This is our fourth hearing to consider the President’s domestic spying activities. Regrettably, this hearing, like the two that preceded it, is not an oversight hearing. After this hearing, we will have heard from a total of 20 witnesses. Of those, only one had any knowledge of the spying activities beyond what he had read in the newspapers. That witness was Attorney General Gonzales, who flatly refused to tell us anything beyond “those facts the President has publicly confirmed, nothing more.”
What the President has publicly confirmed is that, for more than four years, he has secretly instructed intelligence officers at the National Security Administration to eavesdrop on the conversations of American citizens in the United States without following the procedures set forth in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
After its secret domestic spying activities were revealed, the Administration offered two legal justifications for the decision not to follow FISA. First, it asserted a broad doctrine of presidential “inherent authority” to ignore the laws passed by Congress when prosecuting the war on terror. In other words, the rule of law is suspended, and the President is above the law, for the uncertain and no doubt lengthy duration of the undefined war on terror.
Second, the Administration asserted that in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AUMF, which makes no reference to wiretapping, Congress unconsciously authorized warrantless wiretaps that FISA expressly forbids even in wartime. That is not what we in Congress said or intended.
Because the Republican-controlled Congress has not conducted real oversight, and because the attempts this Committee has made at oversight have been stonewalled by the Administration, we do not know the extent of the Administration’s domestic spying activities. But we know that the Administration has secretly spied on Americans without attempting to comply with FISA. And we know that the legal justifications it has offered for doing so, which have admittedly “evolved” over time are patently flimsy. I therefore have no hesitation in condemning the President for secretly and systematically violating the law. I have no doubt that such a conclusion will be history’s verdict.
History will evaluate how diligently the Republican-controlled Congress performed the oversight duties envisaged by the Founders. As of this moment, history’s judgment of the diligence and resolve of the Republican-Controlled Congress is unlikely to be kind.
Our witnesses today will address whether censure is an appropriate sanction for those violations. I am inclined to believe that it is. If oversight were to reveal that when the President launched the program, he had been formally advised by the Department of Justice that it would be lawful, that kind of bad advice would not make his actions lawful, but might at least provide something of an excuse.
If, on the other hand, he knowingly chose to flout the law and then commissioned a spurious legal rationalization years later after he was found out, he should bear full personal responsibility. To quote Senator Graham from an earlier point in his congressional service, when he bore the weighty role of a House Manager in a presidential impeachment trial: “We are not a nation of men or kings, we are a nation of laws.”
I have said before that this Committee needs to see any formal legal opinions from this Administration that address the legality of NSA practices and procedures with respect to electronic surveillance. The American people have a right to know whether or not their President knowingly chose to flout the law when he instructed the NSA to spy on them.
That is why our next step should be to subpoena the opinions. We know the President broke the law – we should find out why.
# # # # #
With only two Democratic senators supporting this and the rest cowering in the corner, do I hear the pin drop?
Fiengold seems to be making a name for himself with this stuff. It is good to see a Democrat with a spine, hopefully other dems will see that you can stand up for the constition and win politicaly.
Analysts and progressive heavies have dubbed the wiretapping issue as one that is too easy for the GOP to spin to their advantage come election time. Top down, the strategy is to stand back and let the natural division within the Republican party do the work needed. In the House last week Democrats were laying out agendas for the economy and homeland security (what I saw), and a change has occured where Dems are now accusing Republicans of having no clear agenda.
Politically, it’s an issue that doesn’t fit into the Democratic strategy, but Fiengold surely made out like a bandit. Today in the NYTimes Kerry writes an editorial that basically takes Murtha’s plan and fluffs it up with a lot of good words, good thoughts. He’s right, but at this moment, I’m a lot more impressed by Fiengold than Kerry, because one is willing to take a shot while the other is purely functioning on an ‘opportunistic’ level.
Sincerity is difficult to guage on CSPAN these days, especially as the immigration legislation has turned into parlimentary debate, away from the heart and soul of last week.
With the wiretapping, to me just having former GOP members of past administrations testify that it’s 100% wrong…that’s valuable. Leahy and Fiengold did a good job last week. I have Leahy’s speech prior to the hearing w/ AG Gonzalez on DVD…great stuff. He makes me proud to be from New England!
I agree with you about Kerry and Fiengold. Fiengold comes across as more sincere than Kerry and fiengold seems more willing to take a stand before it becomes the “in” thing to do, like his comments on gay marriage.
Immigration also seems like a winning issue for Democrats or at least a losing issue for Republicans. It was a debate that conservatives wanted to have, at least it seemed like it in the conservative blogosphere, but it seems like an issue that requires compromise which is not a right wing forte, and the opinions on both sides are very strong. Big business likes illegal workers as they help keep wages down, and are eesily exploited. The rank and file repub voter does not like immigrants just because. I think it was a mistake for the conservatives to try to make immigration an issue in 2006.
I agree 100% with that, but it was a long time in the making. McCain/Kennedy, that was initially written last year, scheduled for debate and a vote back then. The GOP simply missed on this one, not being organized or aware at all about how House members would act out, as they have, basically in a ‘please the AM radio host my constituents like’ kind of a way…a predominantly ‘white’ group of people, who are rightly being forced to go further in depth on what they truly believe. That’s never a good thing in Washington when an issue is this big, with the entire nation paying close attention.
This is our fourth hearing to consider the President’s domestic spying activities.
It’s amazing that they have had 4 hearings now about something that doesn’t exist. There is no domestic spying program. There is a terrorist intelligence gathering program that analyzes incoming calls from known terrorist overseas.
The obvious problem is Democrats have no idea what they are talking about. Foreign terrorists don’t have our constitutional rights. Democrats are experts at distorting an issue in the minds of the public for political gain. Those “cowering” Democrats probably have something most Democrats don’t have: A conscience.
The problem is that there is ABSOLUTELY no oversight. That is a problem. We are required to ABSOLUTELY trust and rely on what we are being told with no neutral party (which FISA was set up to be, sorta).
And further. I’ve heard that it is fairly easy for “terrorists” to use our spying activities against us and foreign business partners. I’ve read it is common practice for “terrorists” to make phone calls to unsuspecting Arab businessmen (some living in America) in the hopes that these innocent guys will be targeted and suspected of terrorist activities. And of course these innocent guys end up on a watch list, or at worst end up in jail simply for receiving a phone call from an “Intelligence”-savvy terrorist.
And if you end up on a list for no good reason there is ABSOLUTELY no recourse for you.
I’m not a Democrat, so I won’t speak for them. But my concern is that the administration is acting well beyond their authority. If the administration made the “war on [insert here]” THE national priority, then they could eavesdrop on just about anything they wanted to. There would be no boundaries or limits.
RT:
Please give me one single good reason why the administration shouldn’t use the FISA courts? I’m not against spying or intelligence-gathering, but it should be done within a legal framework that protects our civil liberties and holds government accountable. I don’t even need to know about their activities, or have it broadcast on the evening news, but I would certainly like them to be reviewed by a court.