TOPICS
TOPICS
Justice Department responds to lawmakers' wiretapping probe
Democrat John Conyers of Michigan dismissed as evasive and unresponsive the late Friday response from the Justice Department to a House Judiciary Committee inquiry into the National Security Agency program of wiretaps without warrants.
Justice's response said the agency, through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, could have legally monitored confidential communications between doctors and patients or attorneys and their clients.
"Although the program does not specifically target the communications of attorneys or physicians, calls involving such persons would not be categorically excluded from interception if they met" the program's criteria, the department said.
"The evasiveness of the department prevents Congress from exercising its constitutionally mandated oversight role and obstructs Congress' ability to draft meaningful legislation to provide guidelines for this activity," said Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary panel. "Some of the department's responses leave open the possibility that other surveillance programs exist with a scope far beyond this program."
In its answers to 45 separate questions posed by Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and committee Democrats, the department acknowledged that no previous administration had authorized electronic surveillance.
Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said there is an "obvious need for the oversight committees to pursue these requests."
Many legal rights are implicated when the administration conducts such surveillance within the United States, he said.
"The laws of the United States, both before and after FISA's enactment, have long permitted various forms of foreign intelligence surveillance, including the use of wiretaps, outside the procedures of FISA," the department said. "If the question is limited to 'electronic surveillance' as defined by FISA, however, we are unaware of such authorizations."
Justice would not reveal how many people in the United States have been wiretapped under the program. In response to inquiries by the committee, the department repeatedly characterized the information as "classified and sensitive," and said it could "not be revealed in this setting."
Robert Turner, associate director for the Center for National Security Law, said he believes "the president has an absolute right to deny national security secrets to Congress."
But the American Civil Liberties Union said it has been repeatedly frustrated by the department's refusal to answer basic questions about the wiretapping program.
"Knowing how many innocent Americans have had their privacy invaded by this lawless program is not an 'operational' secret. It's the very question a less partisan and more independent Congress asked and got answered in the 1970s," said Caroline Fredrickson, a director at the ACLU. "That's when Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to try to prevent warrant-less spying on Americans from happening again."
On the other side of the debate, Paul Kamenar, an attorney with the Washington Legal Foundation, said, "We support the program as far as what has been publicly released."
The foundation plans to file a brief in favor of the Justice Department in a pending ACLU case on the issue.
COMMENTS
- Ah, Amused Observer. Another cult member defending the Dear Leader. Why am I not surprised? Your attacks on everyone who fails to follow your leader blindly as "anti-American" are reminiscent of the vile tactics of Senator Joe McCarthy, accusing everyone who dared stand up to him of being a Communist. Have you no sense of decency, Sir? As you made no attempt to address the facts of the article, I am forced to conclude that you found no errors of fact. I am forced to conclude that you see nothing wrong with the government monitoring privileged communications, or the executive branch doing so without oversight from Congress or the courts. I am forced to conclude that you realize that the refusal to provide meaningful information to Congress makes it impossible for Congress to draft meaningful legislation on this subject, and that you have no problem with that. I am forced to conclude that you see no need for the executive to even remain on speaking terms with the other branches of government. This is disturbing. What limits are there on presidential power in your mind? Any at all? When George Bush ascended to power, did the American people elect a president, accountable to the country, with a duty to uphold our laws as stated in the Constitution? Or did they elect a god, with absolute, unrestricted, un-reviewable power, and no obligations save to abuse his office for the profit of himself and his cronies? I can tell which one you want. It's so much easier to just worship the Dear Leader, and never have to think for yourself. But the United States of America was not founded by people who took the easy way out. If you want to see an enemy of America, you need only look in a mirror. I voted for the moron, assuming he would be in office a maximum of eight years, and would be required to obey the law. I realized early on that I made the wrong choice. He shows no interest in the rule of law. I pray there is some force that can remove him from office when his term expires, before he declares himself King for all eternity. I have seen people thank God for the 22nd amendment, but I fear King George will show as little respect for that law as for all the others he has trampled on. Disgusted with cultists Posted March 28, 2006 2:35 PM
- Good to see the senile Conyers and the anti-American ACLU continue to work hard on the terrorist's Bill of Rights. Thanks to the Democrats and the loony left we will all soon need body armor in the United States. It is not enough for them to make the job more difficult in Iraq and Afghanistan -- they also want to make it easier to infiltrate and slay more of us at home. It’s hard to believe we tolerate these incredibly stupid people. At least enough of us in this country were sane enough to elect a strong leader as commander-in-chief (twice). Fire away loony-lefters! Amused Observer Posted March 28, 2006 7:08 AM
