An exchange from yesterday's hearing worth highlighting. From the LAT:
And this:Several Democrats argued that if the use-of-force resolution could be read to authorize warrantless electronic surveillance, it could open the way to warrantless physical searches of homes, people or property.
"If the president has that authority, does he also have the authority to wiretap Americans' domestic calls and e-mails under this authority if he feels it involves Al Qaeda activity?" asked Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.).
"I've said that that presents a different legal question, a possibly tough constitutional question," Gonzales replied. "And I am not comfortable, just off the cuff, talking about whether or not such activity would, in fact, be constitutional."
Leahy pressed him: "Are you doing that?"
"I can't give you assurances," Gonzales said. "That is not what the president has authorized for this program."
Leahy noted that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act had been amended repeatedly since 2001 at the administration's request.
"We have given you five amendments under FISA because you requested them. But you never came to us with this," Leahy said. "At least we have a press that tells us what you are doing, because you are not telling us."
In response, Gonzales gave a half-smile.
Posted by Laura at February 7, 2006 08:28 AMSen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said the administration's reluctance to fully brief Congress' intelligence committees on the program suggested that officials had something to hide.
"I can only believe — and this is my honest view — that this program is much bigger and much broader than you want anyone to know," she said.
As the hearing drew to a close, Specter said he remained unpersuaded by Gonzales' arguments, and he urged the administration to seek advice from Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act judges about what legislation would be needed to authorize the program.
He also urged members of congressional intelligence panels to review details of the program.
"The Al Qaeda threat is very weighty, but so is the equilibrium of our constitutional system," Specter said.