I'm in Washington and have a couple of meetings scheduled this afternoon with staff members of Senate Judiciary Committee members and am trying to have the work we have done here have some impact on how the questioning proceeds on Monday. That's not an easy goal to accomplish, because U.S. Senators are not the most humble bunch and they tend to think they are not in need of much outside input or advice -- including, amazingly enough, even the Senators on the Judiciary Committee who participated in (and were arguably responsible for) the Alito debacle.
But some have been more receptive than others, and there is a (gradually) growing recognition of the value of the blogosphere, not just in terms of its passion and numbers but also the level of substance and seriousness with which debate and analysis occurs here. The staffs and the Senators will be working throughout the weekend (which is good because, if what I have seen is any indication, they are not yet remotely ready), so perhaps there will be some additional opportunities to set up some additional meaningful meetings.
The ideas and questions and documents which I've been getting from everyone have honestly been immensely helpful, so if you have more, please keep sending them. Monday is only the first day of these hearings, not the last. There will be many other days and other witnesses, so the opportunities to have an impact on the proceedings will only increase.
There will be many other day and other witnesses, so the opportunities to have an impact on the proceedings will only increase.
ReplyDeleteWould you mind expanding on that a little at some point? It would be very encouraging to those of us who know nothing beyond the fact that Gonzales is the only witness slated so far (and who, at least in my case, have been worried that the hearings might begin and end with his testimony).
Thanks for the great work you're doing!
If they were smart, they'd turn over all 8 hours to you and let you rip Gonzales a new hole. I'd pay to see that!!!!
ReplyDeleteThen again, if they turned over the 8 hours to a random person on the street, the questions would probably be an improvement. After the Alito shit, it's hard to imagine how it could be worse.
Glenn --
ReplyDeleteI was just digging around, doing a bit of research before calling my Senator's office (Specter) and urging him: (a) to fight hard for those now-not-to-be-released DoJ documents; and (b) to emphasize the President's asserted power to break the law in general, rather than the specifics of the NSA program.
Anyway, I came across a Congressional Research Service report that may be of passing interest to you. Here's the PDF. It's from April 2003, Congressional Investigations: Subpoenas and Contempt Power.
It's a refresher course in The Options We Face When Confronted By The Stone Wall. It includes references to related CRS reports, which you can usually find here.
I know you're busy. Make of this information what you will. Off to phone my Senator now. Thanks for your hard work.
Excellent!
ReplyDeleteWell - I hopes they also got the Letter signed by 14 Legal Scholars posted by Marty Lederman today over at Balkinization.
ReplyDeleteGood Luck Glenn and THANX for all you efforts.
Every Bit HELPS.
:-D
This February 2 letter(pdf) to various Senators makes crystal clear how bankrupt are the legal arguments set forth by the Administration and its defenders. As one who is not on the left, I would point out to my right-wing friends who think objection to Bush's illegal surveillance is all some moonbat or partisan delusion, this analytically excellent letter is signed by, among others, (a) Richard Epstein, a Hoover Institute Fellow and libertarian-right member of the University of Chicago Law School faculty, and (b) William Sessions, a former FBI Director appointed by Ronald Reagan, who is also a former federal judge.
ReplyDeleteOops, I didn't see Karen's post of the same letter before I had also submitted the link.
ReplyDeleteGo get 'em!
ReplyDelete(I have no great expectation that the senators will actually learn about asking pertinent questions instead of bloviating, but hope springs eternal.)
No advice from me Glenn, just encouragement and admiration. I am curious though, if the IV Amendment can be disreguarded by this administration, do any exist that they cannot? Is there a line?
ReplyDeleteHas anybody seen the letter from Chairman Roberts of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to Senator Leahy explaining why, in his view, the NSA program is legal? It's supposed to be 19 pages long, but I haven't seen a link to it anywhere.
