” of Gonzales’ testimony or “get into ruling things in, or out, from this podium.”

“This is something that we’ve briefed members of Congress on over the course of the last several years. We will continue to brief members of Congress about this vital program,” McClellan said. The administration gave classified updates on the surveillance program to just eight congressional leaders.

Specter told Gonzales that federal law “has a forceful and blanket prohibition against any electronic surveillance without a court order.”

While the president claims he has the authority to order such surveillance, Specter said, “I am skeptical of that interpretation.”

A former Texas judge, Gonzales played an important role as White House counsel in developing the legal justification for the spy program. He served in that post from January 2001 to February 2005.

Sharp questions from Democrats
Committee Democrats, who have generally contended that Bush is acting illegally in permitting domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency, sharply grilled Gonzales.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked if the authorization Bush claims to have would also enable the government to open mail — in addition to monitoring voice and electronic communications.

“There is all kinds of wild speculation out there about what the president has authorized and what we’re actually doing,” Gonzales said.

“You’re not answering my question,” Leahy retorted. “Does this law authorize the opening of first class mail of U.S. citizens? Yes or no.”

“That’s not what’s going on,” Gonzales said. “We are only focusing on international communications, where one part of the conversation is al-Qaida.”

Gonzales said the fact that the nation is at war gives the president more powers than during peacetime. “The president is acting with authority both by the Constitution and by statute,” he said.

Gonzales called the eavesdropping program “reasonable” and “lawful,” and said much of the published criticism about it was “misinformed, confused or wrong.”

Confrontation from the start
Monday’s hearing got off to a rocky start when Republicans and Democrats disagreed over whether Gonzales should be sworn in. Democrats said he should, but Specter said it wasn’t necessary.

He wasn’t. “My answers would be the same whether I was under oath or not,” Gonzales told the panel.

Gonzales reiterated the administration’s contention that Bush was authorized to allow the NSA to eavesdrop, without first obtaining warrants, on people inside the United States whose calls or e-mails may be linked to terrorism.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., told Gonzales the administration broke with the time-honored system of checks and balances by not seeking greater congressional cooperation.

   Rate this story    Low  Rate it 0.5Rate it 1Rate it 1.5Rate it 2Rate it 2.5Rate it 3Rate it 3.5Rate it 4Rate it 4.5Rate it 5 High
     • View Top Rated stories

 
advertisement

advertisement
Shopping on MSN