Brownback won’t back Bush on warrantless-search program

January 6, 2006

At last count, there were five Senate Republicans who, to varying degrees, criticized the White House for its warrantless-search program and argued that hearings to explore this controversy are necessary: Specter (Pa.), Graham (S.C.), Hagel (Neb.), Snowe (Maine), and Lugar (Ind.). Unfortunately, there aren’t any real fire-breathers in the bunch — Specter and Snowe are moderates; Graham and Hagel fashion themselves mavericks, and Lugar plays the role of an elder statesman.

How about a rank-and-file, far-right Republican showing the courage to criticize Bush on this? I’d say Kansas’ Sam Brownback fits the bill.

U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., on Friday said the Bush administration needed to answer questions about spying on Americans without court authorization. And Brownback said he disagreed with the administration’s legal rationale, which he said could hamper future presidents during war.

“There are questions that should be examined at this point in time,” Brownback said during a news conference. […]

“I do not agree with the legal basis on which they are basing their surveillance — that when the Congress gave the authorization to go to war that that gives sufficient legal basis for the surveillance,” he said.

He said if the justification holds up, “you’re going to have real trouble having future Congresses giving approval to presidents to go to war.”

Brownback said this in Kansas, the Friday before Christmas weekend, perhaps to help Brownback play both sides of the fence — he took a principled stand against presidential overreach, which few outside of Kansas will actually know about.

Nevertheless, if Brownback is sincere about his concerns, it could be significant. Brownback, like Specter, is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which may hold hearings on the controversy. With these two Republicans hammering the administration, in addition to Dems’ questions, it could not only push the Bush gang into a difficult position, it could also underscore the bi-partisan nature of the scandal.

Might this also push some of the other ’08 presidential aspirants in the Senate to follow Brownback’s lead and support the rule of law over an unpopular president? What do you say, George Allen?

It says something when the supposedly more moderate senator from Kansas is on the wrong side of an issue–Pat Roberts has done everything short of bow and scrape before Shrub on this issue.

  • Graham is on Judiciary, too. In fact, of the (now) six Republicans to voice strong doubts about the wiretapping policy, only Lugar is on neither Judiciary nor Intelligence.

  • Brownback is full of it. This is clearly a ploy to push an inquiry to Roberts’ Intelligence Committee, where everything will be kept secret and Bush will be given a pass because Roberts is a key enabler in the movement toward dictatorship. The AP noted on 12/23/05, as reported in the Topeka Capital-Journal, that:

    “Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., already has promised to have hearings. Brownback is a member of the Judiciary Committee, but he said there also should be hearings by the Intelligence Committee, led by fellow Kansas Republican Pat Roberts.”

    Link: http://www.cjonline.com/stories/122305/bre_brownback.shtml (registration required)

    I find it curious that Scott Rothschild, who must have used the AP report while writing his article for the Lawrence Journal-World the next day, leaves out this fact.

  • Dictatorship? Sheesh. You guys are so far out in left field, no wonder nobody takes anything you say seriously.

  • Steve, a “dictator” is one who rules by “telling” everybody else what the rules are. How does that not describe what Bush has been up to? Telling the NSA to ignore the law, and Constitution, and instead to do things as he says? Ordering Americans to be held indefinitely without charge? He’s created a constitutional crisis by dictating rather than by upholding the law. The problem is not with Bush’s critics, but with those you identify with who refuse to take criticisms seriously.

    Shoe on the other foot time: If it were a Democratic president doing these things, would you be so blind to what is illegal about them? Our nation’s founders are turning over in their graves, contemplating the many knaves like you.

  • Add Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) to the list of conservative senators – which already includes Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) – who have expressed serious concerns about Bush’s secret domestic spying program. From CNN’s Late Edition:

    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.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/01/lugar-supports-hearings/

  • My bad! I missed your inclusion of Lugar. McCain is a new one fopr your list:

    Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said there were no objections raised by lawmakers who were told about it. “That’s a legitimate part of the equation,” McCain said on ABC’s “This Week.” But he said Bush still needs to explain why he chose to ignore the law that requires approval of a special court for domestic wiretaps.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1418547

  • smintheus, so far you’ve missed the reports he made to Congress, the court decisions supporting this action and what law, specificly, did he tell the NSA to ignore? Looks like another case of BDS to me.

  • Bill M says,

    “you’ve missed the reports he made to Congress” you mean the reports to select members who were then ordered by law to not discuss with anyone??

    “the court decisions supporting this action” cite them…

    “and what law, specificly, did he tell the NSA to ignore?” well, where do we start? how about FISA ? you know, the part that says the NSA needs to get a warrant…

    and then he simply ignored his oath of office, which states that he would protect the constitution, you know, the part about unreasonable search and seizure…. or the part where US citizens are supposed to not be held indefinitely without charges…. or tortured, or shipped to other countries to be tortured… etc etc ad nauseum….

    but i guess when you’re a dictator, who needs that piece of paper anyway?? or congress for that matter, when you can simply use recess appointments….

  • Bill M. — I did miss those reports to Congress; link? Or do you mean secret briefings to a handful, who were prohibitted from discussing anything with anybody?

    Court decisions? Link? SCOTUS has rejected repeatedly Bush’s idea that POTUS has a “blank check” just because of a state of war (which in this case, is undeclared anyway). No serious legal scholar supports the notion that Bush can secretly violate laws or the Constitution by alleging ‘national security’ or ‘exigencies of war’.

    What laws??? Start with FISA.

  • So! How does the American public….yes even those poor unintelligent, uninformed Americans who don’t want to work, feel about Impeaching the Bush Administration? We have been deceived and spied on long enough. And what is next after the spying……arrests for gathering, free speech, political assinations?

    • Comments are closed.