Text 2038, 206 rader
Skriven 2006-01-22 23:33:14 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (060122) for Sun, 2006 Jan 22
===================================================
===========================================================================
Setting the Record Straight: Democrats Continue to Attack Terrorist
Surveillance Program
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
January 22, 2006

Setting the Record Straight: Democrats Continue to Attack Terrorist
Surveillance Program


ÿÿÿÿÿSetting the Record Straight

"The NSA's terrorist surveillance program is targeted at al Qaeda
communications coming into or going out of the United States. It is a
limited, hot pursuit effort by our intelligence community to detect and
prevent attacks. Senate Democrats continue to engage in misleading and
outlandish charges about this vital tool that helps us do exactly what the
9/11 Commission said we needed to do - connect the dots. It defies common
sense for Democrats to now claim the administration is acting outside its
authority while their own party leaders have been briefed more than a dozen
times - only after there was a leak and subsequent media coverage did they
start criticizing the program. Such irresponsible accusations will not keep
us from acting to stay a step ahead of a deadly enemy that is determined to
strike America again."

- Scott McClellan, White House Press Secretary

Setting The Record Straight On The Legality Of NSA Activities To Safeguard
Americans.

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Claims That The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program
Is Illegal. SEN. KERRY: "It is a violation of law. ... There's nothing in
the FISA law that we passed that suggests the President has this power."
(ABC's "This Week," 1/22/06)

    But The President's Authorization Of The Terrorist Surveillance Program
    Is Consistent With U.S. Law.

  þ The President Has The Inherent Authority Under The Constitution, As
    Commander-In-Chief, To Authorize The NSA Terrorist Surveillance
    Program. AG GONZALES: "I might also add that we also believe the
    President has the inherent authority under the Constitution, as
    Commander-in-Chief, to engage in this kind of activity. Signals
    intelligence has been a fundamental aspect of waging war since the
    Civil War, where we intercepted telegraphs, obviously, during the world
    wars, as we intercepted telegrams in and out of the United States.
    Signals intelligence is very important for the United States government
    to know what the enemy is doing, to know what the enemy is about to
    do." (The White House, Press Briefing, 12/19/05)

  þ The Congress Confirmed And Supplemented This Authority When It Passed
    The Authorization For The Use Of Military Force In The Wake Of The 9/11
    Attacks. AG GONZALES: "Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign
    Intelligence Surveillance Act ... requires a court order before
    engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the
    President announced on Saturday ... unless otherwise authorized by
    statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is,
    is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the
    Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other
    authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind
    of signals intelligence." (The White House, Press Briefing, 12/19/05)

  þ The Supreme Court Ruled That The AUMF's Authorization To "Use All
    Necessary And Appropriate Force" Encompasses The "Fundamental
    Incident[s] Of Waging War." AG GONZALES: "[O]ne might argue, now, wait
    a minute, there's nothing in the authorization to use force that
    specifically mentions electronic surveillance. Let me take you back to
    a case that the Supreme Court reviewed this past - in 2004, the Hamdi
    decision. ... [In Hamdi, the Supreme Court said that] it was clear and
    unmistakable that the Congress had authorized the detention of an
    American citizen captured on the battlefield as an enemy combatant for
    the remainder - the duration of the hostilities. So even though the
    authorization to use force did not mention the word, 'detention,' she
    felt that detention of enemy soldiers captured on the battlefield was a
    fundamental incident of waging war, and therefore, had been authorized
    by Congress when they used the words, 'authorize the President to use
    all necessary and appropriate force.'" (The White House, Press
    Briefing, 12/19/05)

  þ Interception Of Communications Has Been Authorized Since President
    Roosevelt In 1940. "[Interception of communications for foreign
    intelligence purposes] have been authorized by Presidents at least
    since the administration of Franklin Roosevelt in 1940." ("Legal
    Authorities Supporting The Activities Of The National Security Agency
    Described By The President," U.S. Department Of Justice, 1/19/06)

  þ Every Federal Appellate Court To Rule On The Issue Has Concluded That
    The President Has Inherent Authority To Conduct Warrantless Searches.
    "The courts uniformly have approved this longstanding Executive Branch
    practice. Indeed, every federal appellate court to rule on the question
    has concluded that, even in peacetime, the President has inherent
    constitutional authority, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, to
    conduct searches for foreign intelligence purposes without securing a
    judicial warrant." ("Legal Authorities Supporting The Activities Of The
    National Security Agency Described By The President," U.S. Department
    Of Justice, 1/19/06)

Setting The Record Straight On Congressional Briefings On The NSA Terrorist
Surveillance Program To Safeguard Americans.

