San Diego Union Tribune: A nation of laws must examine domestic spying

[question everything]

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL
Lift the cloak

A nation of laws must examine domestic spying

February 9, 2006

There was nothing at all reassuring about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee to defend the Bush administration's spying on Americans without search warrants or judicial oversight of any kind. Rather, Gonzales' evasions and tangled legal claims seemed to stir even deeper reservations about the domestic surveillance program among Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike.

In his testimony, the attorney general did everything he could to keep the spying initiative cloaked in dark secrecy. He declined to say how many warrantless intercepts of phone calls and e-mails had been conducted, or whether the intelligence gathered from the eavesdropping had led to the capture of any terrorists. And he was vague and contradictory in describing the standards used by National Security Agency officials to target individuals in this country for wiretaps.

Even less persuasive were Gonzales' legal justifications for a covert program that runs counter to the Fourth Amendment and is a patent violation of a 1978 law adopted by Congress to prevent domestic spying abuses. The attorney general asserts that Congress effectively suspended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires court approval for government spying on Americans, when it authorized the president to use force against terrorists three days after the Sept. 11 attacks. In truth, there is not a single word in the congressional resolution about government surveillance or FISA. On this convoluted legal rationale rests most of the administration's sweeping assertions of unlimited presidential power to spy on Americans.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Republican supporter of Bush, was entirely correct when he declared that Gonzales' legal position “just defies logic and plain English.” Congress and the courts have an obligation to the rule of law to come squarely to grips with the glaring lack of judicial supervision and the absence of constitutional checks and balances that attend the NSA's clandestine spying. The issue is not whether the government should eavesdrop on the communications of suspected terrorists in this country. Of course it should. The sole issue is whether the government should be trusted to spy on Americans without search warrants or other legal safeguards.

(snip)


Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060209/news_lz1ed9top.html

[Uncle Joe]

1. The only thing this column forgot

was to urge congress to start impeachment proceedings if as they believe Bush broke the law.

[question everything]

2. Well, this is a very conservative San Diego Union Tribune

Still, a more traditional conservative, the way Republicans used to be, not the rabid Taliban that they have turned to be now.