ReplyDeleteHmm. Well looks like Senator Roberts from the Senate Intelligence Committee already has decided that Bush is legally within the law and sent a letter to Spector and Leahy telling them so. So it looks like this committee's work is very important. Have you an opportunity to read the letter and subsequent rationale within it for rebuttal purposes?
ReplyDeleteThat letter doesn't seem to be available yet - this one is:
ReplyDeleteChairman Roberts Reacts to DNC Chairman Howard Dean’s Egregious Comments on Terrorist Surveillance
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, today sent the following letter to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean:
“I was recently apprised of your assessment of the President’s terrorist surveillance program – an “early warning” capability to intercept the international communications of al Qaeda terrorists to and from persons within the United States. With respect to this important program, you stated, “President Bush’s secret program to spy on the American people reminds Americans of the abuse of power during the dark days of President Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew.” As Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, I find your statements to be irrational and irresponsible."
[snip]
Well, since Senator "Enjoy Phase II, you gullible fools" Roberts has sent a letter based on his previously-employed premise that President Bush can do no wrong by definition, I guess William Sessions should just throw up his hands and concede defeat. Does Senator Roberts take into consideration the White House violating the law by not fully informing the full intelligence committees in Congress?
ReplyDeleteBut I'm sure that Senators Brownback, Graham, and Specter will pronounce themselves "satisfied" and see no need to call further witnesses, subpoena documents relevant to the program, or anything unpleasant like that. After all, a policy of torturing prisoners violates federal laws, too, and Senator Graham was oh-so-distraught by that. Just not to the point of conducting hearings with content, or compelling Mr. Ashcroft to cooperate. And now it's all sunk without a trace, as desired. Party must come first, after all.
That said, Chairman Dean went too far, and Senator Roberts was right to call him on it. Nixon used the intelligence apparatus to conduct domestic spying on US citizens without judicial oversight. Bush broke a federal law in using the intelligence apparatus to conduct domestic spying on US citizens without judicial oversight. See? Big difference. Oh, and also, as far as we can tell, it's an entirely different DoD program that's explicitly spying on political opponents of the President. So there.
--mds
I've not seen much talk of violations of the National Securiity Act of 1947, but it seems to me that they have violated the reporting of intelligence activity to congress. Informing the "Gang of 8" leaders only applies to the following situation (from section 503 of the National Security Act of 1947):
ReplyDeletean activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly, but does not include -
...
activities the primary purpose of which is to acquire intelligence, traditional counterintelligence activities, traditional activities to improve or maintain the operational security of United States Government programs, or administrative activities;
If you're trying to work the "Congress has been sidelined" angle this should fit right in there.
I've posted the Robers letter:
ReplyDeletehttp://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/02/senator-roberts-declares-fisa.html
Note also that Intel Chair Senator Pat Roberts has responded to Howard Dean's recent comments.
ReplyDelete"With respect to this important program [NSA surveillance], you stated, “President Bush’s secret program to spy on the American people reminds Americans of the abuse of power during the dark days of President Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew.” As Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, I find your statements to be irrational and irresponsible.
Senator Roberts letter is here.
I don't want to say I told you so, but...
If Negroponte is being called, I would like the first questions to be something like, "Are you the same John Negroponte convicted of felonies..." lying to Congress, death squads, etc. Just to remind Americans who and what we're dealing with here.
ReplyDeleteQuestion #6 asked during yesterday's Senate Intelligence Committee hearing:
ReplyDeleteIn one pointed exchange, Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, a Democrat, asked Mr. Negroponte whether there were any other intelligence programs that had not been revealed to the full intelligence committees.
The intelligence chief hesitated, then replied, "Senator, I don't know if I can answer that in open session."
A similarly revealing sparring session came when Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, pressed the intelligence officials about whether a controversial Pentagon data-mining program called Total Information Awareness had been effectively transferred to the intelligence agencies after being shut down by Congress.
Mr. Negroponte and the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, both said they did not know. Then came the turn of Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who headed N.S.A. for six years before becoming the principal deputy director of national intelligence last spring.
