Today on CNN's Late Edition, Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) said he
supports Congressional hearings on Bush's warrantless surveillance program:
BLITZER: So you want hearings? You want hearings?
LUGAR: I do. I think this is an appropriate time, without going back and should the president have ever tried to listen to a call coming from Afghanistan, probably of course. And in the first few weeks we made many concessions in the Congress because we were at war and we were under attack.
We still have the possibility of that going on so we don't want to obviate all of this, but I think we want to see what in the course of time really works best and the FISA Act has worked pretty well from the time of President Carter's day to the current time.
More on Republicans supporting said hearings in extended.
On December 18th, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said on CBS News'
Face the Nation that he supported hearings on Bush's warrantless surveillance program:
SCHIEFFER: The Secretary of State said this morning that the president has statutory and constitutional authorization to do what he did. So I'll start with Senator Graham. Does he have that authority, Senator?
LINDSEY GRAHAM: If he has the authority to go around the FISA court, which is a court to accommodate the law of the war of terror, the FISA Act was-created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don't know of any legal basis to go around that. There may be some, but I'm not aware of it. And here's the concern I have. We can't become an outcome-based democracy. Even in a time of war, you have to follow the process, because that's what a democracy is all about: a process.
...
TOM FRIEDMAN: Senator Graham, what recourse does the Senate have in the face of this kind of action? What can you do?
GRAHAM: Well, number one, we have to resolve this issue to build confidence in the American people that we're a nation of laws, not outcomes. So having hearings I think is appropriate. To have a public hearing is maybe not appropriate. I would like to see the Intelligence Committee and other people who are the appropriate folks to provide oversight look into it.
The bottom line is there is a theme here that is a bit disturbing. Remember the debate with Senator McCain about immunity. The administration was pushing to give immunity to interrogators in the field. Well, if you allow the president to make a finding that this is a bad person and that these techniques are necessary, the president would have the authority to set aside statutes like the torture statute. If you allow him to make the findings, he becomes the court. So you cannot give any executive, Republican or Democrat, the ability to make findings to set aside statutes that exist or play the role of the court because that becomes a model that other people will adopt when our troops are held by them. We don't want the attorney general of Iran using the model we've created to waive international laws.
So a process in a time of war is just as important as a process in a time of peace, but here's what I reject. We're not fighting a crime here, Tom or Bob. We're fighting a war and we need more flexibility in a time of war, but we also need to adhere to the law because the law protects us in both instances.
...
GRAHAM: ...I reject the idea that any president can sit down with a handful of congressmen and deal the courts out if the law requires the court to be involved. It is about the process. It's not about the politics. It is about winning the war, adhering to the values that we are fighting for and you can't set those values aside in the name of expediency.
...
FRIEDMAN: Senator, very quickly, who do you want to see up on Capitol Hill now being questioned about this issue?
GRAHAM: I want people who made the legal decision that he didn't have to go to the court come and tell us why. And they may be right. I'm not prejudging their legal analysis.
FRIEDMAN: You want to see the attorney general. You want to...
GRAHAM: I want to see the statute. I want to see the executive order. Whatever legal authority was used, I want someone to explain to me how it justified not going to a court that was set up for this very purpose.
Earlier in the week, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter (R-PA), said of the president's NSA program:
"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate."
Specter has called the administration's legal justification 'a stretch,' has called for the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on the matter this month, and plans to question Judge Alito extensively on his view on executive power. However, a recent Time Magazine article notes that the White House is leaning very hard on Specter to not hold hearings on the president's warrantless surveillance program. The administration would much rather any hearings be held by the Senate Intelligence Committee, where their lapdog, Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), can hold a nice dog and pony show on the matter.
Update [2006-1-1 21:46:0 by jorndorff]: Halcyon notes that Senator Hagel (R-NE) has also called for hearings:
"Every president, that we know of, has complied with the law (FISA)," Hagel said. "No president is above the law. We are a nation of laws and no president, majority leader, or chief justice of the Supreme Court can unilaterally or arbitrarily avoid a law or dismiss a law. If the vice president holds a different point of view, then he holds a different point of view."
...
"I take an oath of office to the Constitution," he said. "I don't take an oath of office to the vice president, a president or a political party. My obligation and responsibility are to the people I represent and the country I serve. I do what I think is right for the people I represent and the country I serve."
Update [2006-1-1 23:24:52 by jorndorff]: emptywheel also notes that Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) is on board. On December 21st she joined a bipartisan group of Senators including Hagel (R-NE), Feinstein (D-CA), Levin (D-MI), and Wyden (D-OR), calling on the Senate Judiciary & Intelligence Commitees to hold hearings on Bush's warrantless surveillance program.
Update [2006-1-2 2:0:24 by jorndorff]: Barbara Boxer's Pac For a Change has an online petition going urging Senator Specter to hold Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Bush's warrantless surveillance program before the Alito hearings. Already there have been some 56,500 signees.
The letter in full:
We, the undersigned Americans, urge you to hold thorough public hearings into the program of secret, warrant-less wiretaps authorized by President Bush since 2001. Congress must act to thoroughly investigate the President's actions now.
Clearly, protecting Americans from terrorism here at home must be the top priority of any Administration. But we certainly can do that without trampling on the Constitution in the process. Defending America means protecting our homeland as well as preserving our very rights and freedoms as citizens.
That's why Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978, to protect national security while still preserving civil liberties. Why did President Bush consciously choose to violate federal law, even though the Act clearly states that FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance...and the interception of domestic wire and oral communications may be conducted"?
This egregious and repeated violation of American civil liberties by President Bush and his Administration requires a thorough Congressional investigation. That's why we urge you to hold hearings before you take up Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.
Signed by:
[Your name]
[Your address]
Go sign that baby. That is all.