In his opening statement, Senator Leahy said:
Quote:
LEAHY: . . . The domestic spying program into e-mails and telephone calls apparently conducted by the National Security Agency was first reported by the New York Times on December 16, 2005.
The next day, President Bush publicly admitted that secret domestic wiretapping has been conducted without warrants since late 2001, and he's issued secret orders to do this more than 30 times.
LEAHY: We've asked for those presidential orders allowing secret eavesdropping on Americans. They have not been provided.
We've asked for official legal opinions of the government that the administration says justify this program. They too have been withheld from us. . . .
* * *
LEAHY: . . . In fact, in 2004, two years after you authorized the secret warrantless wiretapping program -- and this is a tape we're told we can't show -- the president said, quote, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
LEAHY: That was when he was running for re-election. Today we know, at the very least, that statement was misleading.
In his opening statement, Gonzales states the following:
Quote:GONZALES: The president has described the terrorist surveillance program in response to certain leaks, and my discussion in this open forum must be limited to those facts the president has publicly confirmed: nothing more.
When I was watching the hearing on C-Span yesterday, this was a common theme. Gonzales limited his testimony to the NARROWLY described program that the president has confirmed--that the "terrorist surveillance program" is limited to targets whom the intelligence officers reasonably believe have ties to al Qaida.
BUT, as some senators pointed out, if the program was as narrowly tailored as the president and Gonzales claim the program to be, then FISA is more than adequate for the government's needs. It was pointed out that there would be no need to bypass FISA unless the president's secret program was much broader than what the president has been willing to disclose, admit, or confirm.
And, throughout the day as the senators continued to question and as Gonzales continued to answer--it became extremely apparent to me that the program is INDEED MUCH BROADER than what our lying president has admitted.
When Gonzales was questioned about the criticism of the program from former goverment employees/officers----Gonzales was quick to minimize the criticism. He pointed out that their criticism was not directed at the part of the program that the president has confirmed--but directed at OTHER PORTIONS of the program (that he wasn't at liberty to discuss). This demonstrates that the program is much broader in scope than what the president has said.
When Gonzales was questioned whether the government had wiretapped purely domestic communications or searched or bugged American citizens in their homes or offices, Gonzales refused to answer claiming he could not disclose the operational details of classified programs. He continued to stress that his testimony was LIMITED to what the president had "confirmed" due to leaks and nothing else.
Gonzales has justified the president's secret program by claiming it has helped the government IDENTIFY terrorists. It was pointed out, however, that no one has heard any reports about these allegedly identified terrorists being arrested. When asked if these identified terrorists were arrested, Gonzales refused to answer claiming that he could not disclose the operational details of the program. But, identifying potential threats through fishing expeditions is far different from a program that monitors people based on probable cause or a lesser standard known as reasonable suspicion.
When Gonzales was questioned about the alleged GAPS in FISA that made the president believe that the secret executive program was necessary, it was stressed that FISA only allowed electronic surveillance of targets upon a showing of probable cause that the target is a terrorist or affiliated with a terrorist organization. Gonzales agreed that the PROBLEM with FISA is that it is UNUSABLE to discover who is a terrorist. FISA works fine when we want to conduct electronic surveillance of targets with KNOWN ties to terrorism, but it doesn't help the government to discover who those people are in the first instance. Accordingly, the government wants to conduct electronic surveillance (fishing expeditions) of communications WITHOUT any individualized suspicion in order to discover / identify who may be a threat.
Gonzales noted that the intelligence surveillance officer based on his training and experience generally knows what to look for--but under the Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" prong, reasonable officers make mistakes--and he compares the intelligence surveillance officer to the law enforcement officer "on the beat." For the significance of this statement, one need only review Terry v. Ohio.
Certainly, an officer on the beat can observe (with his eyes) the movements/actions of individuals and, based on training and experience, articulate facts that constitute a reasonable suspicion (watered down standard) that criminal activity might be afoot. Based on that reasonable suspicion, the officer might conduct an investigative stop of the person and might conduct a pat-down of the person's outer clothing to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. The pat-down search, based on less than probable cause, is allowed for the officer's safety.
But, one needs to compare the Terry decision to the Katz decision. There is a world of difference between suspicious conduct that a person might display in plain view for anyone to see versus private conversations that a person might have that are protected from prying ears.
Gonzales' testimony indicates that the president's secret program is NOT narrowly limited to targeting persons with KNOWN ties to terrorism as the president has claimed. NSA intelligence officers, like officers on the beat (who would, for example, observe and monitor all persons walking past a jewelry store that is vulnerable to an armed robbery), are listening in on and monitoring all electronic communications regardless of any individualized suspicion in hopes of finding something (an articulable suspicion) that would help them to IDENTIFY a potential threat. The president's secret executive branch program is not narrowly limited as he claims nor does it respect the civil liberties of the American people. It is broad-scale spying on American citizens in hopes of identifying members of a "fifth column movement."
Sorry, wrong transcript. I hope you like this one better.
