In today's
Columbus Dispatch there is a publication of the verbatim viewpoints of multiple members of Congress on Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance. The results may surprise you.
Senator Mike DeWine (R):
"I believe the president of the United States has the responsibility as commander in chief, in an emergency, to take actions to protect the American people from being attacked, even when those actions may not specifically be authorized by statute.
However, the president has the obligation to seek congressional statutory authority, within a reasonable period of time, if he finds it necessary to continue such actions. In this instance, the Senate Intelligence Committee has an obligation, in its regular course of oversight, to review this program. Further, the executive branch should brief the full committee on the program so that members can carry out their oversight responsibilities.
As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee I believe very strongly that the unauthorized disclosure of classified information carries great risks and should be investigated when such disclosures occur."
Senator George Voinovich (R):
In a time of war, it is Congress' responsibility to ensure that the president has the means necessary to protect the American people; however, there is a fine line between advancing our national security agenda and infringing upon the rights of those we are protecting.
At this critical time in our nation's history, Congress must provide ample oversight to make sure there is not an abuse of American civil liberties. Therefore, I support the Congressional investigations regarding the NSA programs. The hearings will help clarify how, when, and why these programs are being implemented, and whether civil liberties are in any way being jeopardized.
It is my understanding that the Department of Justice is conducting an active investigation to determine whether or not an unauthorized source violated law by disclosing classified information. Should the department find that there was a leak of classified information which notified terrorists of intelligence sources and methods, the appropriate legal action must be taken.
Revealing sensitive sources and methods can cause irreparable damage to U.S. intelligence operations and empowers the terrorists who want to harm our country."
Voinovich's garbage about punishing a whistleblower is unfortunate but predictable. He wasn't as strong in his language as DeWine, whose reaction surprises me considering his trouble with the GOP base in Ohio.
Rep. Steve Chabot (R):
"It is important for the appropriate congressional committees to thoroughly review this program and its operations in a manner consistent with our national security needs. We must continue to aggressively combat terrorists in the United States and abroad while respecting the civil liberties of American citizens."
This sort of language ignores the illegality of the warrantless surveillance, but the civil liberties are obviously an important issue as well. It is unsurprising that members of the GOP will ignore discuss the legality of all of this voluntarily because, well, most of them don't know the laws anyway.
Jean Schmidt (R):
"I don't believe that the president overstepped his authority. The so-called Group of Eight (of top congressional leaders) appear to have been properly briefed. The president believes that the program is needed and I believe that it can proceed without putting our civil liberties in danger.
I strongly believe that if a program is so highly classified that only the most central figures knew that it even existed that the leak of the program is clearly a violation of law. It is fair to assume that now that the targets know we are listening that our national security has been damaged and our citizens are at a higher risk."
This is drivel, but is what we've already come to expect from this simple-minded condescender from Cincinnati. It really is too bad Hackett isn't there to dominate her anymore.
Michael Turner, (R):
``The primary function of government is to keep its citizens safe. On September 11, 2001, our country was brutally attacked by al Qaeda, and there were concerns that they intended to hit us again.
Congress passed a bipartisan joint resolution authorizing the use of military force (AUMF). It authorized President Bush to use all necessary and appropriate force. This includes all actions fundamental to war.
One of the actions necessary is to intercept the communications of enemies plotting further terrorists actions against the U.S. Conducting surveillance on people making contact with al Qaeda and protecting civil liberties are not mutually exclusive. Both can be achieved.
This is not a `secret' program. Members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees were briefed on at least 12 occasions; the U.S. attorney general signed off on the program; and the president reviewed and approved the program every 45 days.
The chairman of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), has publicly stated that he has been briefed on specific actions that were taken to keep America safe. Deputy Director of National Intelligence Michael Hayden has publicly indicated that this program has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States.
Congress will begin hearings when it reconvenes. At that time we will have more information about the program, determine if changes are necessary, and establish the degree to which revealing the details of the program jeopardized national security."
Gobbledy-gook.
More of the same with this guy, Michael Oxley (R):
The U.S. is in a war against global terrorism that began on 9/11. But this is not a traditional battlefield war. Terrorists hide and plot until they're ready to kill.
Congress fully authorized President Bush to take action to prevent another attack. It would be irresponsible not to monitor communications between Al-Qaeda members and sympathizers who may be planning at this moment to strike again. At issue are international phone calls and e-mails that directly affect our safety -- not conversations between Boy Scouts.
As a former FBI special agent who conducted legal wiretaps, I know that surveillance activities are only undertaken with probable cause, rigorously supervised, and respectful of civil liberties. Leaking our most advanced and sensitive surveillance techniques to the media helps our enemies and jeopardizes American lives. Far from being praised, those who broke the law should be arrested and prosecuted for what amounts to treason."
Now, to Ohio's future governor, Ted Strickland (D) of Lisbon:
For years, the president of the United States has had the authority to intercept and listen to the conversations of suspected terrorists and their accomplices.
Where President Bush overstepped his authority was in eliminating the requirement for judicial review of these wiretaps. His claim that the warrant process for eavesdropping was too cumbersome holds no water: NSA and other agencies already had the authority to conduct eavesdropping activities in emergency situations without a warrant provided they seek court approval within three days of beginning the wiretap. The program as it existed before the president's unilateral executive order was amply flexible for investigative agencies while protecting necessary civil liberties.
President Bush absolutely did not consult sufficiently with congressional officials. I have doubts about President Bush's contention that the release of information on this program `damages our national security.'
I find it hard to believe that those seeking to harm American citizens didn't already assume that American officials were doing everything possible to gather information on their plans -- including eavesdropping on their phone calls. The real damage in this situation is to the American people's trust in their government leaders to respect their privacy and follow the letter of the law."
This is a pristine answer. It calls to mind the questions of Constitutionality, and it does so wisely and informatively. This is how it's done. Strickland is going to be a star for many years to come.
Another well-known Dem, Dennis Kucinich:
"'It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations . . .' Those are the words of the nonpartisan legislative experts at the Congressional Research Service in a recent detailed analysis presented to Congress, at my request, on the NSA spying program. I could not agree more.
The president's program of spying on Americans is illegal, unjustified, a gross abuse of executive authority and a danger to the basic rights of every American. Our Constitution is clear, Congress makes the laws and the president executes the laws.
Congress did not authorize the spying on Americans without a court's approval, and no one is above the law. Congress and the American public should not be distracted from these underlying facts, no matter the selfinterested efforts of the president to distract, confuse and divide us."
Kudos to Kucinich.
Now to Sherrod Brown, DeWine's potential replacement:
When the president authorized his administration to spy on American citizens without a warrant, he didn't just cross the line, he erased it. By listening in on phone calls and reading e-mails, without a warrant, the president may have violated the Constitution and U.S. law.
The administration floated a proposal in 2001 that would have given President Bush virtually unlimited power to eavesdrop on Americans without first obtaining a warrant. Congress said `no.'
As for the leak, it's difficult to fault a whistleblower for trying to protect the constitutional rights of Americans, but there must always be caution taken with respect to classified secrets.
The administration could have obtained warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The president claims that the process of obtaining a warrant, which protects our civil rights, is cumbersome and too slow to be effective.
The president does not have the right to cherry pick laws that work on his timeline, and disregard laws that do not. I have joined my colleagues in a letter to the administration addressing our grave concerns, and I have called for immediate investigations of these alleged violations.
The president has the responsibility to protect American lives and uphold American laws. It's not one or the other; it's both."
Huah!
And for the record, Bob Ney didn't respond to the Dispatch's request. Gee, wonder why?