"Senator," General Hayden said, "I'd like to answer in closed session."
(via georgia10 @ kos and the NYTimes)
...sort of asked, I mean.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the earlier anonymous, get a linkage to CIFA which Rummy said was, "no big deal". Or don't maybe you don't want to water down the message.
ReplyDeleteGood luck and don't let the good guys down.
From my post at firedoglake in regards to the administrations justification for NSA activity and the new revelation by the Chair of the intelligence committee that FISA is unconstitutional:
ReplyDeleteThe administration in this regard has framed their argument in the alternative: Either the AUMF did authorize the president to "amend" (or more precisely termed ignore) the FISA statute to allow them to do the warrantless wiretapping of u.s. citizens...or in the alternative, if the AUMF did not, then the FISA statute itself is unconstitutional as infringing on the president's right as commander in chief to conduct war.
Both arguments are specious at best. Warrantless wiretapping of U.S. Citizens in the name of national security is a violation of the fourth amendment. See U.S. v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972).
As you know, foreigners in foreign lands generally have no constitutional protections whatsoever under the U.S. Constitution. U.S. Citizens have all the protection the constitution has to give.
The gray area is exactly where were currently at, when one side of the "tap" is a u.s. citizen while the other is international and connected to Al-Queada. (assuming of course this is actually the case- this is what the administration says)
Now, if the AUMF does give the president power to collect foreign intelligence, which i will assume it did as a necessary part of waging war, the legal question narrows down. Did the AUMF authorize the collection of "foreign" intelligence that originated in the US from a US citizen? Here the legal distinctions and terminology play a big role.
I will cite another case which may be applicable in this regard: Youngstown v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) where it was said that the "commander in chief's powers were strongest when Congress specifically authorized what the President wanted to do and weakest when Congress had prohibited what the president wanted to do."
Given your analysis of the FISA statute as regards the 15 day period and the triggering mechanism of that 15 day period by the AUMF (i.e, when a declaration of war is given FISA allows warrantless wiretapping for 15 days)- it would seem this legal quandary solves itself. The president is acting at his weakest (since congress limited the time one could surveil to 15 days) and is therefore, likely, but dont hold me to it because Alito and Roberts are now on the court...acting unconstitutionally and in violation of federal statute and impeachable for said violation. I guess we shall see....
Is there anything we can do to help. Specifically would a letter/phone/fax/email campaign be productive for getting these Senators to listen?
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile Glenn: there is this:
ReplyDelete"Senate Session on Security Erupts in Spying Debate
By SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 — Senate Democrats on Thursday angrily accused the Bush administration of mounting a public relations campaign to defend the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program while withholding details of the secret eavesdropping from Congressional oversight committees.
An annual hearing on national security threats, led for the first time by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence, was overtaken by acrimonious partisan debate about the program. In response to the Democrats' complaints, Republicans and top administration intelligence officials said the real problem was leaks about N.S.A. eavesdropping and other classified matters.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the Senate Intelligence Committee's ranking Democrat, compared the administration's public disclosures of limited information about the N.S.A. program in the six weeks since it was first disclosed to what he described as a similarly misleading use of intelligence before the war in Iraq.
"I am deeply troubled by what I see as the administration's continued effort to selectively release intelligence information that supports its policy or political agenda while withholding equally pertinent information that does not do that," Mr. Rockefeller said.
Another Democrat, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, said the administration had engaged in "consistent stonewalling" to prevent the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees from carrying out their oversight duties. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, suggested the administration's public accounts of the eavesdropping program were contradictory, noting that President Bush had described the agency's interception, without court warrants, of "a few" messages, while Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, had referred to "thousands" of messages.
But none of the Republicans on the panel joined the Democrats in their criticism. And in a statement issued later, Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the committee, accused Mr. Rockefeller and other Democrats of derailing the discussion about security threats with their concerns about the eavesdropping program.
"I am concerned that some of my Democrat colleagues used this unique public forum to make clear that they believe the gravest threat we face is not Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, but rather the president of the United States," Mr. Roberts said. "There is no doubt in my mind there are marching orders to the minority members of this committee to question and attack, at every opportunity, the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, attorney general and now members of our intelligence agencies."
At the four-hour hearing, Mr. Negroponte and other senior intelligence officials made clear that the decision to limit briefings on the eavesdropping program to just eight members of Congress — the leaders of the Senate and House and the heads of the Intelligence Committees from both parties — had been made by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. He also objected to the Democrats' characterization of the program.
"This was not about domestic surveillance," Mr. Negroponte said. "It was about dealing with the terrorist threat in the most agile and effective way possible."
While the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a public hearing next week to explore legal issues surrounding the N.S.A. program, the entire Senate Intelligence Committee has not yet been briefed on it. Mr. Roberts tried to head off the Democratic attack by announcing that the panel would be briefed in closed session on the program on Feb. 9 by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Gen. Michael V. Hayden, principal deputy director of national intelligence. In addition, he said, the committee would hold a closed business session on Feb. 16 to discuss whether to hold further hearings or open an inquiry into the program, as Mr. Rockefeller has urged.
Mr. Roberts and other Republicans said that the most serious issue was the unauthorized leak of sensitive information on intelligence.
Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director, concurred, asserting that leaks had done "very severe" damage to national security and declared that the leakers would be found.
"I've called in the F.B.I., the Department of Justice," Mr. Goss said. "It is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present, being asked to reveal who is leaking this information."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/03/politics/03threats.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
"The staffs and the Senators will be working throughout the weekend (which is good because, if what I have seen is any indication, they are not yet remotely ready)"
ReplyDeleteWhat the heck are we electing these senators for if they refuse to take their jobs seriously?
I wish you strength (and don't forget to take a bottle of Advil)! Take a look at how Gonzales structures his own offenses. All of us are creatures of habit.
ReplyDeleteJust to revisit what some here have noted as far as that curious phrase "described by the President."
ReplyDeleteSome will wonder what else is going on that the President didn't describe regarding the activities of the NSA.
Glen,
ReplyDeleteThis is important: Do you have inside info on whether AG Gonzales will be under oath?
Please answer at your earliest convenience.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteThis is important: Do you have inside info on whether AG Gonzales will be under oath?
Please answer at your earliest convenience.
http://www.ameriroots.com/impeachment/senator_roberts.html
ReplyDeleteTo quote:
"Are we to have standards for the President different from standards applied to other citizens? Americans long ago rejected the imperial presidency. The President is not above the law. He is not a king."
Different
strokes for
different folks,
the judgement
of Senator Roberts.
Glenn, I have been educated just by reading your blog on the NSA issues, courtesy of the links from firedoglake. I have no doubt that justice will prevail, even though there is so much work to be done. Thank you for allowing me to participate even if it is vicariously by reading your posts. I believe that the Committee needs to understand that this is a Constitutional crisis, that there are so many average citizens who will stand up for the truth regardless of party! If there's anything I can do to support you, the rights of all U.S. citizens and civil liberties; I will.
ReplyDeleteWould it make any sense to mass fax these questions to the committee members?
ReplyDeleteAs someone who sat through portions of the Alito hearings and was appalled at how little the Democrats accomplished by their questioning, I'd say they could use all the help you can provide. Except for Feinstein and Feingold, none of them seemed to be able to frame an issue in a way that we folks in the audience could understand or care about.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I've found that works when you're dealing with large egos is to plant the seeds of your idea in their heads by your questions and observations, then let them figure the rest out for themselves. That way, they think it's their idea, and thus a good one. Try it, if you find an opportunity.
How about this question for Gonzalez:
ReplyDelete"If you, as the Attorney General, were suspected of breaking a the law, how would you investigate yourself?"
Outstanding, Glenn.
ReplyDeleteAnd a message to the Senators: GET OVER YOURSELVES.