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) Claims That The Administration Is Violating The
National Security Act Of 1947. REP. HARMAN: "I think the Administration is
violating the National Security Act of 1947 by failing to brief the full
intelligence committees." (ABC's "This Week," 1/22/06)

    But The Administration Has Repeatedly Briefed Congress On The NSA
    Terrorist Surveillance Program.

  þ Congressional Leaders "Have Been Briefed More Than A Dozen Times" On
    The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program. THE PRESIDENT: "Leaders in
    Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this
    authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence
    officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to
    ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent
    of the authorization." (President Bush, Radio Address, 12/17/05)

  þ Rep Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) Says That Members Of Congress Had Multiple
    Opportunities To Ask Questions And Express Concerns. REP. HOEKSTRA:
    "When the program began, I guess, roughly four years ago, you know,
    congressional leaders were brought in. The leadership of the House and
    the Senate, the leadership of the House and Senate intelligence
    committees - I've been chair for about 15 months - I've been briefed
    four times on this, I've been given every opportunity to ask questions
    about the program, to ask questions about the legality of the program,
    to understand the scope of the program and how it works and, most
    importantly, the impact it has. I've had every opportunity to get
    information on the program. And I have a responsibility, as the
    chairman of the Intelligence Committee, that if I believe the law is
    being broken to stand up in that meeting and say, stop it and we're
    going to do everything in Congress. The problem that we have right now
    is we have a whole bunch of Democrats who were for this program before
    they were against it and the only thing that has changed is that the
    story was illegally, in a damaging way, leaked to The New York Times."
    (ABC's "This Week," 1/22/06)

  þ These Briefings Are Fully Consistent With The National Security Act Of
    1947. The Act expressly states that Executive Branch briefings should
    be conducted in a manner consistent with "due regard for the protection
    from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to
    sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally
    sensitive matters." (50 USC 413a(a))

Setting The Record Straight On The Use Of The FISA Court.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Says The Administration Should Be Using The FISA
Court. FOX NEWS' CHRIS WALLACE: "Senator, let's talk about the NSA wiretap
program, though. We all saw the Osama bin Laden tape that came out late
this week. If someone from Al Qaida in Pakistan is calling someone here in
the U.S., don't you want to know what they're talking about?" SEN. DURBIN:
"Absolutely. And that's why we created the FISA court." (Fox News' "Fox
News Sunday," 1/22/06)

    But The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program Provides The Speed And
    Agility Needed To Prosecute The War On Terror.

  þ Former Clinton Administration Associate Attorney General Writes That
    "FISA Does Not Anticipate A Post-Sept. 11 Situation." "The
    administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to
    surveillance 'authorized by statute' is satisfied by congressional
    passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority
    to 'use all necessary and appropriate force' to prevent those
    responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The
    administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and
    expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent
    enemy action. But even if the NSA activity is 'electronic surveillance'
    and the Sept. 11 resolution is not 'statutory authorization' within the
    meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court
    of Review decision, 'encroach upon the president's constitutional
    power.' FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was
    needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance
    beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized
    case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court
    second-guessing that presidential judgment." (John Schmidt, Op-Ed,
    "President Had Legal Authority To OK Taps," The Chicago Tribune,
    12/21/05)

  þ The Government Continues To Use The FISA Court But Must Preserve The
    Flexibility To Act With Speed In All Circumstances. AG GONZALES: "Well,
    we continue to go to the FISA court and obtain orders. It is a very
    important tool that we continue to utilize. ... The operators out at
    NSA tell me that we don't have the speed and the agility that we need,
    in all circumstances, to deal with this new kind of enemy. You have to
    remember that FISA was passed by the Congress in 1978. There have been
    tremendous advances in technology ... since then." (The White House,
    Press Briefing, 12/19/05)

  þ Because Of Its Speed, The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program Has
    Provided Crucial Information Otherwise Not Available. GENERAL HAYDEN:
    "I can say unequivocally, all right, that we have got information
    through this program that would not otherwise have been available."
    QUESTION: "Through the court? Because of the speed that you got it?"
    GENERAL HAYDEN: "Yes, because of the speed, because of the procedures,
    because of the processes and requirements set up in the FISA process, I
    can say unequivocally that we have used this program in lieu of that
    and this program has been successful." (The White House, Press
    Briefing, 12/19/05)


# # #
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060122.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)