ABU AL GOES TO THE SENATE

Alberto Gonzales, a former attorney for Enron, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, January 18th and contradicted what the Bush regime and its allies in the wingnut media had been saying for months: The FISA Court process is too slow for us to defend the American people.

(From Lexis-Nexis)

Copyright 2007 Federal News Service, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Federal News Service
January 18, 2007 Thursday

[NOTE: this is from his prepared opening remarks]

GONZALES: Court orders issued last week by a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will enable the government to conduct electronic surveillance -- very specifically surveillance into or out of the United States where there is probable cause to believe that one of the communicants is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization, subject to the approval of the FISA court.

We believe that the court's orders will allow the necessary speed and agility the government needs to protect our nation from a terrorist threat.

Later on, Al affirms that this change will not affect our national security:

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: And let me say one thing in response to some stories that I read. The president of the United States would not have authorized the action that was disclosed yesterday if there was any doubt in his mind that it would make the United States any less safe. He had been advised by the director of National Intelligence, by the director of the NSA, that this is something that we can do and still maintain the same level of safety and security for the United States of America. I mean, that is his number one priority, and that's -- that is what we kept in mind as we tried to find a way to bring this program under the -- under FISA.

[snip]

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: Your characterization that the program is terminated -- the country is no less safe today. I mean, the fact that the program will be -- that there will be electronic surveillance of the enemy during a time of war will continue. The country will not be any less safe. It will be conducted under the FISA court. I just want to -- I don't want the American people to think that somehow the -- you know, the president has backed off in any way from his commitment to doing what he can do under the law to protect America.


Al repeatedly claims that the previous decision by Pres. Fredo to bypass FISA was legal:

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: Senator, I must -- I must just say that we continue to believe that what's happened in the past, the president's actions, were, of course, lawful.

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: We still believe - we believe - my belief is that the actions taken by the administration, by this president, were lawful, in the past.

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: Quite the contrary: We believed and believe today that what the president is doing is lawful.

Abu Al seems to lie to Sen. Leahy about opening mail:

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: What I'm saying, Senator, is that, to my knowledge, there is no ongoing physical searches of mail under the authority we've claimed under the authorization to use military force or under the president's inherent authority under the Constitution. As I far as I know, that's not going --

SEN. LEAHY: None ongoing. Has there been some?

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: Not that I'm aware of. No, sir.

[snip]

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: Senator, I'm not prepared to answer that question. I think for purposes of today's hearing, I think it's important for everyone to note that as far as I know, there is no ongoing physical searches of mail under the authorization to use military force.

SEN. LEAHY: And there hasn't been?

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: And there - to my knowledge, there hasn't been any kind of authorization in that manner.

SEN. LEAHY: Would you know if there was?
ATTY GEN. GONZALES: I suspect that I would know, sir; yes, sir.

I guess Al missed this story:

Homeland Security opening private mail
Retired professor confused, angered when letter from abroad is opened
By Brock N. Meeks
Chief Washington correspondent
MSNBC
Updated: 5:55 p.m. ET Jan. 6, 2006

WASHINGTON - In the 50 years that Grant Goodman has known and corresponded with a colleague in the Philippines he never had any reason to suspect that their friendship was anything but spectacularly ordinary.

Last month Goodman, an 81-year-old retired University of Kansas history professor, received a letter from his friend in the Philippines that had been opened and resealed with a strip of dark green tape bearing the words “by Border Protection” and carrying the official Homeland Security seal.

The letter comes from a retired Filipino history professor; Goodman declined to identify her. And although the Philippines is on the U.S. government’s radar screen as a potential spawning ground for Muslim-related terrorism, Goodman said his friend is a devout Catholic and not given to supporting such causes.

Here's a tidbit about the FISA Court that I didn't know:

SEN. SCHUMER: -- that we don't know what type of warrants are being approved by the FISA court. Is it two? Is it 10? Is it 20, and whether it's individual? And third, we don't know what type, what brought this all about - how long the negotiations took, the way it came about, et cetera. Remember, the FISA court is a secret court. The FISA court has no Supreme Court review. Now that's not your doing; that's established by statute.

Finally, here's Abu Al on a 800 year-old legal tradition, Habeas Corpus:

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: I meant by that comment the Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States, or every citizen, is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by --

Al expands on this later:

SEN. LEAHY: Of course.
Mr. Attorney General, let me just make a short observation, and it's -- and I wish Senator Specter was back here -- but you made a comment with him when you were speaking about habeas corpus, and it troubles me. You argued that the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to habeas corpus because of the negative construction. What it literally does is prohibits the Congress from suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus except in cases of rebellion or invasion. Well, many of our most cherished rights are guaranteed by the Constitution in much the same way. For example, the First Amendment is also a negative construction. It prohibits Congress from making laws infringing on religious freedom and our freedom of speech, but you wouldn't -- you wouldn't say that it doesn't guarantee free speech and religion. Fifth Amendment is negative. It prohibits government from overreaching in the deprivation of life and liberty and property without due process of law. And, I mean, I could go into the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment. But you see what I'm doing. They don't lay out a right. They prohibit you from taking away a right. So why wouldn't that apply -- the same thing -- to that writ of habeas corpus?

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: I don't disagree at all, Mr. Chairman. I was just simply making an observation that there isn't an express grant. My understanding is that in the debate during the framing of the Constitution there was discussion as to whether or not there should be an express grant, and the decision was made not to do so. But what you see in the language is a compromise. I think the fact that in 1789 by the Judiciary Act that they passed statutory habeas for the first time may reflect, maybe, I don't want to say a concern, but why pass a statutory right so soon after the Constitution? Perhaps because it wasn't an express grant of habeas. believe that the right of habeas is something that's very, very important, one of the most -- our -- one of our most cherished rights. And so I was simply making an observation as to the literal language of the Constitution.