All Intensive Purposes

Earlier this evening, I posted an argument about the interplay between FISA and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, suggesting (I hope) just how thin is the White House's position that the latter implicitly amended the former. This exchange between Sen. Feingold and then-Attorney-General-nominee Gonzales suggests why the White House continues to cling to the position:

SEN. FEINGOLD: I — Judge Gonzales, let me ask a broader question. I’m asking you whether in general the president has the constitutional authority, does he at least in theory have the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he’s commander in chief? Does he — does he have that power?

...

MR. GONZALES: Senator, this president is not — I — it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.

Via Mort Halperin and Laura Rozin, whom I assume have quoted the transcript correctly. Gonzales has to keep insisting that FISA does not say what it clearly says, because it is the only defense for what he said during his confirmation hearings.