Gonzales makes case for surveillance program

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 terrorism. 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.

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.

NSA official explains scope of program
A senior National Security Agency official told NBC News on Monday that “at no time were there ever more than 100 Americans” having their communications intercepted by the agency. The official would not confirm the total figure of 5,000 reported over the weekend by The Washington Post, but would not deny it either.

The official also said that he knows “of no law prohibiting the NSA from intercepting anything but phone calls,” indicating the NSA believes it can, within the law, intercept other communications like e-mails and instant messages.

The growth in al-Qaida and other terrorist groups' use of digital communications, along with the understanding of the threat, has led to a dramatic increase in the number of NSA analysts by 100-fold, from 40 on Sept. 11, 2001 to more than 4,000 today. The official specifically mentioned al-Qaida's use of instant messaging as one reason for the increase in analysts.

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

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.

MORE FROM SECURITY

Security Section Front

Border Patrol struggles to keep new hires Newsweek: First U.S. terrorism museum opens Judge orders testimony release in spy case Border fence blunder: It causes flooding U.S.-Mexico border tightened over drug wars Security Section Front   Add Security headlines to your news reader: