(Weird -- was this posted into a new front page post? My prev comment is now gone...here's the abridged version:)

Senator, you've been truly stellar on this issue. As much as we bloggers bitch and complain about our own party, it's people like you that I think keep a lot of us going. 

What I don't get here are the Republicans. While there are some exceptions, why is it that most Republican Senators are so willing to hand over to the Executive Branch oversight power which should be held by Congress? Sessions, in particular, seemed to think that we're not taking away enough civil liberties.

Is it just party politics, or are these people really that oblivious to the dangerous precendent that the Bush Administration is trying to set? 

Dissent Protects Democracy

The scariest part to me is that the Attorney General (though he denies it) is indeed making the argument that ultimately the FISA law itself is unconstitutional. Which means that Congress can't even pass a law now to make it clear (lest there be any misunderstanding) that the President cannot spy on citizens without a warrant.

He is saying, in effect that no law can be passed that infringes upon the President's authority as Commander in Chief. And that the President gets to decide and define what it is that infringes -- including checks & balances, including Congressional oversight.

If this is the case, what are our options? Where does Congress go from here? It simply cannot stand as status quo -- else forever Presidents will claim this same authority.

Senator Feingold,

Thanks (again) for leading the charge to expose the greatest threat to our democracy - a charge to imperialism from within.  I watched yesterday's procedings and wondered why is it that so many republicans are acting as representatives of the executive brance rather than that of their constituents?  Furthermore, time and time again, I heard the attorney general speak as if he were lead counsel for the executive - am I incorrect in my understanding that he is supposed to be the lead law enforcement official for the citizens?

Clearly laws have been broken.  If this official is unwilling or unable to do his job, he should be removed.

It is NOT "lack of candor"; it is called "perjury". "Perjury" is a word in every dictionary; it flowed out of many Republican mouths about 5 years ago; but to get a Democrat to use it is harder than a rich man getting into heaven.

Nice comments.  Quite sharp.  The justice department under Gonzales seems to be nothing more than an extension of the white house legal counsel, and your comment about Gonzales, et al's view of law could not be more correct.  one of the most upsetting issues with the judges/justice offices/etc this administration continues to appoint is their view that he law is simple a game to see how adeptly it can be edged around.  The damage is that it beings to put laws intoan abstract relationship of text, and has no understanding of the human implications or responsibilities of such laws.

In terms of his comment recalling previous presidents use of warrantless wiretapping....well this is not only foolish and obviously misleading but plain stupid.. we can of course recall past examples of many acts, and we are also aware that the past performance of an act isnt justification of it. King George III, Saddam Hussein, Mussolini, Hugo Chavez, and numerous other contemporary andhistorical figures have conducted warrantless spying/intrusions of privacy.  Part of what we consider americas difference was our understanding of the intrusion this has on private lives, and the importance and necessitiy to maintain that privacy.  Thats why FISA was passed in part, to allow for the balance between security and privace to exist and be checked.

How refreshing to hear a Senator that actually believes in the concept of an opposition party. It must be lonely.

Senator Feingold is showing real leadership in standing up to the President and the administration. The culture of fear that the President is exploiting, and in many cases helping to create, is eating away at the critical balances in our system of government and it has to be defeated. The President has stated that we will be victorious and that we will defeat the terrorists but he is never clear what he means by victory. I suggest that the definition of victory in this war on terrorism should be first and foremost the protection of our constitutional rights and freedoms despite the efforts of the terrorists and of those who surrender to fear. If we don't protect those rights and if we yield to the culture of fear,  the terrorists will have won and America and Americans will have lost.

 Senator Feingold, I can't possibly overstate how much I appreciate your stand against this would-be dictator.  Your vote against our attorney general was the correct one, and I only wish that a majority had agreed with you.  Since it is now apparent that Mt Gonzales lied to the Senate during his confirmation hearing, I would really like to see him cited for that - either for perjury or for contempt.  Surely we are not defenseless against such characters.

Far better, of course, would be impeachment pf the president.  I know the Senate cannot impeach a president, but individual senators certainly can demand impeachment.  If this president is not impeached the constitution provisions for impeachment should just be amended away, since they become nothing more than a means for Republicans to try to remove a popular Democratic president.

