FLE

Postponing Fight, Congress Extends Terror Act 5 Weeks

In a frantic finish before adjourning for the year, Congress extended on Thursday the broad antiterrorism bill known as the USA Patriot Act by five weeks after the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee balked at a longer extension. The deal, approved by voice vote in sparsely attended sessions in the House and Senate, averts the expiration of the 16 major provisions of the original law on Dec. 31. It was the final twist in a six-day game of brinksmanship between President Bush and Senate Democrats who, joined by a handful of Republicans, had blocked a bill to make permanent the original law. But the deal fell far short of President Bush's aim of permanently extending the original law, which expanded the government's investigative powers after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The extension also set the stage for a clash over civil liberties and national security when lawmakers return here early next year. The action was taken after the head of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin, threatened to derail a six-month extension the Senate passed on Wednesday night. White House officials intervened on Thursday to persuade Mr. Sensenbrenner to sign off on the five-week extension....

'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented

Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence. "The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps. More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."....

Defending Spy Program, Administration Cites Law

In its first formal response to Congress on the growing controversy over domestic spying, the Bush administration argued Thursday that the president's authorization of domestic spying was consistent with the 1978 law that governs the government's electronic eavesdropping. The letter to Congress, which was signed by William E. Moschella, assistant attorney general for Congressional affairs, said the administration considered the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the court established through it, "a very important tool" in fighting terrorism and "makes full use" of it. But the letter, which was sent to the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, said the system "could not have provided the speed and agility for the early warning system" demanded by President Bush. It also argued that the administration could not have sought expanded authority from Congress under the law without risking exposure. To go to Congress for legislative authority, the department said, "would have tipped off our enemies concerning our intelligence limitations and capabilities."....

Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on Spy Program

The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources. Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court. "The questions are obvious," said U.S. District Judge Dee Benson of Utah. "What have you been doing, and how might it affect the reliability and credibility of the information we're getting in our court?" Such comments underscored the continuing questions among judges about the program, which most of them learned about when it was disclosed last week by the New York Times. On Monday, one of 10 FISA judges, federal Judge James Robertson, submitted his resignation -- in protest of the president's action, according to two sources familiar with his decision. He will maintain his position on the U.S. District Court here....

Terror case challenges White House strategy

Suddenly, terror suspect Jose Padilla seems a lot more dangerous to the Bush administration. It has nothing to do with his suspected involvement in Al Qaeda bomb plots, analysts say. Rather, the administration worries that the US Supreme Court might agree to hear Mr. Padilla's case and decide one of the most pressing constitutional issues in the war on terrorism. And by all appearances, government lawyers think they might lose. The issue: Does President Bush have the power as commander in chief to order the open-ended military detention of US citizens that he deems enemy combatants? It is not a minor matter. The claim of broad presidential power is a cornerstone of the administration's effort to restore what it views as the proper level of executive authority after decades of erosion following the Watergate scandal. Such robust, independent presidential power is said to be critical to safeguarding the country from a repeat of the 9/11 terror attacks. But the White House faces a significant hurdle. It is not at all clear that a majority of Supreme Court justices agree with such an expansive view of executive power....