Statute of Limitations extends past 2008.
Washington -- House Democrats warned President Bush, top leaders of his administration and officials of the National Security Agency on Friday that if the political climate changes they could face criminal prosecution for ordering and carrying out warrant-less domestic eavesdropping.
"These are clearly crimes and the statute of limitations extends beyond this president's term,'' which will end in January 2009, said Rep. Jerry Nadler D-N.Y., at an ad hoc hearing called by House Judiciary Committee's Democrats to assail Bush's contention that his order for warrant-less domestic wiretaps on American citizens is legal.
Another member, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena, said, "I hope the administration ceases and desists, at least out of respect for their own liability.''
Democrats gathered in a basement meeting room of the Rayburn House Office Building because the House's Republican leaders wouldn't grant access to the Judiciary Committee's regular room. So far, the House committee hasn't scheduled any hearings into the domestic eavesdropping furor.
Bush critics say the security agency activities ordered by the president are illegal. Some have called for appointment of a special counsel to look into the issue, but House Democrats suggested they would launch investigative hearings if they win control of the House in November's elections.
They would need a net gain of 15 seats to retake the House, which Republicans have controlled since the 1994 election. Democrats held the informal hearing on Friday to press Republicans to investigate the eavesdropping.
"The House should be having hearings, official hearings with subpoena power, to look into this and to take action. I hope that this hearing will lead to that,'' Nadler added. "I do not trust that it will because I do not believe that the current leaders of this House have the gumption to stand up for the Constitution. I hope I'm proved wrong.''
The administration staunchly defends the domestic spying program, which was disclosed by the New York Times in mid-December, stirring a continuing controversy. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales issued a 42-page legal white paper on Thursday saying Bush acted within his powers as a wartime president to prevent another terrorist strike on the United States.
The president doesn't have to comply with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires a warrant for domestic eavesdropping in cases involving suspected foreign agents, because Congress gave him extraordinary powers when it authorized the use of force against al Qaeda in October 2001, Gonzales added. Many in Congress dispute that notion, saying the legislative history shows the idea of giving the president such power was considered, but was dropped from the final resolution.
The Justice Department also contended that Bush's inherent wartime powers trump the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable or warrant-less searches.
To Bush critics, it's all legal doubletalk.
"Our forefathers understood that 'trust me' was not good enough for protecting civil liberties,'' Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general under Republican former President Ronald Reagan, told the Democrats' ad hoc meeting.
Fein said he believes Bush broke the law in ordering the domestic activity by the National Security Agency. He also said that because the war on terrorism is open-ended, Bush's assertion of special powers would amount to a long-term loss of civil liberties.
Asked if Bush's actions constitute the high crimes and misdemeanors sufficient for impeaching him, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said he felt they did.
"If you believe the president violated criminal provisions of the law, I don't see how it wouldn't qualify. ... If the president commits a criminal act, you are obligated to hold impeachment hearings,'' Turley said.
While the House Judiciary Committee has not scheduled any hearings into the snooping, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has scheduled a Feb. 6 session to question Gonzales.
In preparation for that testimony, the White House has begun a campaign to woo public opinion.
On Wednesday, Bush will visit the top-secret National Security Agency headquarters at Ford Meade, Md., just outside Washington.
Gonzales is scheduled to give a speech about the program Tuesday. Deputy national intelligence director Mike Hayden, who headed the security agency when Bush started the program in October 2001, is scheduled to speak Monday at the National Press Club.
"We are stepping up our efforts to educate the American people," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
"This is a critical tool that helps us save lives and prevent attacks," he said. "It is limited and targeted to al Qaeda communications, with the focus being on detection and prevention."
The Bush administration says that it informed congressional leaders of both parties about the program over the past four years and that no one objected.
Two of the Democrats who were briefed, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, said they raised objections, and they have produced declassified letters they wrote early on to back up their claims. They say they didn't do more because of secrecy rules involving intelligence briefings.
But on Friday, they joined two other top Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Rep. Jane Harman of Rancho Palos Verdes (Los Angeles County), in sending Vice President Dick Cheney a letter asking that in the future, all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees be briefed on secret programs.
"The people's elected representatives are entitled to much more information about this program than the administration has thus far provided,'' said the letter, which was addressed to Cheney because he has been involved in the congressional briefings.
E-mail Edward Epstein at eepstein@sfchronicle.com.
Page A - 4
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/01/21/MNGNEGQPIR1.DTL
There is still such a thing as a citizen's arrest, is there not?
Perhaps, Rethugs in Congress, who refuse to do their duty of Congressional oversight, should be warned that they, too, could be charged with a crime, Obstruction of Justice, for example.
No comments:
Post a Comment