ACLU Condemns Gonzales For Protecting National Security
Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales failed to answer direct, yet simple questions from senators surrounding the warrantless surveillance of Americans by the National Security Agency. The American Civil Liberties Union condemned that lack of transparency, noting that part of the role of the executive is to provide the legislative branch with ample information for proper oversight.
Transparency is what the ACLU wants from a program that was intended to be classified. That speaks volumes in my book. Here is how Gonzales concluded his speech.
I have highlighted the legal authority for the terrorist surveillance program. And I look forward to our discussion, and know that you appreciate there remain serious constraints of what I can say about operational details. Our enemy is listening. And I cannot help but wonder if they aren’t shaking their heads in amazement at the thought that anyone would imperil such a sensitive program by leaking its existence in the first place, and smiling at the prospect that we might now disclose even more or perhaps even unilaterally disarm ourselves of a key tool in the War on Terror. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
But for the ACLU, they want all the details released for the enemies to hear.
The following can be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:
“Attorney General Gonzales is supposed to represent the interests of the American people, and not the president. Sadly, the ‘people’s lawyer’ today hid behind the veil of national security and failed to answer simple and legitimate questions from Senators on both sides of the aisle. These were basic questions that would not have compromised ongoing national security operations. This lack of transparency undermines the ability of Congress to conduct much-needed oversight on this controversial program.
The veil of national security? This is how the ACLU dismiss such an important issue? What they imply is that the NSA program is nothing more than a program to spy on innocent Americans, and that National security is nothing more than a camoflauge for this means. The interests of the American people also includes national security and to have it referred to as nothing more than a ruse to hide some sort of sinister program to get inside America’s bedrooms in nothing more than downright deceit.
“Earlier, we had urged lawmakers to thoroughly question the attorney general. Sadly, he failed to answer the following simple questions: What laws the White House is referring to when the president has said the program is ‘legally right’; does the attorney general believe that the president, and not the Supreme Court, has the job of interpreting the law; how many Americans have had their conversations or e-mails monitored by the warrantless program; how much money has been wasted on inquiries into the private lives of innocent Americans; and if there are any limits to the broad powers that the president has claimed.
Mr. Gonzales told the panel today that the N.S.A. eavesdropping program is authorized by the section of the Constitution pertaining to presidential powers; that Congress gave specific authority with a sweeping resolution shortly after 9/11; and that nothing in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act regulating electronic eavesdropping is meant to block the N.S.A. program.
Sir, I believe that General Hayden, the deputy director of intelligence, yesterday, confirmed that before there is any interception, there is a determination made by an intelligence officers at NSA that, in fact, we have reasonable grounds to believe that one party in the communication is a member or agent of Al Qaida or an affiliated terrorist organization.
And we do have a great number of checks in place to ensure, I am told, by the operations folks that, to a great degree of certainty, a high degree of confidence, that these calls are solely international calls.
I believe he answered those questions just fine to the degree of not disclosing classified information to the very enemies we want to use this program against. The focus should be on the leaking of this classified information, as Senator Grassley noted:
GRASSLEY: I’m going to start with something that’s just peripheral to the issues we’re on, but it does deal with our national security, and it’s the leak of this information to the New York Times. And I’m greatly concerned about this. And these leaks could be putting our nation’s safety into serious jeopardy.
Could you tell us what is being done to investigate who leaked this national security information and whether the Department of Justice will initiate a prosecution of an individual leaking the information?GONZALES: Senator, we have confirmed the department has initiated an investigation into possible crimes here. And consistent with department practice, I’m not going to talk much further about an ongoing investigation.
Obviously, we have to look at the evidence, and if the evidence shows that a crime has been committed, then obviously we’ll have to make a decision about moving forward with a prosecution.
GRASSLEY: And I don’t blame you for this, but I don’t hear as much about public outcry about this leak as I did about Valerie Plame and the White House disclosures of her — or presumed disclosures of her identify of a CIA agent. And to me that’s a two-bit nothing compared to this sort of issue that we have before us of this information being leaked to the press.
The ACLU’s call for transparency on this vital program is irresponsible and telling.
If you are wondering where these journalist are getting their “Nixon” talking points, I can point you right where the ACLU started this propaganda. The democrats, once again are showing just how loony they are, and how little they care about National Security.
During this morning’s round of questions, Senator Biden (in 08!) prattled on about the NSA intercept program, wondering aloud whether or not the President had the authority to carry it out when all of a sudden out of the clear blue sky he asked Albert Gonzalez, the Attorney General of the United States, “When will this war be over.”
AJ Strata’s 2006 Democrat Contract With Al Qaeda isn’t too far off in reality, if at all.
Email This
Posted by Jay on February 6, 2006 11:48 pm
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL:
- Atlas Shrugs: FISA: The War on America
- NoisyRoom.net » ACLU Wants National Security ‘Transparent’ pinged this post.
- Suitably Flip: In Absentia
- Vince Aut Morire: ACLU Wants National Security 'Transparent'
- Church and State: Terrorist Bill of Rights
- The Dread Pundit Bluto: ACLU Wants National Security 'Transparent'
- Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator: Gonzales Defends Legality of Surveillance
Comments
4 Responses to “ACLU Condemns Gonzales For Protecting National Security”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
The perfidy of the ACLU and their allies in the Senate are finally coming to light. The only part of the hearings that had value was the Grassley exchange.
Gonzalas looked the congress in the eye and told them they could make laws till they were blue in the face and the president could ignore them. There is no check or balance now on the executive branch of government. Under King George it is now the only branch of government–at least, so he thinks.
Once again the left has reminded everyone why they can not be trusted with our national security. They may say “We support spying on terrorists” but they obviously don’t understand that its not what you say, its what you do that matters
Is this really any surprise? A conservative can led the charge to free the slaves (oh wait! One did!) and still get no credit from the ACLU.