Monday, December 19, 2005
AP: Alberto says congress OKd spying
By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer - 25 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Responding to a congressional uproar, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, left, said Monday that Congress had essentially giventhe authority for domestic surveillance after the Sept. 11 attacks.
In a round of television appearances, Gonzales provided a more detailed legal rationale for Bush's decision authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails of people within the United States without seeking warrants from courts.
Gonzales said he had begun meeting with members of Congress on the Bush administration's view that Congress' authorization of the use of military force after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks was ample authorization for the surveillance.
"Our position is that the authorization to use military force which was passed by the Congress shortly after Sept. 11 constitutes that authority," Gonzales said on CBS' "Early Show."
It was the most detailed legal explanation given by an administration officials since the New York Times reported Thursday that since October 2001 Bush had authorized the NSA to conduct the surveillance.
Gonzales said Congress' action after Sept. 11 essentially "does give permission for the president of the United States to engage in this kind of very limited, targeted electronic surveillance against our enemy."
The domestic spying revelations has created an uproar in Congress, with Democrats and Republicans calling for an investigation.
"This is just an outrageous power grab," said Sen. Russ Feingold, right, (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis. on NBC's "Today" show. "Nobody, nobody thought when we passed a resolution to invade and to fight the war on terror ... that this was an authorization to allow a wiretapping against the law of the United States."
Democrats and Republicans called separately Sunday for congressional investigations into the domestic spying.
"They talk about constitutional authority," Specter said. "There are limits as to what the president can do."
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada also called for an investigation, and House Democratic leaders asked Speakerto create a bipartisan panel to do the same.
Bush acknowledged in his weekly radio address Saturday that he had authorized the spying, saying it was a necessary step in the war against terror .
The existence of the NSA program surfaced as Bush was fighting to save the expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the domestic anti-terrorism law enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Renewal of the law has stalled over some its most contentious provisions, including powers granted law enforcement to gain secret access to library and medical records and other personal data during investigations of suspected terrorist activity.
Source: AP-Yahoo News.
D.H.: Yeah, sure, Al; and there really is a Santa Claus and Easter Bunny. But George W. Bush is neither, and you're no constitutional scholar, either. So why don't you stick with suppressing GWB's jury summonses, which you've been very good at, beginning in 1995. Stick with what you know, Al, and it might get you a Supreme Court gig yet.
lawfirm webpage: www.haigler.info
political blog: http://demlog.blogspot.com
David Van Os
(posted by D.H.)
David Van Os
(posted by D.H.)
Dave---Santa is more real than Bush could ever be as an honest president. This makes me so mad that the government is doing this-- let's hope that Congress will get some balls of courage from Santa for a happy and more prosperous new year.
Is Jesus the reason for the season or is Bush just a damn-pig liar???
Can you believe he used the word: "Goddamned" when referring to our Constitution???
Bush is nothing but an evil, power hungry, hypocritical liar. How dare he do what he is doing?
And how dare he use God's name in vain!
(posted by d.h.)
<< Is Jesus the reason for the season or is Bush just a damn-pig liar???
<< Can you believe he used the word: "Goddamned" when referring to our Constitution???>>
Re the former, do i have to choose between the two, or can I say yes to both?
On the latter, yes, I can believe it. He is a lazy rich person who never had to stand for anything except himself. The Bush dynasty has been built on personal loyalty, not principle. The constitution, like everything else, is a means of self-aggrandizement, not something full of principles to uphold.
We need a majority in the House so we can begin impeachment.
I am glad the commentor above got offhis duff to write something.
Links to this post:
Donate to DemLog, a project of Marcus Comton (click on box below to go to PayPal and donate). Thank you very much: