This is my first diary, so please be gentle...<grin> I'm saying that up front because it IS a long post. However, when you're through reading it, I'm sure you'll agree with my assesment, and hopefully you can use the info, too. I'll also be addressing this issue at length on my site, PoliticalTruthWatch.Com.
________
I'm not one to let the WingNuts get to me, but after today's hearings, a Republican friend of mine put this nonsense on his blog, that I counterpoint on at his request:
"Sen Feingold Knew about Wiretaps and Set up Gonzales"
I wanted to laugh until I read closer and saw that he was serious.
My explanation of the nonsense is long enough, so I'll spare you all his babbling and give you the jist of what he said:
"Sen. Russ Feingold is either the most prophetic Senator or the NSA wiretap controversy has been a set up from the beginning.
Senators and Congressmen have been crying foul over the lack of notification for this super secret law breaking, civil liberty violating, and wiretap. Yet, one year ago, Sen. Feingold had the foresight to question then Nominee Alberto Gonzales."
He quotes from Gonzales' confirmation hearing, uses text from Feingold's website, parses his words, and then draws this conclusion:
"What is more interesting is if this was so classified and no sufficient oversight by Congress, how did Sen. Feingold know enough to question it? Not just generally either. He specifically asked about the President's Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to wiretap. What would have been the basis for that question unless it was being leaked prior to January 2005? This I believe is proof that Congress knew about the taps prior to the NY Times articles. Whoever told Feingold may have broken the law, and Feingold used this to set up Gonzales and the administration."
Needless to say, I couldn't pass this one up. NOTE: My friend humbly refers to himself as BlogMaster on his site. Here's my (apologetically) lengthy response:
______________________________________
Sorry, BlogMaster. . .Not takin' the bait on this one. . .besides, it's just not YOUR character to be a conspiracy theorist.
Let's look at the facts. . .I went and read the actual transcript, not excerpts on websites. . .Before the first question came up, here's one of the first sentences to come out of Feingold's mouth. Just a note, Feingold begins by responding to something Senator Specter said:
"Senator Feingold?
______________________________________
FEINGOLD: I too want to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman.
I have long admired your thoroughness and your independence and your judgment, and I do look forward to working with you and all the members of the committee again.
Particularly appreciate the fact that you kicked off the questioning today by using a lot of your time to talk about the need to carefully look at certain provisions of the USA Patriot Act, which, of course, I agree we need to do, and I'm looking forward to a bipartisan effort to do it.
You were specific about concerns, about the so-called library records provision, Section 215, and the sneak-and-peek provisions.
Those are some of the ones that need that kind of review. And I want to make it clear in the record, because it sounded like the nominee was suggesting that somehow Section 215 doesn't apply to library records. It does, in fact, apply to library records. Apparently the nominee agrees and...
GONZALES: I do.
FEINGOLD: ... I just want to say that the previous attorney general referred to librarians in this country as being hysterical in their concern with regard to this.
They were not hysterical about it and it does need the kind of review that the chairman has called for. I think it could be a great moment for the Senate when we take up this legislation and look at the problems with it and come together to fix it.
FEINGOLD: And I thank the chairman for that.
Welcome, Judge Gonzales, and congratulations on your nomination.
In accepting the president's nomination to be attorney general, you said, "The American people expect and deserve a Department of Justice guided by the rule of law." I couldn't agree with you more.
One of the things we, as senators, must decide in considering your nomination is whether as attorney general you will give the American people what they expect and deserve from their government. And I have a few questions to follow up on that.
First I want to follow up on you answer to Senator Kennedy and Senator Leahy regarding the OLC memo. You told Senator Leahy that you didn't want to politicize the work of career professionals of DOJ, so you couldn't weigh in against the interpretation of the law that was expressed in that memo.
But then you told Senator Kennedy that it was totally appropriate to have discussions with the DOJ while the memo was being prepared because it was a complicated statute that had never before been interpreted.
I think there's something of a contradiction there, which I'd like you to comment on, but I'd like to make two other points first.
First, the authors of the torture memo, in fact, Judge, were political appointees, not career professionals.
Second, the issue is whether you disagreed with that memo and expressed that disagreement to the president.
You're the president's lawyer. Isn't it your job to express your independent view to the president if you disagree with the opinion of the Justice Department? Or do you just simply pass on the DOJ's opinion no matter how erroneous or outrageous, and just say to the president in effect, "This is what the DOJ says the law is"?
_________________________________
At the time of Gonzales confirmation hearings, one of the "hot topics" was the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, also known as USA Patriot Act II. The provisions of the Patriot Act were up for reauthorization and there was a hearing scheduled for April 5, 2005 to discuss those parts that were up for renewal. Given that there was to be a changing of the guard, Feingold (and others) felt it necessary to see how Gonzales felt about certain of those provisions. As a matter of fact, during that April 5 hearing, Feingold said, "Other provisions of the Patriot Act, however, including some provisions not subject to the sunset, deserve close scrutiny. Some may require modification to ensure adequate protection of civil liberties going forward." It's quite obvious that Feingold had been giving plenty of thought to the renewal of this act and parts of it for quite some time. Don't forget, that Feingold felt so strongly about the ramifications to civil liberties that the Patriot Act would have that he was the ONLY senator to vote against its passage and remains the only one who consistenly has voted against it. So you see, this was not a kneejerk reaction from Feingold or the "Spy vs. Spy" scenario that BlogMaster would have you to believe. . .this guy was genuinely concerned. And why shouldn't he be?
Part of USA Patriot II allows for surveillance (wiretaps and pen traps) without a court order in emergency situations. 18 USC §2518(7) and § 3125.
THIS is why he was concerned. THIS is why he asked the question. Let's continue:
Feingold had asked his question and after Gonzales' answer, it was other senators' turns to ask questions. Let's pick up when Feingold gets his next chance:
____________________________________________
"Let me switch to a subject that's come up a lot here today. In the August 2002 memorandum, the Justice Department concludes that the president, as commander in chief, may authorize interrogations that violate the criminal laws prohibiting torture and that the Congress may not constitutionally outlaw such activity when it's authorized by the president. This is the claim, essentially, that the president is above the law so long as he is acting in the interest of national security. The December 30 rewrite of the August memorandum does not repudiate this view. It simply says the issue is irrelevant because the president has prohibited torture.
Today, in response to questions on this subject, you have been unwilling to repudiate this legal theory. You've danced around the question of it, but as I understand your answer so far you have said there may be a situation where the president would believe a statute is unconstitutional and would therefore refuse to comply with it, but would abide by a court's decision on its constitutionality. You also, I am told, said that many presidents have asserted the power not to enforce a statute that they believe is unconstitutional. But there is a difference between a president deciding not to enforce a statute which he thinks is unconstitutional and a president claiming to authorize individuals to break the law by torturing individuals or taking other illegal actions.
So what I want to do is press you on that because I think perhaps you've misunderstood the question, and it's an important one. It goes to a very basic principle of the country: that no one, not even the president of the United States, is above the law. Of course, the president is entitled to assert that an act of Congress is unconstitutional.
This president did so, for example, with respect to some portions of our McCain-Feingold bill when he signed it. But his Justice Department defended the law in court, as it is bound to do with every law duly enacted by the Congress. And his campaign and his party complied with the law while a court challenge was pending. No one asserted that the president has the power to ignore a law that he thought was unconstitutional.
The question here is what is your view regarding the president's constitutional authority to authorize violations of the criminal law, duly enacted statutes that may have been on the books for many years, when acting as commander in chief? Does he have such authority? The question you have been asked is not about a hypothetical statute in the future that the president might think is unconstitutional. It's about our laws and international treaty obligations concerning torture. The torture memo answered that question in the affirmative, and my colleagues and I would like your answer on that today. And I also would like you to answer this: does the president, in your opinion, have the authority acting as commander in chief to authorize warrantless searches of Americans' homes and wiretaps of their conversations in violation of the criminal and foreign intelligence surveillance statutes of this country?
_________________________________________
SEE? This wasn't just a question of wiretaps, though it was an important one. The WHOLE issue centered around the president having the ability to ignore statute when he felt it was unconstitutional. . .something he should NEVER do, that's for the judiciary to determine. (Little thing called the separation of powers, BlogMaster, in case you've forgotten). Look at his stated purpose again:
__________________________________________
"what is your view regarding the president's constitutional authority to authorize violations of the criminal law, duly enacted statutes that may have been on the books for many years, when acting as commander in chief?"
__________________________________________
NOW. . .watch what happens next. . .Dance, Alberto, Dance!
__________________________________________
"MR. GONZALES: Senator, the August 30th memo has been withdrawn. It has been rejected, including that section regarding the commander in chief authority to ignore the criminal statutes. So it's been rejected by the executive branch. I categorically reject it. And in addition to that, as I've said repeatedly today, this administration does not engage in torture and will not condone torture. And so, what you really are--what we're really discussing is a hypothetical situation that--
SEN. FEINGOLD: I--Judge Gonzales, let me ask a broader question. I'm asking you whether in general the president has the constitutional authority, does he at least in theory have the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he's commander in chief? Does he--does he have that power?"
____________________________________
Gonzales goes on to hem and haw, never really answering the question. Guess what, BlogMaster. . .the question about warrantless wiretaps NEVER comes up again. NEVER! That was never the focus of the question. . .the president judicating was the issue! Doesn't sound like an obsession or a trap to me or any other conventional thinker.
You see, BlogMaster, your "leak" theory doesn't "hold water". In your zeal to try and deflect attention from the fact that the Attorney General lied at his confirmation hearing you've managed to overlook the facts. . .not the first time, won't be the last.