Man, if they had any idea how unworthy they are of "respect," or the "homage" of the people these days... We need [the NATION needs] low-key, neutrally-inflected, but honed and specific, dagger-like questioning, with close and pointed follow-ups, UNTIL the questions asked are FULLY answered, or a refusal to fully answer is obtained.
To that end, my main suggestion pertains to the alloted time each Senator is given:
If they are able to control their egos enough to consider it, AND if the rules/Specter permit it: One (or two) Senators should be given the most important subject matter(s) to pursue, by COMBINING the times of multiple Democratic Senators into one time slot, to allow time for follow-ups and for B.S. answers that try to run out the clock.
So two or three Senators would forfeit their time (or most of it) to Senator Feingold, for example, to allow him to pursue just one or two areas, AT LENGTH and IN DEPTH. IF such a distribution of time can be arranged.
Thanks for all your efforts Glenn. Show them how it's done.
Thanks for everything, Glenn!
ReplyDeleteThank you, Mr. Greenwald. To quote FDL...you'll be "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names". Every hearing is a plus for America and a chance to get to the real truth. Like many here I am eagerly awaiting your return posting.
ReplyDeleteIn reading Senator Roberts's despicable political justification of this lawbreaking, one other thought occurred to me. It has to do with the "cheerleading" of the hostile witnesses by the Republican Senators. ONE Democratic Senator (Leahy?) needs to be tasked with responding to the slurs and falsehoods of those Republicans, although it does eat into precious minutes, I realize. As an example, a response like this would shut a lot of them up in a hurry:
ReplyDelete"I'm very sorry to hear from Senator x, that the members of our Executive Branch of government do not wish to be held to account. Especially because holding them to account happens to be the DUTY of every member of the United States Senate. To faithfully execute the office of a United States Senator requires upholding and honoring the oversight responsibilities required by our Constitution of only one Branch of our government, and that is the Legislative Branch, of which every Senator sitting at this dais is a sworn member. Each and every one of us represents the population of an entire state of our Union. If we, as Senators, do not speak up to exercise oversight of the x-trillion-dollar operation of the Executive Branch of our government, the people of our state whom we are here in Washington to represent, have no voice in their own government, which they fund with their tax dollars, and whose laws we expect them to obey. I know that the people of my state (x) absolutely demand that the federal laws which they are compelled to obey, be likewise obeyed by those who are well paid to serve them in positions of public trust in our federal government."
P.S. I heard this from a Democrat (Reid?) - and its logic speaks for itself; this also answers Roberts's and Goss's typical cynical Rove-planted red herring: "NO 'leaks' of this program would have occurred, or been necessary, if the universally-acknowledged FISA LAW of the land had been obeyed. So why wasn't it?"
And Senators should not be afraid to flatly state that they salute any federal employee who will not conscience obvious lawbreaking on their watch, and that they hope any further violations and abuses of the necessary secrecy allowed for classified operations are likewise reported to the American people, in accordance with our Constitution and our laws.
Glenn, good luck at the hearings.
ReplyDeleteYou are most likely aware of this post by the Left Coaster in an effort to combat right-wing talking points on the NSA spying program because, well, some of your work is incorporated into it. However, I wanted to let you know I use it as my guide against right-wingers trying to tell me Bush had the legal authority to do all this crap.
Once again, good luck. I am very appreciative of your work in helping the argument to protect our civil liberties.
Give 'em hell, Glenn. We are counting on you to show them the way.
Matthew Ortega
Second Civil War
History repeating itself again. This new ABC story shows about the same cast of characters who lost this battle in the Ford administration are having a rematch.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Glenn, for stepping up to the plate on this.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to create a framework for discussion based on the importance of the issues, leaving behind emotional rhetoric that uses broad generalizations to criticize Democratic Senators? Despite what one may believe could have/should have been asked or phrased differently, the bottom line is that even the most ineffective questions asked by Democratic Senators at the Alito hearings weren't slow-pitch softballs with built-in cue cards, which sums up the content and format of the questions seen from the Republican Senators.
The number of comments here alleging that all Senators are incompetent, arrogant, and lazy for not focusing on this 24/7 (among their many other perceived sins) boggles the mind. Given the extent and depth of abusive policies and behaviors exhibited by those in league with this administration --- complicated by additional scandals, whether distracters or not, on an almost daily basis, how realistic or fair are those criticisms? Yes, Senators have offices and staff, but these are not infinite resources. A more effective strategy may be assisting in a meaningful way without denigrating the efforts of others.
I'm relieved that there is finally dialogue between Senate staff and the blogosphere, and hope that, in whatever small way, I helped. An excerpt from an email I sent to my Senator's offices last Monday, urging them to review Glenn's questions and establish some contact:
"*The issues facing our country take precedence over personal ego, whether on staff or in the public forum. I don't know whether Mr. Greenwald is even interested in participating in this issue outside of his commentary, but I fail to see any harm in asking. We need all the resources we can muster to restore a sense of pride in American ideals of fairness, respect, honor, and decency."
*Emphasis added in this post
To be effective, respect needs to work in both directions. Let's not shoot our freedoms in the foot by alienating those who, I believe, agree with our extremely valid position. We will accomplish much more by working together in a supportive environment, providing constructive criticism when needed and avoiding the pitfalls of ridicule or scorn. IMHO, some deserve the latter, but aren’t worth the energy when we have too many other concerns of more importance.
I realize my POV won't win any popularity points with some here; so be it. I'm "over" popularity. My rights and civil liberties are far more important than that... and restoring those involves fair, respectful, honorable, and decent actions among those who share the same goals.
:: tosses $0.02 into the tip jar ::
Here is something interesting: Cheney and Rumsfeld sought expanded wiretaps earlier than 9/11 -- during the Ford Administration!
ReplyDeletehttp://edwardcopeland.blogspot.com/2006/02/darth-cheney-rummy-sought-wiretaps.html
Since you're talking to the staffers, Glenn, could you please let us know what actions are on the table that we might call our Senators to support. I.e. appointment of special counsel, subpoena of particular documents, etc? What would help them do their job?
ReplyDeleteThank you, too, for your work. You're a patriot.
Did information gathered by the illegal NSA program lead the Bush 04 campaign to ask CBS if it called the Kerry campaign before airing the "Rathergate" episode on 60 minutes?
ReplyDeleteBTW, Glen, you're great!
Sen Roberts' letter is a pretty good example of why the "Gang of Eight" procedure is such a farce. If key members don't believe the relevant statutes governing intelligence and covert actions are valid, how is the Gang supposed to conduct effective oversight? Or do they perceive their job to be overlooking transgressions rather than overseeing compliance?
ReplyDeleteGlenn- thanks so much for all your hard work on this issue and for jetting off to DC to meet with these guys- this issue is incredibly important as we all know and the Dems HAVE to be on their toes. They cannot afford to drop the ball. And of course, that goes for justice-minded members of the GOP who believe that we shouldn't all of a sudden change our government from a democracy to a monarchy where the President picks and chooses which laws he will follow and which he wont.
ReplyDeleteGlenn- here is an article which links to a declassified document in pdf that seems to say that the NSA warrantless spying started prior to 9/11. YOu may already have this but it would seem to kill Bush's arguments that "9/11 is a different kind of war" that requires he ignore FISA. It also would seem to call into question his claim that the Sept. authorization for use of force gave him implicit authourity to conduct this surveillance.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml
Congratulations sir!
ReplyDeleteYou are an example to all of us who pound away at our keyboards desperately hoping that somebody will read what we write and help to change the corruption that is rampant in Washington right now.
Good luck!
Solution: The solution to this mess is to have an NSA-like capability for Congress -- with court oversight -- to monitor the President, DoD, and other branches. What does the President have to hide; and why aren't checks and balances modernized with 21st Century; how can the President claim "immunity from oversight" but not assert that right on behalf of Americans in the 4th Amendment. He's failing to lawfully enforce/protect the Constitution. Range of articles about the NSA spying – why the voters know the RNC is not asserting their oath of office, this has been going on for years. It’s time to draw the line on this illegal conduct. Articles
ReplyDelete-- == *** == --
Conviction/Removal Phase: Senate needs to think in terms of what is going to happen if they refuse to remove this man. If Congress fails to credibly investigate, or timely take action, the States have options.
Here are the Constitutional issues related to the Senate filibuster, inherent authority of Senate to Check the President; and how the Senate and House leadership need to organize to ensure the NSA hearings are probed in terms of finding evidence that will warrant removal from office. More
Impeachment Media Strategy: Here's an analysis of the White House media disinformation strategy to dissuade Senate Conviction/removal. Click
State Level Efforts poised: State level impeachment effort is gaining serious traction. News articles, discussion in state and local level:
Click Deadline for Congress: 01 March 2006, or the States will commence debates.
-- == *** == --
Why is the President defying the rule of law? Because the Senate refuses to compel the President to assent. Details on the President's rebellion against the Constitution. Click here President can't argue he has "inherent authority" to do anything, unless he recognizes the other branches have matching power to check that "inherent authority. Curious, the President claims right to create new powers; but ignores explicit Article 1 Section 8 Congressional powers -- allowed to make FISA rules; regulate pirate capture/trial [AlQueda]
As long as the President, SecDef, and Joint Staff face meaningless consequences for violating the law and DoD directives, the US will be seen as a rogue nation.
Example DoD Discipline program: Joint Staff Rebellion, Indictments Also, preliminary inquiry outlined for the Joint Staff over their alleged violations of DoD Directives.
Click
-- == *** == --
Voter's Guide to NSA Hearing: If the President is lawfully removed from office with Cheney, the voters in 2006 will likely choose the Representative that will replace him. Here is a State-level action guide for voters to review the NSA hearings. If Congress doesn't act, the States are prepared to move. The voters have 8 months to digest what the Senate does or doesn't do.
NSA hearings 06 Feb scheduled for Monday -- get your friends to watch
Click
-- == *** == --
Alert for Congressional leadership: Other discussion on the Joint Staff Discipline Problem: Here are the details over the Joint Staff and apparent President/SecDef guidance to violate directives; why there is a discipline problem in DoD, and what the Congress needs to be aware of next time anyone from the Executive Branch appears: they're willing to violate their directives.
Prohibited Conduct: DoD directives explicitly prohibit Service Personnel from using their official rank to make public comments about political matters.
Preliminary Inquiry: Here's the preliminary outline for the indictments against the UCMJ over their alleged violations of DoD directives for sending this letter. Click for summary of UCMJ Inquiry -- tell your friends the Joint Staff has violated specific DoD Directives Click
UCMJ Prohibits interference with any investigation into this matter. UCMJ is warranted because Joint Staff's "commander" likely [a] ordered the letter writing; and [b] is not going to impose non-Judicial punishment because of conflicts -- President/SecDef are not likely to sanction Joint Staff for following orders to violate directives -- that would implicate the President and SecDef. Ref: Click
* A. What is the Senate’s view on the President’s apparent direction to DoD to violate the law?
* B. Are Senators committed to ensuring that DoD and the President enforce the law?
* C. Is this Congress committed to asserting Article 1 Section 8 powers to raise a militia put down this President’s rebellion against the President?
-- == *** == --
Summation: If the Senate is not willing to seriously address this issue, the State level legislatures are poised to debate this issue during their Senate Proclamation reviews. There is nothing the Congress, RNC, Senate, or President can do to prevent the States from demanding the system of checks and balances – as they have promised with their oaths – to be protected. It is time for the Congress to decide if they are with the President’s rebellion against the Constitution, or they are for the Constitution.
