Where does spying end?

sfgate

ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING? You’ve got to be kidding.

That was the basic message delivered by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as he aggressively defended the administration’s secret surveillance program that brazenly circumvents the judicial-review requirements of the 1978 Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act.

But Gonzales’ soothing reassurances merely succeeded in raising additional doubts about whether the administration believes there are any limits on a president’s powers — and what other surveillance programs it may already have instituted.

Over and over again, Gonzales said he was unable to provide “operational details” about the administration’s “terrorist surveillance program,”

Gonzales’ “bobbing and weaving,” as Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., described it, began from the opening gavel. He responded evasively to a question from Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Judiciary Committee chair, as to why the administration had not asked the secret court set up by FISA for its opinion about the legality of the administration’s surveillance program.

He was equally unconvincing in explaining why the administration had not come to Congress to amend the FISA legislation. As several senators noted, on five previous occasions, Congress had agreed to revise FISA provisions. Several Republican lawmakers conceded that the administration would have been in a stronger position if it had sought congressional approval.

Using the “operational detail” defense, he declined to provide details about how many people had been subjected to wiretapping without court approval, who they were, how they were selected, how long the surveillance lasted, or would last, how or when people might be dropped from the program — and what happened to records of those no longer being monitored.

Gonzales insisted the program has helped identify would-be terrorists in the United States, and helped deter attacks here and abroad. But he wouldn’t say whether the surveillance had resulted in any actual arrests or criminal referrals.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., mused aloud that the only reason the administration had not sought such approval was that the program is “bigger and much broader than you want anyone to know.”

Other Democrats voiced similar concerns. Schumer wanted to know if the administration had authorized searches of homes or placed listening devices there. “Our greatest fear is that the president is going way beyond what you are describing to us today,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. told Gonzales. Again, Gonzales refused to comment.

Potential constitutional violations cannot be glibly dismissed as an “operational detail.” The American people deserve to have far more answers than Gonzales was willing to provide Monday.