Friday, January 13, 2006

Only a Select Committee can investigate the NSA scandal

Whatever one’s views are on the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program, most people agree that the scandal raises some of the most profound issues our Government can face -- the limits of Executive power, to what extent a "wartime" President is constrained by law, how the Congress and judiciary check and balance Presidential power, and whether the President has the right to ignore Congressional law on national security grounds. All but the shrillest and most blindly loyal Bush apologists seem to agree that these are matters which, at the very least, require a through airing and investigation by Congress.

Even George Bush himself encouraged a Congressional investigation into this scandal, acknowledging on Tuesday that such an investigation would be "good for democracy." Republican Senator Arlen Specter has also said that he believes the Bush Administration’s eavesdropping program ought to be investigated, and has now announced his intentions to hold hearings on this scandal in early February before the Senate Judiciary Committee which he chairs.

This investigation, however, cannot be conducted by Specter's Judiciary Committee. Given its constraints, composition, and history, the Senate Judiciary Committee -- like all standing Committees in the Congress -- is clearly not designed, and is not able, to conduct a thorough and serious investigation of the pressing and potentially complex issues raised by this scandal. And beyond the limitations which every standing Committee has, the Alito hearings just demonstrated that the Judiciary Committee is especially slow-moving, dysfunctional and plagued by bickering and long-standing animosities.

The severe limitation of standing Congressional Committees generally has given rise to a bipartisan consensus that serious Congressional investigations must be conducted by a specially created Select Committee which is given the mandate, and the resources, to conduct a genuinely probing investigation. For that reason, every significant government scandal over the last thirty years involving allegations of abuse of power by the nation’s executive branch -- including Watergate, Iran-Contra and the widespread abuses of the intelligence community -- have been investigated by a focused Select Investigative Committee formed by Congress to specifically investigate that scandal. Such investigations are not conducted by standing committees. Indeed, House Republicans just created exactly this type of Select Committee to investigate the Federal Government’s response to Hurricane Katrina.

For our nation's most significant scandals involving allegations of abuses of executive power, a judgment has always been made that the issues presented are too serious and complex to be entrusted to a garden-variety standing Committee. These standing Committees are burdened by significant constraints on their time and resources and are distracted by numerous other competing demands on their attention, all of which combine to render impossible a thorough and and rigorous investigation.

By important contrast, Select Committees are deliberately structured to ensure that the members comprising the Committee are well-versed in the technical and legal issues presented and can therefore meaningfully question witnesses on these issues. That is why Congressional Rules provide for the creation of Select Committees -- because they can be structured and equipped with the resources from the beginning which are necessary for the specific investigation. And the fact that they have only one mandate -- to investigate the matter at hand -- ensures that the investigation remains substantive and focused.

Select Committes can and should also include lawyers with experience conducting these kinds of investigations, who can skillfully and tenaciously cross-examine witnesses and ensure that the truth is being revealed. Sam Dash and Arthur Liman respectively performed this vital role for the Watergate and Iran-Contra investigations, and if the investigation into the NSA scandal is to be meaningful, it needs a Select Committee with lawyers and other experts of this type to actively participate in the investigation.

Presumably, the investigation which so many people on both sides are urging be conducted into the NSA scandal should be a real and meaningful investigation, not a show trial dominated by partisan agendas, weighed down by entrenched animosities or rendered inadequate by a lack of expertise and skill. The Senate Judiciary Committee is entirely incapable of conducting an investigation of that sort. Only a Select Committee devoted to this investigation and bestowed with the necessary investigative tools and resources can ensure that Americans get a real investigation into this scandal.

UPDATE: Digby also thinks that it's imperative that we have a Select Committee investigate the NSA matter, and sets forth some very compelling reasons why the Judiciary Committee is woefully inadequate for this exceptionally important task.

UPDATE II: Jane Hamsher concurs, and offers some scenarios for what such a Committee would look like and why it would uniquely enable a real investigation.

15 comments:

  1. Anonymous4:24 PM

    But isn't this exactly why the Repubs want it before the Judiciary Committee? Because they can make fun of Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden again and watch the whole thing die off in boredom?

    You're of course right that a meaningful investigation requires a Select Committee. For exactly that reason, is there any real chance that the Repubs will agree to one?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous4:45 PM

    Is there any chance to get this? I'm sick of all these ideas floating around without some concrete action. I do NOT want this wiretap scandal to get swept under the rug like everything else!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous5:21 PM

    Does it really matter? If it's in the Judiciary Committee, it will be investigated. Why does it really matter where the investigation is?

    ReplyDelete
  4. If it's in the Judiciary Committee, it will be investigated. Why does it really matter where the investigation is?

    Did you watch the Alito hearings? The Judiciary Committee is the most ponderous, pompous, suffocating place on the planet. While well-intentioned, most of the Senators on the Committee -- especially the Democratic ones -- are incapable of asking follow-up questions and are also incapable of keeping anyone awake.

    They got their heads handed to them so often by Alito that I actually had to stop watching, because it was painful to see. A couple of them were ok, but the last thing I want to see is Joe Biden, Herb Kohl, Pat Leahy and the rest of them holding in their tired, confused and unskillful hands the question of whether George Bush will have the power to violate the law for the next 3 years.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous5:39 PM

    Noah Feldman has a good article on what steps need to be taken on the NSA issue and on executive power in general.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/magazine/08court.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous7:43 PM

    Undoubtedly, and well said as always. Even the Judiciary worries the WH which is why they seemed to be trying to get Robertsons's IQ committee to handle it.