The voters have 9 months from Feb 2006 to Nov 2006 to digest whether the Senate is or is not a credible forum to engage in checks and balances. Article IV Section 4 guarantees a republican form of government. If the Congress refuses to assert their oath of office, the States are prepared to move. The Deadline is 01 March 2006. The Senate needs to wake up and realize there is a plan in place to make this happen. The voters have 9 months from today to digest whether this Congress is for or against the rule of law.
Choose wisely.
Good Luck Glenn and some thoughts.
ReplyDelete1. I very much believe that the Republicans should be challenged constantly and uniformly on three matters, two of which are simply language and the thid of which is at the heart of the conflict. Those matter are
a) It is DOMESTIC SPYING not Terrorist Surveillance, and even this is only for shorthand. It should be, BREAKING THE FISA LAW not Terrorist Surveillance. Over and over - the President's program to break the FISA laws . . .
b) WHISTLEBLOWERS and not leakers. People have gone way out on the limb for us and Dems need to join ranks to cover their backs. When Porter Goss moans that our intelligence allies are worried we can't keep a secret -- tell him "Isn't it a wonderful thing that Americans won't let Even the President of the United States get by with breaking the law --- makes you proud of the CIA employees, doesn't it Dir. Goss?" Dir Goss and Sen. Roberts - how can you not be proud of American whistleblowers who are willing to keep us from having another Abu Ghraib and descending into lawlessness?
Director Goss: The whistleblowers have not told al-Qaeda anything it did not already know - the President himself has told al-Qaeda that its calls are being monitored. Don't tell me that any of our allies feel that al-Qaeda just now figured out their calls are monitored. The American people are the ones tha got "new" information and the new information is that the President has ordered his employees to break the law. You do NOT have FISA judges resign and the full complement of the FISA court order the Attorney General in for a briefing because of a national security leak, you have them take that action because the Attorney General of the United State and President are working together to break the law!
c) This is the PRESIDENT SUSPENDING THE PROTECTIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS not the Congress trying to Interfere with the PResident's War Powers. The Supreme Court has already told a war time President that he can NOT suspend the Bill of Rights, specifically the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments as a part of his war powers. The Supreme Court told Lincoln that, as long as we have not descended into such chaos that the civil courts have been forced to close, Americans are protected by the Bill of RIghts EQUALLY at war as in peace. To hold otherwise, the court noted, would lead to anarchy and despotism. The protections of the Bill of Rights were extended to all citizens, not serving in the military, while the civil courts are open and operating, EVEN when martial law is in effect. To do otherwise, the Court said, would be operate to allow, when the Constitution is under assault by enemy actions, for its guardians to stab it in the back from behind.
IMO, Congress does a disservice to itself and the case law to frame the argument as being one between Congressional rights to pass statutes and supervise and the PResident's rights to conduct the war and make decision as to how the war if fought.
The fight is not between Congress and the PResident, but rather, between the President and the Constitution, the President and the People. It is not Congress that tells the President he must have a warrant - it is the Constitution. It is not Congress that "caps" the President's power - it is the people, since all three branches of governement, under our Constitution, have ONLY the power granted to them by the people and in the Bill of Rights the PEOPLE limited the President's powers.
Every American knows the phrase, "A man's home is his castle" and those alive during the Watergate hearings will remember how it was referenced during those hearings.
It was a basice tenet of English law that carried over to America that “Every man's house is his castle…that no matter how humble, even the king must ask permission before entering.”
The 4th Amendment is the embodiment of that concept and to allow the President of the Untited States to violate that Amendment, unchecked, is to grant to him powers that were denied to even the King of England.
The 4th Amendment is America's "No Trespassing" sign, and it takes a warrant for even the President to trespass against American citizens. Unless we concede to be less than serfs under a monarch.
Glen,
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to thank you for traveling to DC to help educate congressional staffers on the NSA scandal.
Jay Goldfarb
Santa Cruz, CA
I agree with the rest of your analysis, Glenn (if I may call you that), but I disagree with your surety that Gonzales statement is definitively "unambiguous."
ReplyDelete