In a speech in Buffalo, N.Y., on April 20, 2004, Bush went out of his way to mislead the American people into a false sense of security about his respect for Fourth Amendment prohibitions on warrantless wiretaps.
"By the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order," Bush said. "Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
At the time of his speech, Bush had been authorizing wiretaps without getting approval from the FISA court for more than two years. [For more on Bush's deceptions, see Consortiumnews.com's "Talkin' 'Texan' Means Lying Big."
The administration's claim about the need for extraordinary secrecy surrounding the wiretap program is also largely a charade. Al-Qaeda and other enemy groups have long been aware that the United States has the capability of electronic eavesdropping and have structured their operations accordingly.
In the Feb. 6 hearing, Gonzales acknowledged as much under questioning from Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware.
Biden asked, "How has this revelation damaged the program" since the administration's attack on the disclosure "seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated al-Qaeda folks didn't think we were intercepting their phone calls?"
Gonzales responded, "I think, based on my experience, it is true - you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance. But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget" - a response that drew laughter from the citizens in the hearing room.
"You're amazed at some of the communications that exist," Gonzales continued. "So when you keep sticking it in their face that we're involved in some kind of surveillance, even if it's unclear in these stories, it can't help but make a difference, I think."
In other words, Gonzales argued that the reason for the extraordinary secrecy around the wiretap program is not that the disclosure of its existence would alert al-Qaeda to a previously unknown U.S. spying capability, but that newspaper stories might remind them to be a little more cautious while chatting on the telephone.
Such a slim argument would suggest that the Bush administration has another motive for trying to intimidate anyone - whether in the press or in Congress - who wants to investigate the surveillance program.
On Feb. 28, reflecting on Gonzales's earlier testimony, Leahy said the Attorney General's unresponsive answers led to the conclusion that Gonzales "has a radically different understanding of the laws than do many of us - the people's representatives in Congress who wrote the laws."
As for Gonzales's responses to senators' questions about the program, Leahy said, "whatever we asked, it was either too relevant or not relevant enough, and either way, we were getting no answers from the Attorney General."
A logical suspicion is that the administration is blocking a thorough examination of the wiretapping program because it might show that Bush followed the legal advice on his unlimited powers into pervasive spying of his political enemies.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
