| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| CRS doubts legal rationale for NSA program |
| 2006-01-07 |
| President Bush's rationale for eavesdropping on Americans without warrants rests on questionable legal ground, and Congress does not appear to have given him the authority to order the surveillance, said a Congressional analysis released Friday. The analysis, by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan research arm of Congress, was the first official assessment of a question that has gripped Washington for three weeks: Did Mr. Bush act within the law when he ordered the National Security Agency, the country's most secretive spy agency, to eavesdrop on some Americans? The report, requested by several members of Congress, reached no bottom-line conclusions on the legality of the program, in part because it said so many details remained classified. But it raised numerous doubts about the power to bypass Congress in ordering such operations, saying the legal rationale "does not seem to be as well grounded" as the administration's lawyers have argued. The administration quickly disputed several conclusions in the report. The report was particularly critical of a central administration justification for the program, that Congress had effectively approved such eavesdropping soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force" against the terrorist groups responsible. Congress "does not appear to have authorized or acquiesced in such surveillance," the report said, adding that the administration reading of some provisions of federal wiretap law could render them "meaningless." The president acknowledged last month that he had given the security agency the power to eavesdrop on the international telephone and e-mail communications of Americans and others in the United States without a warrant if they were suspected of ties to Al Qaeda. The Justice Department is investigating the disclosure of the program, first reported in The New York Times. With Congressional hearings expected this month, the Congressional research report intensified debate on the program. Administration lawyers quickly responded that Mr. Bush had acted within his constitutional and statutory powers. "The president has made clear that he will use his constitutional and statutory authorities to protect the American people from further terrorist attacks," said Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman, adding that the program represented "a critical tool in the war on terror that saves lives and protects civil liberties at the same time." Many Democrats and some Republicans pointed to the findings as perhaps the strongest indication that Mr. Bush might have exceeded his authority in fighting terrorism. Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, who leads the House Democratic Policy Committee, said the report "raises serious questions about the president's legal authority to conduct domestic spying." Mr. Miller said the justifications for the program were unacceptable. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said the report made "absolutely clear that the legal authorities advanced by the president in justifying domestic surveillance are on very shaky ground." Thomas H. Kean, a Republican who was chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, weighed in for the first time in the debate. Mr. Kean said he counted himself among those who doubted the legality of the program. He said in an interview that the administration did not inform his commission about the program and that he wished it had. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress passed in 1978 after widespread abuses by intelligence agencies, created a system for court-ordered wiretaps for terrorism and espionage suspects. That system "gives very broad powers to the president and, except in very rare circumstances, in my view ought to be used," Mr. Kean said. "We live by a system of checks and balances," he said. "And I think we ought to continue to live by a system of checks and balances." One reason the administration has cited for not seeking to change the intelligence law and obtain specific approvals for eavesdropping was that it might "tip off" terrorists to the program. The Congressional research service found that unconvincing. "No legal precedent appears to have been presented," the study said, "that would support the president's authority to bypass the statutory route when legislation is required" simply because of secrecy. Opinions on domestic spying have largely broken down, though not exclusively, along partisan lines, causing splits between the top Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. The analyses of the Congressional Research Service, part of the Library of Congress created in 1914, are generally seen as objective and without partisan taint, said Eleanor Hill, staff director of the Congressional inquiry on the Sept. 11 attacks. Because of its importance, the report was repeatedly reviewed by senior staff members at the research service for accuracy and bias before its release, officials there said. Some Democrats say the administration bypassed the authority of Congress in ordering the eavesdropping. One congressman said he was actively misled. In a letter released Friday, Representative Rush D. Holt, a New Jersey Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, complained to the N.S.A. over what he described as deception by its director, Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander of the Army. Mr. Holt, a physicist who has worked as an arms control specialist at the State Department, visited the agency on Dec. 6 for a briefing by General Alexander and agency lawyers about protecting Americans' privacy. The officials assured him, Mr. Holt said, that the agency singled out Americans for eavesdropping only under warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. After the program was disclosed, Mr. Holt wrote a blistering letter to General Alexander, expressing "considerable anger" over being misled. An agency spokesman, Don Weber, declined to comment on the letter. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #9 I thiught CRS meant Can't Remember Shit. It looks like the CRS can't remember what it's really about. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2006-01-07 17:41 |
| #8 "He [Thomas H. Kean] said in an interview that the administration did not inform his commission about the program and that he wished it had." WTF am I missing? Why would the High Priests of the 9/11 Commission be informed about an ongoing operation after the fact? "...just another *unelected* body looking for undeserved influence just like any lobbying group out there." Zhang Fei Word! |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-01-07 16:06 |
| #7 Complete CRS memorendum on NSA http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf Extracts from About CRS As an attorney in the American Law Division, one is exposed to the myriad legal issues that confront Congress. The day's newspaper headlines may be quickly translated into congressional inquiries to CRS and the Law Division... Over 80% of the attorney staff has been with the Division for ten years or more... --http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/divwork/aldwork.html |
| Posted by: Ulotle Wholuse7269 2006-01-07 13:22 |
| #6 The Donks are talking impeachment. I am not going to accept a coup d'etat from the Dhims. Comments? |
| Posted by: SR-71 2006-01-07 12:24 |
| #5 CRS non-partisan? My ass. It's populated by the typical donk government employee. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2006-01-07 09:51 |
| #4 For those who forgot - SJR:23, 12 Sept 2001. NB War Powers One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'. SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. Speaker of the House of Representatives. Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate. |
| Posted by: Snater Unurong5332 2006-01-07 08:55 |
| #3 Funny, I don't recall the constitution mentioning the Congressional Research Service. I don't recall that Tom Kean is a congressman. What I do recall is the September 11 Commission being a complete waste of time, and just another *unelected* body looking for undeserved influence just like any lobbying group out there. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-01-07 02:04 |
| #2 Congress is behaving cravenly. The donks are trying to deny they were briefed and approved (see : Harmon, Jane, D- Dickless), even though it was above and beyond what the constitution requires. The remainder ankle bite with statements hurting morale and encouraging terorists, yet voting against same when forced to take a public position via vote. Disgusting and W could make them pay dearly for their craven defeatism and transparent opportunism...will he? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-01-07 01:20 |
| #1 Funny, I don't recall reading about the CRS in the Constitution. I do, however, recall the duties of the President - the head of the Executive Branch. The Dithering and Theft Branch, a.k.a. Legilative Branch, can go piss up a rope. They can take their extra-constitutional CRS political poofta creation with them - and the wankfest will ensue unabated... and unrequited. Focus: Leakers. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-01-07 01:11 |