Intelligence Official Defends Domestic Wiretap Program

The nation’s No. 2 intelligence official staunchly defended the Bush administration’s domestic eavesdropping operations Sunday, the day before what may be highly contentious Senate hearings into the controversial program.

Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, deputy director of national intelligence, said current laws limited the ability of intelligence agencies to detect potential terrorist plots. But he said the administration had not sought new legislation for expanded government spying out of fear that Congress would reveal the effort.

President Bush has said that after the Sept. 11 attacks, he secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop, without judicial warrants, on international phone calls or e-mails of people in the United States with suspected ties to terrorist groups. Critics say Bush exceeded his authority and may have violated the law.

The scope of the program is unknown.

On “Fox News Sunday,” Hayden was asked about a description of the program in Sunday’s Washington Post as “computer-controlled systems [that] collect and sift basic information about hundreds of thousands of faxes, e-mails and telephone calls into and out of the United States before selecting the ones for scrutiny by human eyes and ears.”

Hayden, who was the NSA’s director from March 1999 until May 2005, dismissed the account as inaccurate, reiterating a previous assertion that the program was “not a drift net” and insisting that the surveillance was “very specific and very targeted.”

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires that the government seek warrants from a special court to wiretap people in the United States. Hayden said that even in an emergency, the 1978 law prohibits what he called “hot pursuit” of terrorist communications.

On ABC’s “This Week,” he said the new program “makes it far more likely that we will catch these Al Qaeda-affiliated communications entering or leaving America.”

Hayden’s comments set the stage for the scheduled appearance today by Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Gonzales’ prepared testimony suggests that he will repeat many of Hayden’s arguments.

“This surveillance is narrowly focused and fully consistent with the traditional forms of enemy surveillance found to be necessary in all previous armed conflicts,” the prepared statement says. “It is an early warning system with only one purpose: to detect and prevent the next attack on the United States from foreign agents hiding in our midst.”

The process of obtaining a legal warrant is lengthy and unnecessary, the statement says: “Even a very short delay may make the difference between success and failure in preventing the next attack.”

He is likely to face sharp questions from the Republican who chairs the committee, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, about the administration’s failure to seek warrants or to amend the law. On Sunday, Specter indicated that he rejected White House claims that a congressional resolution in 2001 authorizing the use of force to prevent terrorist attacks also gave the president legal authority to order the electronic eavesdropping in America.

“I believe that contention is very strained and unrealistic,” Specter said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “The authorization for the use of force doesn’t say anything about electronic surveillance.”

Specter said he would ask Gonzales why the administration didn’t at least disclose the program to the judges who issue warrants under the 1978 law. The secret court “has an outstanding record of not leaking” and its members are “well qualified to evaluate this program and either say it’s OK or it’s not OK.”

He added, “I think that’s the biggest question the administration has to answer.”

Specter said he might invite testimony from President Carter, who signed the 1978 law, and former Justice Department lawyers who reportedly opposed the spying. He also said he might issue subpoenas to obtain documents that detail the administration’s legal justification.

“If the necessity arises, I won’t be timid,” Specter said.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that White House officials wrongly “define success as ‘You’re either for the terrorists’ or ‘You’re against the terrorists.’ Well, we’re all against the terrorists.”

He added, “If we’re spying on Americans, tapping their phones, e-mails, whatever, I think Americans want to know at least there’s a check and balance. At least it’s being done within the law.”