WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
In January of last year, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee at hearings to decide whether he should be confirmed as Attorney General of the United States. Going into those hearings, I had an open mind -- unlike with judicial nominations, a president should have wide latitude to appoint who he wants to advise him.
After his testimony before the Committee, however, it was apparent that Judge Gonzales does not have the abiding respect for the rule of law that our country needs in its Attorney General. Too often, he seemed to view the law as an obstacle to navigate around rather than something he was required to uphold. And so I voted against his confirmation. After what we have learned in the past seven weeks since the NSA wiretapping story appeared in the New York Times, and after the Attorney General's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, I am more convinced than ever my vote was correct.
At yesterday’s hearing, I reminded the Attorney General about his testimony during his confirmation hearings in January 2005, when I asked him whether the President had the power to authorize warrantless wiretaps in violation of the criminal law. We didn't know it then, but the President had authorized the NSA program three years before, when the Attorney General was White House Counsel. At his confirmation hearing, the Attorney General first tried to dismiss my question as "hypothetical" before stating "it's not the policy or the agenda of this President to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes." Yesterday, he tried to claim that he had told the truth at that hearing, bringing the parsing of words to new lows. I think it is clear that the Attorney General misled the Committee and the public not only about the NSA wiretapping program but about his views on presidential power. That broader issue was central to the debate over his nomination.
The Attorney General's lack of candor adds to the already mounting credibility problem that this Administration faces. One of the things I tried to do in my second round of questions yesterday was to point out how incomplete and misleading the President's comments on the NSA program in the State of the Union address were.
This administration reacts to anyone who questions this illegal program by saying that those of us who demand the truth and stand up for our rights and freedoms somehow has a pre-9/11 world view. In fact, the President has a pre-1776 world view. Our government has three branches, not one. And no one, not even the President, is above the law.
I'm sure this will get moved, but let me just say now how cool it is to have Senator Feingold's "blog" appearing right next to those of mac2151 and DanielGree.
February 7, 2006 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, the President has a pre-1776 world view.
If you look at the reliance on indefinite detention without trial, it seems to me that the world view is pretty pre-1215, inasmuch as this is one thing that the Magna Carta sought to prohibit.
February 7, 2006 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey -- this guy's good. Someone should front-page him. :-)
Yesterday, he tried to claim that he had told the truth at that hearing, bringing the parsing of words to new lows.
Just when we thought they couldn't go any lower...
Senator, you've been truly stellar on this issue. As much as we bloggers bitch and complain about our own party, it's people like you that I think keep a lot of us going.
What I don't get here are the Republicans. While there are some exceptions, why is it that most Republican Senators are so willing to hand over to the Executive Branch oversight power which should be held by Congress? Sessions, in particular, seemed to think that the President is not taking away enough civil liberties.
Is it just party politics? Or are these people really that oblivious to the dangerous precendent that the Bush Administration is trying to set?
Dissent Protects Democracy
February 7, 2006 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
These guys don't seem to get the good old "checks and balances idea". They want all executive branch all the time. I believe we had a problem with that idea during the time of George III. Now George the W wants to ignore the fact that the legislative branch makes the law and the executive branch carries it out. He also would like to skip the judiciary branch (the FISA court). Sorry, George. This is impeachable and convictable, as are your Iraq deceptions.
Tom
February 7, 2006 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
These guys don't seem to get the good old "checks and balances idea". They want all executive branch all the time.
Occasionally, you hear descriptions of Cheney's Hobbesian world view, and this is a good way to think about what motivates the supporters of the all-powerful executive. Hobbes, in one sentence, felt that human beings were so avaricious and violent that the only rational choice for us, inasmuch as we valued our property and our lives, was to accept the absolute authority of a unitary ruler. The neo-Hobbes view, I guess, is that we live in an overwhelmingly dangerous world of porous borders and shifting, hidden threats, and that the only rational response to the threats posed from without are to empower the unitary executive branch to operate without significant oversight from anyone else.
There are only three problems with this view:
1. Even on the most alarmist view of Al Qaeda's capacities, our individual safety is not seriously at risk (each of us has a remote possibility of being killed by a terrorist), and as such, the trade-off of individual liberty for individual safety is not a rational one. Hobbes saw the greatest threat in our neighbors, all of them, not a few guys spread across the globe. The threat that he envisions (incorrectly, I think) is much more pervasive, and individual risk would be high. As individuals, I think we can all accept the level of risk terrorism currently poses, because we accept much higher levels of risk in other forms every day.
2. Nothing about the work the Bush Administration has done, on the terrorism front, really makes the case that putting our trust in a neo-Hobbesian sovereign of this sort would make us safer.
3. There is every reason to think that a system of greater oversight, and one that involves the legislature as an equal partner, will improve safety. The president is only accountable to the people every four years; a robust system of oversight by Congress is essential to make sure that the executive is taking its responsibilities seriously. And Congressional involvement is the only way to ensure a marketplace of ideas - we've seen how easy it is to stifle debate within the executive branch.
So as I see it, their efforts to concentrate power in the hands of the President constitute an inferior solution to a problem that in any case doesn't warrant the trade-offs we'd have to make. If the President's supporters in Congress wanted to make us safer, they should be pushing for more accountability, not less.
February 7, 2006 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes!
Why the consistent link between Republicans and a "strong executive"? I'm not sure I can articulate it very well, but it goes back to the power- and money-possessors, their not wanting to share money/power, and the fact that they can control things much easier in the "smoke-filled back room" (like the Skull and Bones Club).
Examples: (1) Cheney's secretive "energy task force." (2) The Bush dynasty business-plus-diplomacy relationship with the Saudi royal family (who are, within their own country, the epitome of the "strong executive.").
February 7, 2006 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Feingold: Like so many of us, I have been impressed with your leadership on this issue. But there is one line of questions that I wish you (or the other serious-minded senators on the Judiciary Committee) had pursued, to wit: when will this "war" end? Two years? Ten years? Twenty years? One can understand a president's assumption of extraordinary powers during what we have traditionally thought of as a war - i.e., a conflict that has some sense of spatial and temporal boundries. But the Bush administration is claiming for itself emergency powers that could last for a lifetime.
I think that is a telling point that can be easily grasped and easily articulated. And it leads naturally to the further question of whether we are using language to mislead ourselves by describing our present circumstances as a "war on terrorism."
February 7, 2006 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen!! The "War on Drugs," the "War on Crime," the "War on Poverty" ... all of these are "wars" only by analogy. They will go on forever. Even by Shrub's account, the "War on Terrorism" will go on at least 20 years.
And let's not forget the Red Brigade and the Bader-Meinhoff gang, and the (?Japanese terror group?). The "war on terror" has already been going on at least 20 years. And it is not limited to Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, the violent anti-abortion movement in the U.S. (killing doctors, bombing clinics) is Christian fundamentalist terrorism.
To think that the Bush gang thinks it can take "emergency powers" for 20-plus years is ridiculous. Twenty years is NOT "war"; 20 years is "life."
And frankly, average Americans are much more affected by drugs, crime, and poverty than they will ever be by "terror."
BTW: conservatives have previously suggested some extraordinary executive powers in connection with the "War on Drugs." This country has always seen the danger and refused those powers.
February 7, 2006 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note: this post was moved to the front page apparently. This is not the same blog post as the one on the front page...
Dissent Protects Democracy
February 7, 2006 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I moved to Wisconsin just in time to vote for you the first time, Russ, and I will keep doing it every chance I get. Tommy Thompson did his best to move Wisconsin as far away from its Progressive traditions as he could, but you are doing a great job upholding that tradition.
I heard your exchange with the AG that you are referring to here during the live broadcast of the hearing. I was flabbergasted that he kept evading an answer, and not taking responsibility for lying to you earlier.
I just saw Charlie and the Chocolate Factory finally just a week ago, so I immediately flashed on Willy Wonka turning to the little boy and telling him that he's mumbling, can't understand him, and turning back toward the camera with a look of "he says the most annoying things!"
But that's really what these guys do, they pretend to speak a different language, they pretend they can't understand, they answer the question they want to answer, and don't mind prevaricating while they do it.
There are only one or two people in the mainstream media who call them on these things, or even report when the people who are SUPPOSED to provide the checks and balances do it. We all owe you a great debt of gratitude because if you weren't out there asking these annoying questions, who would be!
Thanks Russ, and I hope I can catch you next time you're up in Central Wisconsin!
February 7, 2006 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pre-1776? Try pre-1215.
February 7, 2006 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems clear that the reason why the WH did not seek warrants from the FISA court is because they well knew that they would never be granted. And there is really only one reason why they wouldn't be granted, and that is because there was no probable cause to spy on these people.
So, who were they? Why is no one asking the question: Who was illegally spied on?
February 7, 2006 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the 2006 elections, every Democrat should be hammering two themes:
1) Bush and the republicans are trying to turn us into a nation of COWARDS.
2) [Candidate X] = Bush...i.e., voting for X is a vote for Bush's incompetence, a vote for Bush's cronyism, a vote for Bush's imperialism, a vote for Bush's corruption, etc.
February 7, 2006 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The part of Mr. Gonzales' testimony that troubled me the most was the endless hairsplitting on the subject of "under this particular program." This pretty much leaves a hole the size and shape of "other programs" under which other egregious violations of civil liberties might be occurring. Of course, in an effort to narrow the questions to the point of meaninglessness, and still not answering, perhaps this "under this particular program" language is just one more arrow in the quiver.
Thanks for holding him accountable, Senator. Thanks very much.
February 7, 2006 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
How does the administration square its position with the 1972 Plamondon case rejecting 8-0 warrentless searches as a reasonable exercise of presidential power to protect national security
Here is the Headnote:
UNITED STATES, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERNDIVISION, et al.; Lawrence Robert 'Pun' PLAMONDON et al., Real Parties inInterest. 407 U.S. 297.
In response to the defendants' pretrial motion for disclosure of electronic surveillance information, the Government filed an affidavit of the Attorney General stating that he had approved the wiretaps for the purpose of 'gather(ing) intelligence information deemed necessary to protect the nation from attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the existing structure of the Government.' On the basis of the affidavit and surveillance logs (filed in a sealed exhibit), the Government claimed that the surveillances, though warrantless, were lawful as a reasonable exercise of presidential power to protect the national security.
February 7, 2006 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do work the Republican side of the aisle, Senator. This moment in our history reminds me all too well of the decline of the Roman Senate.
Who will bell the cat?
February 7, 2006 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Feingold - I watched the hearing with great interest yesterday and look forward to the next session. What disappointed me most was the apparent leaning of many committee members (not you) to codify what the administration has done and thereby "make it legal" as if somehow this would render the question of the legality of the program to date a moot point. As we all know, it is not a moot point. Abuse of power and violation of a federal statute is a serious matter that should not be swept under the carpet by "subsequent remedial measures." I recognize the political pressure on both sides of the aisle to be seen as supporting the administration's efforts to "combat terror." However, I for one would feel abandoned by my Congress if it chose to avoid this issue for fear of retailiation at the polls.
I was very impressed with your questioning yesterday. I urge you to remain firm in your commitment to get past all of the administration's misdirections and get to the bottom of this matter. We need you.
On a related matter - I read with great concern the following article this morning http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm. I don't know to what extent the facts can be verified, but if they can, is there not something sanctionable in this conduct? I recognize in the world of "hardball" politics, it's unlikely -- but I thought it was a question worth raising.
February 7, 2006 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paraphrasing the late Johnny Cochran,
"If it's an over-reach, you must impeach".
February 7, 2006 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink