This morning,
Bob Herbert wrote out his list of questions that Alberto Gonzales should be most forced to answer. Now that the hearings are over, we will evaluate the questions that Gonzales answered and see if he answered the questions, ignored them, or spun them.
On every single one, Gonzales either ignored or spun them. Instead, he continued the hysterical Republican fear-mongering tactics by comparing this situation to that of a burning home. In addition, he even threw in a racist slur for good measure. But the problem is that we have not been bombed for the last five years. And two wrongs do not make a right; even if there were bombings on a regular basis, that would still not justify the illegal wiretapping programs, the weasel words of Gonzales, and the Bush administration systematically placing itself above the law.
Not only is this NSA spying program illegal because it involves spying on your e-mail and phone calls without a warrant, it has been totally ineffective. It has yielded hardly any suspects according to a February 4th Washington Post article.
Here are the questions that Herbert posed and how Gonzales answered them (or didn't):
Who is being spied upon, and why?
Spun.
"That review process can, of necessity, take precious time," Mr. Gonzales told the panel in a written statement. He argued that the steps to obtain warrants after the fact are far more cumbersome than is generally understood, and unnecessarily shackles a nation fighting a stateless, faceless enemy whose character was illustrated by a recent terrorist message: "The Islamic youth are preparing for you what will fill your hearts with horror."
Not only was this spun, this was a very racist comment that appeals to the worst instincts in people. In fact,
Almost the entire Muslim community condemned the attacks by Bin Laden on US soil. This includes some Muslims who had actively plotted attacks against our forces when we were in Lebanon. Bin Laden enjoyed a brief surge of support after we invaded Iraq in 2003, but those numbers have gone so far down that Bin Laden is marginalized. In one of his recent columns, Tom Friedman discusses how the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, one of our fiercest critics, has turned on Bin Laden. So, even Friedman, who had been fiercely critical of the Muslim community, has come around and admitted that Bin Laden is marginalized even within his own community.
How many Americans here in the United States -- or others who were lawfully in the country -- have had their phone conversations or e-mails intercepted without a warrant?
Spun. Gonzales tried to weasel out of this response:
BIDEN: Can you assure us, General, you are fully, totally informed and confident that you know the absolute detail with which this program is being conducted? Can you assure us you personally can assure us no one is being eavesdropped upon in the United States other than -- other than someone who has a communication that is emanating from foreign soil by a suspected terrorist, al Qaeda, or otherwise?
GONZALES: Sir, I can't give you absolute assurance.
So, Gonzales said he didn't know whether American citizens who had nothing to do with Bin Laden were being spied on or not. This, after he said that there weren't any.
Who determines what calls or e-mails are to be monitored in the U.S. without warrants, and what are their guidelines?
Spun.
Mr. Gonzales told the panel today that the N.S.A. eavesdropping program is authorized by the section of the Constitution pertaining to presidential powers; that Congress gave specific authority with a sweeping resolution shortly after 9/11; and that nothing in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act regulating electronic eavesdropping is meant to block the N.S.A. program. Finally, he said, the program has built-in safeguards and is regularly reviewed by government lawyers.
But what he didn't say is just as important as what he did say. He did not quote the section passed after 9/11 that supposedly gives the Bush administration such authority. He did not show the section in the FISA act showing that the President had such authority. He did not discuss the safeguards that were in place to prevent abuses of power, meaning maybe there are none.
How many of those who were spied upon were found to have been involved in terror-related activities? How many were referred to the F.B.I. or other agencies for further investigation?
Spun. Gonzales did not answer the question, but deputy National Security chief Michael Hayden fed Sunday morning viewers a steady stream of weasel words:
ABC's GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: The concern, of course, is that it's going to capture Americans that have nothing to do with al Qaeda.
HAYDEN: Right.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me try to give you a hypothetical. I went to Pakistan after 9/11. I interviewed a Taliban representative. If, after that interview, that person calls me, am I captured?
HAYDEN: I can't get into operational details, but the way we do this is based on the people most knowledgeable of al Qaeda, its communications, its intentions, its tactics, techniques and procedures. And so we really don't have the time or the resources, the linguists, to linger, to go after things that aren't going to protect the homeland.
Of course he would protect our homeland. This is because in their books, a terrorist is an environmentalist, an animal rights activist, or a peace activist. We are dealing with a nanny state in the Bush administration. They think the American people are too stupid to make their own decisions about such radical groups. Therefore, Bush concludes they need them to determine whose views are politically correct and acceptable to the public discourse and whose are not and therefore taintable by association with terrorists.
Of those who were referred, how many were cleared of wrongdoing?
Ignored. As the February 4th Washington Post points out, only 10 people a year are deemed serious enough threats for referral to law enforcement. Of those, none have been arrested.
What kind of information is being collected about people who are spied upon without warrants but are not referred to law enforcement agencies? How is that data being used, and how is it stored?
Ignored. As two Daily Kos posters noted while following the hearings, Gonzales refused to answer questions about whether or not this NSA stuff was being used for political purposes.
Is the government collecting information about the political views of the people who are being spied upon? With whom is that information being shared?
Ignored. He refused to answer the question.
FEINSTEIN: Can the president suspend, in secret or otherwise, the application of Section 503 of the National Security Act, which states that no covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies or media? In other words, can he engage in otherwise illegal propaganda?
GONZALES: Senator, this will probably be my response to all of your questions of these kind of hypotheticals. Questions as to whether or not -- can Congress pass a statute that is in tension with the President's constitutional authority? Those are very, very difficult questions, and for me to answer those questions sort of off the cuff, I think would not be responsible.
This is typical of Gonzales - whenever he gets a question that he can't answer, he calls them hypotheticals and refuses to answer the question.
What has been the nature and the extent of the objections from people inside the government to the warrantless spying?
Ignored. So, I'll tell him the answer - every single American President since Jimmy Carter has objected to this sort of illegal wiretapping. They did it for a simple reason - it is illegal and it doesn't work.
Throughout these hearings, there has been a systematic effort by Alberto Gonzales to avoid answering the questions. We got no new answers - only waffling, evasions, and cover-ups. If the Bush administration is really so trustworthy as they claim they are, then they should have no problem being completely open and honest about that. The fact that they are not means that they have something to hide.
It is now time to evaluate the performance of the Democrats at today's hearing. Who did the best job at the hearing and why? Also, who (if anybody) did the worst?
Update:
I changed the head to make it more specific; racism has to do with race, not religion.