World > >Terrorism & Security
posted December 19, 2005 at 12:25 p.m.

Senators want investigation into eavesdropping program

Bush defends program as essential antiterror tool, and asks nation to have patience on Iraq.

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

At a year-end televised news conference Monday, President Bush vigorously deflected congressional criticism over his decision to spy on suspected terrorists without court warrants, saying it was necessary and legal under constitutional law. He called the surveillance carried out by the National Security Agency an "essential element in the war on terror."

Democratic and Republican senators Sunday separately called for an investigation into the president's post-9/11 decision to allow the NSA to conduct domestic eavesdropping without court approval. The Associated Press reports that Sen. Arlen Specter (R) of Pennsylvania, striking a more moderate note than he did on Friday, said he intended to hold hearings. "They [administration officials] talk about constitutional authority," Specter said. "There are limits as to what the president can do."

CNN reports that Specter cautioned against politicizing the issue, but said that he wanted to know why the White House didn't go to the Federal Intelligence Security Act," [FISA] which sets up a special court to authorize national security wiretaps. "That's what I really want to ask them."

The Boston Globe reports that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina also expressed concerns about the use of domestic surveillence without court warrants: "We have to resolve the issue to show Americans we are nation of law, not outcomes." The Globe went on:


12/16/05 Bush allowed spying on Americans in US after 9/11 12/15/05 Pentagon accused of spying on Americans 12/14/05 US, British troop reductions may begin after Thursday elections

Sign up to be notified daily: Find out more. Subscribe via RSS: What is this?

"We cannot set aside the rule of law in a time of war, because that's what we're fighting for in Iraq, for them to follow the law, not an outcome," Graham, of South Carolina, said yesterday on CBS's "Face the Nation." Graham, a lawyer, said he did not know of any legal basis the president might have to order wiretaps without first getting a warrant from a special court set up to review such requests.
"What statute would give the authority of the president to collaborate with a handful of congressmen and senators [without getting] a warrant? What executive order or constitutional provision would give the authority of the president to avoid the warrant requirement?" Graham asked. "There may be some. I just don't know of it. But if there is not any, that's a problem," he said.

Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona agreed that hearings were needed. But Senator McCain also said he took the president at his word that what he did was crucial to saving lives, but wanted to know why he didn't obtain warrants first. McCain said the fact that some congressional leaders were consulted was an important element to the story.

The Financial Times says the administration's claim that the president has constitutional authority to order clandestine spying within the US could set up a confrontation with Congress and the courts over the extent of presidential authority.

On Sunday, the president shifted focus away from the eavesdropping controversy when he addressed the nation about the war in Iraq. In a prime-time address, ABCNews reports that Bush asked the nation to " carefully consider" the stakes in Iraq, and he also asked for Americans to be "patient."

The president was more candid than usual in his assessment of the situation in Iraq and in acknowledging his critics. He said the work in Iraq had been "especially difficult – more difficult than we expected" but said the only options were victory or defeat.
"Some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don't believe that," he said. But he also strongly stated that the United States was having successes. "Not only can we win the war in Iraq, we are winning the war in Iraq."

The Copley News Service reports that Bush predicted " more testing and sacrifice" and more deaths before he can withdraw US forces. He again did not give any timeline for a withdrawal. In an analysis piece for The Washington Post, Peter Baker writes that the president's more realistic view of the war in Iraq amounted to a " stark political change of course."

Bush addressed opponents of the war in a far more direct and, at moments, almost conciliatory manner, acknowledging that "this war is controversial" and saying he has heard those who disagree with him. "We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission," he said.
Yet as he signaled deference to their sincerity, he made clear he saw their approach as disastrous to the nation and he further drew a distinction "between honest critics who recognize what is wrong and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right."

The Post also noted that the president's new tone has helped him in Washington. "He's taken a step back, he's looked at his hole card," Rep. Dan Boren (D) of Oklahoma said in an interview after a recent meeting with the president. "He's grown as a leader."

The New York Daily News reports that some critics countered the president's remarks by saying that pulling the troops out of Iraq was the best way to get Iraqis to take over the fight.

"We have to say, look, folks, here's the incentive," Rep. John Murtha (D) of Pennsylvania said [Sunday night] on CNN, repeating a call that sparked a new chorus to withdraw. "You have a time line. You've got to be ready by the end of this time line and if you're not ready, we're pulling out."

At Monday's press conference, Mr. Bush also discussed the failure of prewar intelligence, acknowledging that it has made it harder for the US to confront what AP called "other potential emerging threats" such as Iran.

"Where it is going to be most difficult to make the case is in the public arena," Bush said. "People will say, if we're trying to make the case on Iran, `Well, if the intelligence failed in Iraq, therefore, how can we trust the intelligence on Iran?'"