    I do think it is best to get oversight out of the hands of politically vested interests and there is ample precedent in situations like this to do so, but is all a question of political will.

    Maybe I am tired and beaten down, but I find it next to impossible because it would be so dangerous to long term Republican hegemony. How many things we might learn. How many more whistleblowers might come forward.

    Look, over there, the threat of nuke . . . don't ask questions!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous7:51 PM

    Oh, sorry, an additional clarification. When I mentioned "politically vested interest" I negelected to refer Senatorial ego in the Senate. Meaning a select committee is always an admission of inability or incompetence of the standing committee that is superseded. To call for a select committee means that Senators on the standing committee might be called to task to for their lack of oversight. That takes some political will that is most surely lackin gon the Judiciary. Biden wants his face time, Graham too.

    So there are political hurdles of the personal and the party level that would have to be overcome.

    How many times does a public have to be subjected to patronizing explanations of the advise and consent rule? Anyone wonkish enought to follow the hearings knows the basic groundrules. I can only imagine what civics lessons we will have to stomach in and NSA Judiciary investigation.

    I think the NSA issue has enormous stakes and bush league players.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Particularly telling is the fact that only Dianne Feinstein bothered to sit and listen to the entire testimony of the six federal judges, Judge Alito's peers that would be in the best position to observe his character and qualifications. Ted Kennedy the "legacy admission" Harvard student that got expelled for cheating, showed up late and only stayed for ten minutes.

    Judge Barry, appointed by President Clinton, said this: "Samuel Alito set a standard of excellence that was contagious -- his commitment to doing the right thing, never playing fast and loose with the record, never taking a shortcut, his emphasis on first-rate work, his fundamental decency. -- Let me just conclude with this: Judge Alito is a man of remarkable intellectual gifts. He is a man with impeccable legal credentials."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous3:06 AM

    By Upper West

    The issue is Bush, not Alito:

    Who will be the first Democratic Senator with the balls to say "No nominee should be confirmed until the Presidents' role in the Plame case and the FISA Case are completely resolved."

    How can we allow the President to appoint a Supreme Court Justice at a time when it is almost certain that there will be a case before the Court soon determining whether the President violated the law and the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous5:21 AM

    Great post but, what is the process for bringing a 'Select Committee' about?

    Assuming that this could end up as the modern equivalent of Watergate -- where are the pressure points in this Republican dominated congress?

    ReplyDelete
  11. ABC News recently revealed the source of the NSA leak to the NYT, a gentleman by the name of Russell Tice. Perhaps he would be a potential congressional witness.

    Evidently Mr. Tice had been raising suspicions within the agency about a colleague since 2003, and was fired last May after raising questions once again.

    If true, this might explain why the NYT sat on the story for a year. Apparently Mr. Tice was still employed by the agency when the story was written.

    According to media reports, while at the NSA Mr. Tice’s security clearance was revoked because "he was deemed 'paranoid' by one of the agency's psychologists".

    The Defense Department's inspector general issued an unclassified report in September that found "no evidence" to support Tice's claims.

    More.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous5:33 PM

    GG:

    "This investigation, however, cannot be conducted by Specter's Judiciary Committee. Given its constraints, composition, and history, the Senate Judiciary Committee -- like all standing Committees in the Congress -- is clearly not designed, and is not able, to conduct a thorough and serious investigation of the pressing and potentially complex issues raised by this scandal."

    This is actually a pretty hilarious position for you to take, y'know.

    On the one hand, it seems like the exact same reasoning the Administration might have used to diss the FISC...did you realize that?

    On the other, it sounds like a shyster cynically "playing the docket" to get the desired judge.

    In either case, you seem to be displaying a shocking willingness to forego the "procedure"...exactly what you accuse Bush et al of doing.

    Regards;

    Regards;

    ReplyDelete
  13. In either case, you seem to be displaying a shocking willingness to forego the "procedure"...exactly what you accuse Bush et al of doing.

    What are you talking about? The whole point of the post is that Congressional Rules provide for the creation of a Select Committee under exactly such circumstances, and precedent dictates that such a committee should be used for significant hearings investigating matters of abuse of power by the Executive Branch.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous11:50 PM

    Glenn G:

    "Presumably, the investigation which so many people on both sides are urging be conducted into the NSA scandal should be a real and meaningful investigation, not a show trial dominated by partisan agendas, weighed down by entrenched animosities or rendered inadequate by a lack of expertise and skill."

    By a "real and meaningful investigation", I suspect that you mean: "a committee that finds EXACTLY how YOU would want them to find".

    "The Senate Judiciary Committee is entirely incapable of conducting an investigation of that sort. "

    Specific evidence against the Judiciary Committee please?

    You gave us a lot of general allegations aginst "Standing Committees", but nothing at all that you laid at the door of the Judiciary Committee in particular.

    I am aware of your ongoing enmity towards the Alito Confirmation, and I can only surmise that your call for a Select committee is both a "payback" for the Judiiary Committee NOT defeating Alito, and a tacit admission that whatever you think the Administration may be guilty of is a "dog that won't hunt".

    Unless, that is, Congress allows the Honorable Mr. Glenn Greenwald to hand-pick the membership of the "Select Committee".

    I don't see that happennin',"G-squared", knowhutImean?

    Regards;

    ReplyDelete
  15. Green light that. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete