Bush, Gonzales Catching Up to Critics About Wiretapping Program

Believe it or not, the elections of November 2006 propelled changes going beyond a new Congress. The domestic wiretapping program, a cornerstone of the NSA, will slowly die a quiet death. U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended the use of the program in a hearing Thursday. Suffice it to say, he did all he could to paint a happy face on such an open misuse of the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution.

Even he could realize that the winds of change have taken over the government. After all, the investigations due to oversight committees are beginning. "Scooter" Libby is now on trial (which alone sets precedents enabling sitting national leaders to testify). I need not say this again, but I must: the chickens are definitely coming home to roost. Watch the feathers fly in the coming days.

It won't be pretty. Feast your eyes on this short blurb from Reuters UK:

(I've included the juicy parts for your viewing pleasure on the blog)

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales fended off lawmakers on Thursday who demanded to know why the administration took more than five years to obtain court approval of its war-time domestic spying.

"I somewhat take issue ... with (Republican) Senator Arlen Specter's innuendo that this is something we could have pulled off the shelf and done in a matter of days or weeks," Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "This is a very complicated application. We worked on it a long time."

[...]


Critics have charged that President George W. Bush overstepped his authority after the Sept. 11 attacks with the domestic spying program as well as other measures such as holding terrorism suspects indefinitely without charges, and interrogations that some said amounted to torture.

Gonzales said the Justice Department had recently reached an agreement with a secret court, which gives out warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that would allow swift approval to monitor international communications.

[...]


Gonzales was noncommital, prompting Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, to ask: "Are you saying you might object to the court giving us decisions that you've publicly announced?"

Gonzales said, "There's going to be information about operational details about how we're doing this that we want to keep confidential."

[...]


Bush insisted he had inherent war-time presidential powers to order the spying program. However, Gonzales said the Justice Department stepped up efforts to bring it under FISA.

In a letter to congressional leaders on Wednesday, Gonzales said the program would not be renewed. Instead electronic surveillance would be subject to approval from the secret but independent FISA court, as demanded by critics.

Although the non-renewal of the program seems to be an attempt of contriteness on the part of appeasing the critics of the program, still Mr. Gonzales' statements did nothing to reassure the fact that the lesson has been learned about the overstepping of Executive Privilege. It is appalling that no one thought of going to the FISA court in 2001 when trying to implement this program. Instead, it seemed as if it was full steam ahead in terms of asserting power over the American people.

Mr. Gonzales' testimony today did nothing to resolve the conflict proposed by the need for an "Imperial Presidency" during wartime. Knowing his law credentials, even he has to realize that the system of Checks and Balances were there in order to place the President in check regarding matters such as this one. Unfortunately, hind-sight is 20/20. And now, closing the program is not going to sweep the past under the rug. The cases of Rasul v. Bush (2004) and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld(2006) saw to that.

This is yet another attempt to justify a program that clearly raised Constitutional questions about the rights of American citizens. In fact, to try and put a good side on wiretapping easily conveys a sense of dictatorship. That alone flies in the face of a democracy. In light of this, one has to wonder whether the Founding Fathers are turning in their graves with all the handiwork done regarding this program.

There isn't a sense of guilt over what has been done in the past. And judging from the comments, there wasn't nary a regret over questions regarding the program's uses and applications. Highlighting this issue only conveys that the dark days of the past cannot be erased so easily.