Sunday Discussion Group

February 5, 2006

Tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee will convene and hold major hearings into Bush’s warrantless-search program, its legality, its protections for civil liberties, its challenge to the separation of powers, etc. The hearings will be the first substantive congressional response to a White House controversy since, well, since before Bush became president. The principal witness will be Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who, as White House counsel, helped sign off on warrantless searches in the first place.

A few questions to consider:

* What would you ask Gonzales if you’re on the Judiciary Committee?

* Will Senate Dems be more effective (better organized, more focused, better prepared) than they were a couple of weeks ago with Samuel Alito? Just as importantly, how likely is it that Dems back down out of fear that this issue might backfire?

* There are 10 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee — and three of them (Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham, and Committee Chairman Arlen Specter) have raised serious concerns about the domestic spying program. With the pressure on, will these three wilt and give the administration a free pass, or are their concerns genuine?

* Will these hearings have an affect on the public’s perceptions of this controversy? If so, in which direction?

Discuss.

Mister Attorney General, did you have to study the Youngstown Sheet & Tube decision in law school, or were you out hungover that day?

  • Specter is a wimp and a liar — see Alito; Graham is a liar and ethics-challenged — see his coaching of Alito; and Brownback is just plain nuts and out of it — see his ignorance of WHO Bernancke is AND that Senate Hearings on his nomination had been completed. So, don’t expect much from them. We don’t have Sununu, DeWine, or Hagel — the leading Rethugs in opposition to the Sensenbrenner-led changes made to the renewal of the Patriot Act… so don’t expect much from any other Rethug on the Judiciary Committee.

    As for the Dems, most of them are clueless as to how to hold Bu$hCo and his minions accountable, and even if they did they are too afraid of their own shadows to take a stand that might subject them to the smears of the Right Wing Noise Machine. Only Feingold, so far, seems to be hell-bent to protect some of our civil liberties AND to challenge the liars-in-charge of our government. Feingold voted against the AUMF; he voted against the Patriot Act in 2001; he led the filibuster to prevent its renewal last December; AND he just recently was the only Senator to vote against the extension of it into March.

    The problem with Feingold is that he is still a politician, as demonstrated by his description of AbuGonzo’s AG Confirmation Hearing as “misleading testimony” rather than what it is, a “bald-faced lie.” Until ALL Dems, including Feingold, have the spine and the stomach to take strong LIBERAL stands (which most Americans support and want), to play hardball and call a spade “a spade,” then we will not be able to capitalize on the public’s disgust with what is happening to our economy, our privacy, our soldiers/marines, and our planet.

    Regardless of what happens with the Rethug-led Hearings starting tomorrow, nothing serious will happen to change our dangerous course until Dems take back at least one house of the Congress and/or the White House. And THAT won’t happen unless and until Dems have the stomach and the spine to do what it takes to do what Jon Stewart does everyday: Call BULLSHIT every time it happens in politics; in the media; in the American Taliban; in state legislatures; and most especially in Congress and the White House.

    I’m not holding my breath….

  • Mr Gonzales? When you spoke with us about domestic wiretapping during your confirmation hearings, you sat there and lied through your teeth. Furthermore, you were under oath, making it perjury. Why on God’s green earth should we believe a word of what you have to say today?

    But really, all I want to say today is GO STEELERS!!!

  • I think Republican Senators are going to do two things. First, they’ll determine that the warrantless wiretaps were illegal, but necessary and refuse to hold the White House accountable. Second, a “moderate” like Lindsey Graham will sponsor sweeping legislation that gives the administration the authority to conduct domestic surveillance legally, thus eroding our civil liberties even more. Of course, this will all be closely scrutinized once again should a Democrat ever be elected president.

    As for the Democrats, they’ll be as poorly prepared as the Alito hearings and completely unwilling to take a principled stand in the face of conservative opposition. We’ll see Feingold hold out, Biden be completely irrelevant, and the rest of the caucus fall apart. Maybe Kerry will urge his colleagues to oppose warrantless wiretaps from overseas again. The Alito hearings were a complete debacle … but I think they were representative of what we can expect from Senate Democrats.

    As for the public, with “liberal” voices being shut out or portrayed as coddling Al Qaeda, they’ll buy the White House line of B.S. That is until the next terrorist strike, then we’ll all be back to asking “Why did this happen?”

  • Will Senate Dems be more effective (better organized, more focused, better prepared) than they were a couple of weeks ago with Samuel Alito?

    Will the Republicans spontaneously reform and abandon corruption? Will Bush apologize for the mess we’re in and ask for bipartisan help to get out if it? Will monkeys fly out of my butt?

    The Dems will waffle and run for cover. They’ll mire the hearing down in abstruse points of legalism. They’ll wonder aloud, “why didn’t the administration just come and ask for dictatorial powers? We’d have given it if you’d just asked.”

    The Rethugs will lob softball questions at Abu Gonzales. Gonzales for his part will just reiterate the administration’s demonstrably false justifications, and no one on either side of the aisle will call them on it.

    Oh, on the plus side, everyone will have “grave concerns” about civil liberties, but they won’t do thing the first to actually protect them.

  • I agree with Ed that AL has pretty much said it all, but in
    answer to the question:

    “Will these hearings have an effect on the public’s perceptions of this controversy? If so, in which direction?”

    I’d say spygate is dead as an issue with the public after the
    hearings. The hearings will completely exonerate the
    Bush administration. I wouldn’t go so far as prm to suggest
    that they’ll determine the actions to be necessary but
    illegal – I’ll think they’ll sugar coat the illegal part by
    suggesting that more legislation is needed just to
    make it clear that Bush can do whatever he wants.

    This is one time I think the Dems’ timidity on the issue
    is the right position, for the wrong reason, though.
    There’s no way they could have won this in my
    opinion. I’ve said it before and I’ll keep on saying
    it that Americans hate red tape and legal obstacles
    when a good old fashioned lynching is in order,
    and who better deserves a lynching than the
    terrorists? Anything goes as far as the public
    is concerned.

  • I’d like to see a chronology of terrorist happenings, bombings, escapes and propaganda tapes matched with tipping point political events in the U.S.
    Check out todays news headline just before Mondays’s wiretap hearing…
    Terrorists escape in Yemen!
    Hmmmmmmmmm.
    Perhaps more than coincidence?

  • The dems are a bunch of guttless, spineless cowards. They are too concerned with their image get up there and throw the kinds of punches that are needed to ‘break the ice’, and get some sort of anger generated. What they need are a few firebrands that are ready to ask Herr Gonzales what type of Reich he is trying to establish for his Fuerer, and why they hate our republic and are willing to do the legwork for the terrorists. But god no, we want to maintain a civilized discourse. Death by political consultants.

  • “Of course, this will all be closely scrutinized once again should a Democrat ever be elected president.”

    I think its pretty clear what will happen with a republican controlled hearing process. PRM hit on the point I’m interested in, and that is how fast republicans will flip-flop on the issue of presidential authority once a democrat is in office. I see no viable opportunity to stave off our impending loss of civil liberties at this point. So, I’m paying close attention to the language, and arguments presented in this mess. Because at some point republicans will turn 180 and I’m curious to see how that will play out given their current arguments.

  • Is this a spark in a dry tinderbox? Or, throwing water on barely smouldering ashes? Obviously, it has the potential for being either. With so many, intertangled scandals and potential scandals swirling around an unpopular President, there is a potential for a great political firestorm igniting. The problem is the absence of independent bases of political power. Our government was designed with “checks and balances” to increase the opportunties for such political firestorms to erupt, but the Republican majority has systematically eliminated rival bases of political support. It is not just that the Republican power structure behind Bush controls both the Administration and Congress — though that is a huge part of it.

    They are very close to control of the Judiciary. The Federalist Society has been an effective institutional support for the systematic appointment of very conservative Judges. With the appointment of Roberts and Alito, the only question is whether they have a conservative block of four waiting for a fifth, (or a conservative block of five already, with Breyer), to begin creating a fortress of conservative precedent. Conservative control of the Judiciary was critical in electing Bush; it was instrumental in the long-running Whitewater “independent” prosecution.

    They have effective control of the mainstream Media: through Media consolidation in the 1980’s and 1990’s, they transformed it into a corporate, right-wing Media. Whitewater and the 2000 campaign’s “War against Gore” were merely symptomatic; Talk Radio and Fox News were only precursors to Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews, and the conservative takeover of PBS. The Washington Post editors and ombudsman have made it clear that the Abramoff scandal is about Indians making campaign contributions, not about the Republicans creating an system of patronage through lobbyist employment, the sale of influence and access, and the management of political slush funds.

    The only, slim foundation for independent action has been the professional independence of the career Civil Service, especially among the career prosecutors of the Justice Department. Bush is moving to eliminate principled supervision of the prosecution of the Abramoff case, while the unmentioned pardon power allows Libby to stymie Fitzgerald.

    Watergate, the political firestorm, which engulfed Nixon, was based on a complete reversal of the current situation. The Washington Post, Judge John J. Sirica, Attorney General Richardson, the Deputy Chief of the FBI (aka Deep Throat), the Senate Watergate Committee, the House Judiciary Committee were all independent of the Nixon White House, and free to attack him.

    Now, the Washington Post is a Republican paper, whose editor and ombudsman have signalled that they recognize a duty to carry Republican water; CNN, CBS, etc., please!?!. The Judiciary is dominated by conservative Republicans. The Senate and, even more, the House, are controlled by right-wing Republicans determined to cooperate with Bush and further the corruption lining their own pockets. The Attorney General is a Bush toady, without any ethical independence or competence, and committed to a legal theory, which makes Bush a virtual dictator.

    In short, Analytical Liberal is right, but doesn’t go far enough. All would appear to depend on solid Democratic majorities taking control of Congress in the 2006 elections. Whatever can happen in the Congress before that, or on other fronts in what is, for all intents and purposes, the beginning of a slow-burning Civil War, ought to be directed toward the elections, the increasingly all-important elections.

    I wish I had some confidence that the Democrats in Congress better understood the desperate straits into which our country has entered. I think the Democrats may well find themselves in power in Congress in 2007, despite, rather than because of, their efforts. My greatest fear is that the Democrats will have a brief sojurn in power, and blow it, because they do not see the need for radical action on broad fronts. I doubt that most Democrats realize how critically important Media Reform, and the reversal of Media Consolidation has become, for the long-term future of the country and the Democratic Party.

    Still, I doubt know if, in their current weak position, whether the Democrats would further the cause with a fight in the Judiciary Committee. I’d like to think that they could expose this arrogant, corrupt authoritarian AG, and get some needed attention. But, I can see how the whole thing could be made to backfire, as it is filtered through the corporate, right-wing Media.

  • The questions are to the size and extent of the warrantless spying:

    How many people were spied upon by the NSA without a FISA warrant?
    How many domestic organizations were spied upon without a warrant?
    How many referrals were made to the FBI?
    What is the size of this “black op.” in manpower at the NSA?
    What is the cost of this operation at the NSA?
    Where has the funding for this “black op.” come from?
    What NSA programs are under-funded or unfunded due to the cost of this operation?
    Other than the NSA, what other departments of the government are involved in warrantless domestic spying?
    What are their size and cost? How are they being funded?
    Is there a name or names given to these programs of domestic spying without a warrant?
    How many arrests have been made as a result of warrantless domestic spying?
    Are the warrantless domestic spying programs being expanded?
    Into what areas do you forsee expansion of warrantless domestic spying?
    Do you regret any particular spying operations?
    Were there any personal injuries as a result of warrantless domestic spying? Were there any deaths as a result of same?
    Were spies injured in their duties? Were there injuries to those be spied upon? Was there loss of property involved in the warrantless spying programs? Did any government employee, agent or contractor refuse to do this spying? If so, was any action taken against them? Any action planned?
    What companies, agents or contractors have worked with the government to spy domestically without a warrant? From what budget are their bills to be or were paid?
    What telephone or data companies cooperated with the government’s domestic warrantless spying activities? From what budget are their bills to be or were paid? Did the government get free access to their property?
    Were FISA warrants obtained in an untimely manner?
    Was domestic spying done even after refusal by the FISA court?
    Where and when did the Congress appropriate monies for these “black operations” to domestically spy without a warrant? List the name of each government employee, agent or contractor involved in domestic spying without a timely FISA warrant.
    (THATS A START)

  • Ask him about the perjury he committed when he lied under oath during his confirmation hearings and said nothing like this was going on when he knew for certain it was, having signed off on it to the President. Ask him if he thinks he has violated his oath to “defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America.” Ask him how he’d like to be indicted for lying to Congress then, and is he lying now?

    If he tells them it’s Monday, they should be sure and check their calendars before believing that.

  • Attorney General Gonzales, LtGen Hayden said yesterday that he could not take the wiretap program he developed and get permission from you as Attornery General to conduct the wiretaps under the rules of FISA. Are you asking the Senate to ignore and allow a program that even YOU can not justify under the applicable statue?

  • Off topic, sorta, but I gotta go somewhere with this.

    Has anyone seen anything in the mainstream American press of a newly discovered Downing Street memo? I must admit I haven’t seen the gasbags this morning — all cancelled for the Stupor Bowel hype or other athletic activites.

    The British press was full of it all day Friday (The Guardian, Independent, Times). Two months before the invasion, January of 2001, Bush and Blair agreed to invade Iraq in spite of the fact that WMD probably didn’t exist, that the “facts” would be faked, that they didn’t want to go the Security Council because they thought they’d lose, that they might paint a U-2 spy plane like the U.N. plane to see if they could trap Saddam into attacking it, that they might assassinate Saddam, etc.

    My sister heard one reference to it on KGO radio (San Francisco). The NY Times? Nothing. Washington Post? Nada. LA Times? Zilch.

    Talk about corporate media management and clampdown. If it’s this bad I guess it doesn’t matter what the damned, dumb, doomed Democrats do tomorrow.

  • Obviously, Feingold has to be ready to charge hard at Gonzales for what appears to be lies he told during his AG confirmation hearings. Then, I think, the key is for the Dems to establish just how wide this net is being cast. It is clear to me, based upon the White House missives defining “domestic” and “international” communications that they are trying to cast this issue in a way that most citizens will think the program will never invade their privacy because they do not communicate internationally. Therefore, the Senators must establish the types of international communications to which this program is authorized to listen. For example ReddHedd at Firedoglake wonders how people would feel about the government picking up and through their calls to the many call centers that are now outsourced in “international” locations. Are these calls (which could cover anything from technical support for your laptop, to making vacation reservations, to discussing financial information, etc.) subject to the program? What about the thousands, perhaps millions, of ordinary business communications that transpire every day? Does giving the government unchallenged access to listen in on these calls square with “the American Way” or sound like a good idea? Do people engaging in these calls have no right to expect the calls to be private? What does it say about our level of fear if we are willing to give up our rights in such a wholesale fashion? Has our fear really brought us to this? Finally, the Senators must find a way to ask questions that establish whether the fruits of this program are worth the price paid. And, the price paid must include a discussion of the diversion of resources to chase down and analyze dead ends. They must explore why any “finds” made under this program could not have been accomplished under the FISA rules. Finally, they need to challenge administration talking points about the “thousands of lives saved,” the “if only we had implemented this program prior to 9/11, we could have stopped them,” etc. This will be a tough onion to peel and if Biden and friends are interested only in burnishing their 2008 Creds, then it will not get done. Like others who posted before me, I have little faith in Arlen “Cut Off At the Knees” Specter or “Little Lord” Lindsey Graham. Specter has been politically neutered and Graham does just want to pass laws supporting actions already taken by the President.

    Gosh, I feel so good, I believe I will start my Super Bowl imbibing early. And I don’t even drink. Go Hawks!

  • Mr. Gonzales, how many lawyers are on the payroll and how much taxpayer money has been spent to formulate lies to find a way to get the president out of this bad situation concerning spying on American citizens? Do you enjoy being a part of the most corrupt administration in American history? In the end, are you confident that the replacement president will give you a presidential pardon?

  • call centers that are now outsourced in “international” locations. Are these calls (which could cover anything from technical support for your laptop, to making vacation reservations, to discussing financial information, etc.) subject to the program?

    Good point. Many people likely feel the old “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about,” bolstered by, “I never make or recieve international calls anyway.”

    People are making international call all the time now without realizing it and many of those calls are routed to the same (adjacent) part of the world the NSA is targetting/filtering.

    As far as the hearing go, the Dems are going to fail spectacularly. Everyone keeps acting like the Republicans/White House “don’t want these hearings.” Bullshit. This is a perfect forum to underscore the seriousness they assign our security (break a few eggs)and the Dems fecklessness (pussies worried about abstract civil liberites). The Dems should go forward, and hammer Gonzales because it’s the right thing to do, but there will be no political benefit for the Dems as a result of this hearing. None.

    I’d love to be wrong about that, but I don’t think so.

    • Comments are closed.