Please take the lead in demanding the impeachment of the president.  The whole world will thank you if you do. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

What continues to worry me is the uncertain length of the war on terror. I had always regarded "war on terror" as a cathcphrase, like war on drugs or war on poverty. But Bush seems to be taking it literally to give him  virtually unlimited and unending commander-in-chief powers. It might be trite to always bring this up, but George Orwell pointed out that the way 1984's totalitarian government held onto its overreaching powers was by constantly maintaining a state of war.

Ken

Right On Senator Feingold!  You are a true American Patriot.  Never give up the fight. 

Newton Minnow

Thank you for the great work you are doing.

I am concerned that the administration has successfully recast this as a limited "terrorist surveillance program", and obscured the real issue.

Condi Rice and Ronald Reagan had a rallying cry in the '80's when dealing with the Soviets:

"Trust but verify."

The president is asking us to trust him but refuses to give congress or the courts the ability to verify that the program is not being abused.

Any president who refuses to permit oversight is not worthy of trust. Any congress that allows him to get away with it is abdicating its constitutional responsibility.

Joby: I heard the attorney general speak as if he were lead counsel for the executive

Bearpaw: He's evidently supposed to be both things, more-or-less

 The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President

Obviously, in this situation, those things conflict. [ /bearpaw]

I'm not an expert on the US constitution but I don't see there being a conflict.  I see Gonzalez as acting outside his remit.  Giving "advice and opinions" to someone is not the same as acting as an advocate for them, because "advice and opinions" can be completely impartial, while advocacy by definition cannot.   And Gonzalez is acting as an advocate.

Gonzales' job as far as this quote tells us, is to objectively interpret the law and give that interpretation to the President.  What instead he is doing is acting like a hack lawyer - deciding with his client what outcome is desired and twisting and distorting the law into whatever strained position is required to lead it so support that desired outcome. 

Thank you, Senator Feingold, for your leadership on this issue.

I am disheartened that this Administration is exploiting fear by encouraging Americans to bankrupt their children's and grandchildren's security, civil rights and social safety nets for the price of going another month or another year without a terrorist attack on American soil.  As Congressman Murtha accurately pointed out, our armed forces cannot act as a deterrent much longer given the disastrous strategies of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.  And it is clear that is the only strategy this Administration has, which has not only lost us allies but gained us enemies and made the world less safe for everyone.

And this is someone we should "trust" with programs which have no oversight?  Gonzalez' answers to the questions posed to him were not surprising to me, because there is no real defense to what has been done.  This Administration has not only fostered fear but has been utterly consumed by it as well and created the very conditions they publicly claim to have remedied.

Senator Feingold's comments were much needed, but I really felt he ended up letting the AG off the hook in the end. Every time Feingold asked if the President could conduct warrentless wiretaps, the AG would say that the question that he was asking was whether the President was breaking the law. What Feingold should have done is go back to the transcripts from that hearing and reread the question to Gonzales, key on the word "warrentless." The question (I believe) was not whether the searches were legal or not, but whether they were warrentless or not. Only the exact wording from the transcript could make this clear.

 In general I felt, the Democrats let him off the hook. They never created the storyline, the drama (even melodrama) that is needed to push through the public fog. For political people, Gonzales testimony was outrageous. For the average Joe, it was blah, blah, blah, he-said-she-said. This was confirmed by the tepid interest of the media (typical headline: Gonzales Defends Program) on what is a constitutional crisis.

Christov

One suspects that if the House of Representatives ever did impeach the President, the Executive Branch would come up with a novel new constitutional theory, according to which the President cannot be impeached during wartime, since that would interfere with the exercise of his duties as commander-in-chief.

First they make unprecendented assertions of amazing Presidential wartime powers; then they decalsre that the war is a "long war' that will last for decades.  What next?

One thing that is becoming clear.  For all their brave talk about their supposed tougness and patriotism, a lot of Republicans in this country are nothing but cowardly saps and bootlicks, who will do whatever their little fuhrer tells them.

I admire Sen Feingold's position on this.  Consistent and strong.  I am puzzeled by his Republican colleagues, particularly the "moderates" and true conservatines.  They seem to only exist at the indulgence of this administration.  The bottom line question for all Republicans is, "How broad the inherent powers of the next Democratic President are you willing to accept?"  Or is it only Republicans who use power wisely?

Political theater. Perhaps some thought the hearings were held to educate the people to the issues involved. They certainly weren't run in a way to extract any new information.

If the point was education then they failed at this as well. There were very few channels broadcasting the hearings and the news programs gave minimal coverage. So one party gets to do a whitewash and the other gets to show "concern".

Judging by anecdotal  evidence the strong supporters of the administration are not concerned about the legal technicalities of surveillance. They basically believe the end justifies the means, and since they also believe that we are under an unprecedented threat, the means can be as extreme as needed.

Senator Kennedy tried to frame things in terms of impairing future prosecutions, but that is a bit too arcane for most viewers. As long as the issue keeps being cast in terms of protection from an unkown bogeyman the violations won't get much traction.

Perhaps it is time to investigate how much surveillance is going on of domestic dissidents not related to Al Qaeda. There are already quite a few cases of spying on protesters like the Quakers and the ACLU. This is what brought down Nixon, et al.

It seems reasonable to assume that this regime is as paranoid as his was about political "enemies" and thus, there must be such actions underway again.  The outrage at the program being revealed makes no sense unless there is a still bigger story that has not come out yet.

--- Policies not Politics
          Daily Landscape

I am so giddy!!! Bless you, Sir, for having the courage to speak out and tell us the truth. Please consider being a central spokesperson for the Dems. They just don't seem to be able to get a cohesive front going, and I believe that you have that ability. We all like Kerry, but he was NOT the right one to run against Dubya. We are so desperate to STOP the total annililation of what we hold dear in America. I, along with others, sit and just gasp at what these morons do ON A DAILY BASIS. Thank you, and don't EVER give in to their complete bullshit!

Specter (and his fellow Republicans) refused to swear Gonzales in. No perjury here.

Thank you so much for asking the right questions, even if Mr. Gonzales dodges them.  The more questions that are asked, the more he looks like a buffoon. 

Just curious, but why is this issue not framed as "The democrats are the only ones interested in one of the few requirements a congressman has, providing a check and balance to the presidency.  We drafted the legislation, he is in apparent violation of the statute, now we are going to hold him accountable."  The "check and balance" language would be quite useful as that is all anyone remembers from their senior year civics class about why the three branches of government are necessary.  I think it would do the democrats good to repeat some similar sentiment over and over.  Make your voice resonate.

Senator,

What I'm having a hard time understanding is the assumption that Bush initiated this wiretapping in response to 9/11 when clearly the NSA had requested authority to have a permanent presence in the telecommunications networks and Bush gave that authority well prior to 9/11. Bush also authorized the reversal of the long time protocol of blacking out the names of Americans being wired tapped and the administration received  running lists of Americans being listened to by the NSA prior to 9/11.

If I am correct, how does the A.G. argument about  the war powers giving the president the authority to ignore FISA hold any water?

Thanks,

A fellow Wisconsinite. 

Bush, in his self proclaimed role as a CEO president, entirely misses the fact that he does not preside over a private entity. This is a democratic nation with pre-established laws that obligates the president to uphold those laws. Nowhere is there specific language that permits the president to conduct him or herself in a way that allows for any fundamental deviation from following the letter of the law or its stated intent. Yet we have become accustomed to just such conduct throughout this administration as well as that of the Republican controlled Congress.

Case in point is the denial of Cindy Sheehan participating as a guest at the SOTU address. Her rights were irrevocably denied and the likelihood that government will be held accountable for having flagrantly violated the Constitution are slim. This episode is merely another occurrence of the administration making and applying its own rules with the intent of preventing a dissenting opinion to be heard. The idea that freedoms have again been denied is a common theme throughout the Bush presidency. This has occurred more times than can be recounted here but suffice it to say that this has fundamentally changed the core aspects of freedom as most people perceive them.

The administration is trying very hard to alter our perception of our freedoms and thus shift our expectations without changing even a single word of the Constitution. Thus we have a Constitution that specifies one thing but in practice have something quite different. This is analogous to the Soviet Constitution that specifies and assigns all manner of freedom and equality to the people. Those specifics and assignments stand in stark contrast to the actual implementation. In effect, the document is rendered wholly meaningless. That is exactly what is occurring here.

thepeoplechoose

Funny how that works out. Almost like the expect the AG to lie.

 I think we overestimate the Republicans in Congress.  Either they are craven cowards, willing to accept any humiliation to avoid being shunned by the Bush cabal, or, as I suspect, they are concerned only with money for themselves and their political friends, and have nothing but contempt for our country.  This is the first time in my memory, which goes back over 50 years, that I have seen this.

 Once this group showed their willingness to go along with the absurd "we are at war" meme we should have realized that there would be no stopping of Bush, no matter how many laws he violates.  To expect any Republican in Congress to have the honor to try to actually do the job they were elected to is futile.  Unfortunately, there are not many Democrats in Congress who are any better - Senator Feingold is one of the few.

Hoppy in Sacramento

The Senate committee should have made it very clear to the AG that they didn't have a reason to believe that anything he would say would be true. They should have informed him that his "testimony" would be treated as an exercise in creative lying. Why they would show  him any respect at all is beyond me.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Feinstien did yesterday, didn't she - read the quote to Gonzo who then claimed it was out of context.

Amen Alvord.  9-11 was practically Christmas day to Bush and Cheney. Their unmitigated glee in turning America into a fascist imperium shows who stood to gain the most: namely authoritarians within our own borders. Add to that the fact that they use 9-11 and "terror alerts" whenever their poll numbers go down.

I'm glad Sen. Feingold recognizes the main point of the argument over the NSA wiretapping: is not an issue of who is being wiretapped and for what reasons (though this seems to be the argument that the adminsitration and Senate Republicans seem to be taking) but the fact the wire tapping is even going on, despite the fact that there is a law requiring warrants for the wire tapping of the phones of the U.S. citizens. And it leads into the bigger question of why the adminsitration has sought to bypass the FISA court and the warrant system...it is a question that no one has come up with answer for yet, and a question we all deserve an answer to.

The most interesting part of Sen. Feingold's post is:

I think it is clear that the Attorney General misled the Committee and the public not only about the NSA wiretapping program but about his views on presidential power.

This is some big stuff going on.

RJB

 Maybe it would help to back up a bit and get our war status clarified. Apparrently, according to President Bush, [It's really hard to use any honorific with this loon], we are in the "Forever War" and that gives the president the power to do anything he deems necessary untill the end of that war. Why can't he declare himself Maximum Leader for life so that he can protect us forever? Wouldn't any war powers confered by the Constitution require that the war be declared in compliance with the Constitution?

Thank you, Sen. Feingold, for being straight with and standing up for Americans. It made me sick when I found out that my senator, Sen. Bill Nelson, would vote to confirm Gonzales. It still makes me sick. I wrote and told him so three times; and his written replies about it just made me even sicker. Sen. Nelson, you voted to approve Gonzales, and you voted for the Bankruptcy Bill. Shame on you. Gonzales has worked hard every day to install a unitary executive in a vile power grab. And, the bankruptcy bill puts all Americans at risk of financial ruin with no options.  What good are Democrats if they won't honestly stand up for what's right, or fight against what is wrong? So, Thank you Sen. Feingold, for doing just that.

It occurs to me that if a law student espoused the opinions Mr. Gonzales has during their constitutional law final, they would fail the class. For one thing, it's hard to demonstrate that he's read the entire document.

Thank you, Senator Feingold, for demonstrating that not all of our public servants are that incompetent.

Yellow Dog Dem:

Just a note: As I recall, the committe did not swear in Gonzales.  There was some discussion about the protocol at the beginning of the hearing, but it seemed like the fix was prearranged - no oath=no perjury.  However, I also seem to recall some Contempt of Congreee citations in the past for lying to Congress, even without an oath. 

I wonder if they will get an oath during the closed hearing.. 

First a hearty thank you to you, Senator Feingold for your efforts in a very politically perilous climate (witness what's happening to your Republican colleagues on the committee- one might ask whether Republican Senators up for re-election need to be recused from these hearings due to the threats from the White House. Alternatively, you might individually remind them that if they vote with the president on this, people will never know whether they merely cravenly caved in to threats to the White House, yielding their principles)

However, I was wondering - there seems to be a relatively reasonable case that the Attorney General committed one or multiple crimes - perjury or lying to Congress. I don't know what the proper terminology but shouldn't a member of the judicial committee be lodging a complaint with the justice department with a specific part of the complaint being the need to recuse the Attorney General from considering the complaint. Or perhaps, rather than the justice department, perhaps the F.B.I should be alerted and asked to conduct an investigation. Whatever one calls what the Attorney General did in his confirmation hearings, it certainly appears to be covered under the general heading of fraud and false statements, namely he engaged in conduct that "falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact". There seems to be no question that this is the case. If he wants to claim that national security considerations forced him to do so,in order to try to provide a legitimate justification for his lawbreaking, he certainly has that right but he has that right _in a court of law_. He should not be allowed to preclude a trial, much less an investigation of the facts, with what I think most people now believe to be a paper-thin justification for his illegal behavior.

Keep up the good work! Your question to AG Gonzalez, asking him if he could name one president since 1978 who has opted to disregard FISA showed appropriately exposed their canard that wire-taps have a long history in our country. That's not the point - it's all about post 1978 FISA!

Vinson Valega

I believe that there is more going on than just what we've heard.  When Gonzo was asked about opening first class mail his answer was evasive, and he kept on coming back to "this program."  I feel certain that there are more "programs'" and that we have only heard the tip of the iceberg. 

The next question is whether the Titanic that it will destroy will be this lying administration, or our country and all it stands for.

Jan Knaus

Thanks for an outstanding diary, Senator Feingold.  Thanks for standing up and speaking up for what's right. Enough is enough and folks are rightly fed up with this completely illegal bs, big time. You're a terrific courageous American hero. Much gratitude and thank you for keeping up the good work and defending our laws, bill of rights, civil liberties and the constitution. Courage. Conviction. Our democracy. Our republic. Principles to live and die for. Go Senator Feingold! We thank you.

Yesterday I watched part of Gonzales's opening statement. His "The enemy is watching" moment was one of the sleasiest, slimiest statements from a public official that I have ever heard. Once again, the only thing this administration has left is to keep us afraid. Gonzales besmirches the office of Attorney General. He is one of the cronies who appears to be willing to do any dirty work that is asked of him.  And that smirk!  That smirk!

I rejoiced at your words, Sen. Feingold, and those of other Democrats on the committee; it did my heart good to see you take Gonzales on.

Again, why didn't they ask the Congress to change the law if it was too restrictive, and why didn't they get the warrants? They didn't because the FISA court would not have given them the warrants to cast such a wide net. If we ever find out who they were spying on, we will find answers to many of our questions.

Warmly seconded.  You're definitely right.  But, ahem, you ARE aware that fafblog beat you to it by many months, right?

. 

[Sorry: can't get links to work.  this is the direct URL: http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2005/04/interview-week-continues-fafblog.html]

. 

From Fafblog, April 26, 2005: 

CONSTITUTION: There's one thing the Founding Fathers couldn't have anticipated, Fafnir - and that's the threat of terrorism. The men who drafted me could never have guessed that the United States would be imperiled by a foreign threat! A foreign white threat, maybe... but a foreign brown threat? The mind reels!
FAFBLOG: It's true - 9/11 changed everything, even math and Jesus.

The General repeatedly stated he was only there to comment on this particular program, that the President himself confirmed. Mr President are you breaking into any offices at the Watergate Hotel? or any other Hotel, Apartment, Condo, bungalo or what ever constitutes a home,  lets pin it down so he can't weasel out of the question.

You bet there's more. We need to protect the Whistleblowers. We need to protect our soldiers who come forward and tell us what our shameful Government is doing in our name. This is a Representative Government. openess is our right.

The only secret told, was this Administrations contempt for the Law that Citizens thought was written sufficiently but evidently not.   

"It's true - 9/11 changed everything, even math and Jesus."

What a good line. Hadn't seen it before.

ARGville - a home for ARGs

Supuri,What have you got against Hugo Chavez? As far as I can tell he is doing more for Venezuela than any president they've ever had, and better than any Prez we've had since FDR.