LIVE BLOGGING THE CENSURE HEARINGS, Inside-Outside

Your inside is out, and your outside is in
Your outside is in, and your inside is out
So come on, come on

Speaking of twisted...

Army Bans Use of Privately Bought Armor

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Soldiers will no longer be allowed to wear body armor other than the protective gear issued by the military, Army officials said Thursday, the latest twist in a running battle over the equipment the Pentagon gives its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Army officials told The Associated Press that the order was prompted by concerns that soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested commercial armor from private companies — including the popular Dragon Skin gear made by California-based Pinnacle Armor.

"We're very concerned that people are spending their hard-earned money on something that doesn't provide the level of protection that the Army requires people to wear. So they're, frankly, wasting their money on substandard stuff," said Col. Thomas Spoehr, director of materiel for the Army.

Murray Neal, chief executive officer of Pinnacle, said he hadn't seen the directive and wants to review it.

"We know of no reason the Army may have to justify this action," Neal said. "On the surface this looks to be another of many attempts by the Army to cover up the billions of dollars spent on ineffective body armor systems which they continue to try quick fixes on to no avail."

The move was a rare one by the Army. Spoehr said he doesn't recall any similar bans on personal armor or devices. The directives are most often issued when there are problems with aircraft or other large equipment.

Veterans groups immediately denounced the decision.

-snip-

Nathaniel R. Helms, editor of the Soldiers for the Truth online magazine Defense Watch, said he has already received a number of e-mails from soldiers complaining about the policy.

-snip-

Military officials have acknowledged that some troops — often National Guard or Reservists — went to war with lesser-quality protective gear than other soldiers were issued.

"We'll be upfront and recognize that at the start of the conflict there were some soldiers that didn't have the levels of protection that we wanted," Spoehr said. Now, he added, "we can categorically say that whatever you're going to buy isn't as good as what you're going to get" from the military.

more...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060330/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_body_armor

Support The Troops... The Government DOESN'T!

Welcome to today's class on How To Censure A President.

I am sitting in the Hart Hearing Room (216)--the event was moved to a larger (and sunnier, I might add) location.

The room is fairly empty still; expectations are low. I see our old friend Dana Milbank about ten feet away; feel free to suggest messages you would like him to receive from the blogosphere.

The Beatles Within You Without You

We were talking -
about the space between us all

And the people -
who hide themselves behind a wall of illusion
Never glimpse of truth -
then it's far too late -
when they pass away

We were talking -
about the love we could all share -
when we find it
To try our best to hold it there -
with our love with our love -
We could save the world -
if they only knew

Try to realise it's all within yourself
no one else can make you change

And to see you're really only very small,
and life flows on
within and without you

We were talking -
about the love that's gone so cold
and the people,
Who gain the world and lose their soul -
then you may find,
peace of mind, is waiting there

And the time will come when you see we're all one,
and life flows on within and without you

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THAT SONG

Senator Spector just said that this is an important hearing. I actually am beginning to think it is an opportunity for Senators to air some of their frustrations and thoughts about the behavior of the President.

Sen. Spector feels that the resolution is not frivolous, but it is without merit.

Awesome Karen!

Expectations are low, gee, what a shock, given that this president is known for creating a culture of low expectations, and even lower results.

Ask Dana Milbank if this is a country based on laws, or is it not... and do they not also apply to the very person who SWORE ON A BIBLE in front of the whole world to preserve, protect and defend said laws?

Spines Like Us

monkey,
Sen. Spector is actually agreeing with you. He is deeply concerned about the privacy issues, the checks and balances and the scope of power of the Presidency.

Republicans planned ways to mock the censure effort as a partisan stunt.

"This resolution puts Senate Democrats in the unfortunate position of looking like they are not serious about the war on terror, while the president is doing everything possible within the law to protect the American people," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1789596

Republicans don't care about the rule of law, the big chickens.

Sorry, Sen FEINGOLD is saying that.

(I need to look up once in a while!)

Sorry--that WAS Spector! Feingold is speaking now.

Feingold's voice is raised slightly, and he is clearly angry with Attorney General Gonzales. The Attorney General refused to disclose any of the instructions that were going out to the agencies.

And now Senator Feingold is letting us know how angry he is at the admonistration. "This is Alice in Wonderland thinking." We don't know the extent of domestic spying. The reasons for so doing are patently flimsy.

When a so-called free and open society is filled from the top down with people like Gonzales who insist on secrecy for some greater cause, then you can no longer call this a free and open society.

Gonzo disgusts me to the hilt, the slimey weasel.

Feingold quoting Lindsey Gramm from another impeachment hearing. "We are a country of laws."

The President broke the law. Now we need to know WHY.

Exactly, the law was blatantly and unapologetically broken, all in the name of keeping us "safe".

Tell ya what, I can keep my family a helluva lot safer if I just don't pay my taxes and use that money to make sure I drive the safest car, and live in the safest neighborhood, and eat the safest foods, etc.

Deal?

Feingold speaking now.

Any future legislation we may pass in the future is a charade. We no longer have a Constitution.

We have a monarchy.

If we don't stand up for the law, we become a nation without laws.

How we respond will become part of our history. He cites Archibald Cox, Elliott Richardson, and John Dean, men who put the Constitution before the man who appointed them.

Found this on another blog...

Hillary and Bill Clinton and Al Gore die in an accident and suddenly find themselves in heaven.

God addresses Al first. "Al, what do you believe in?"

Al replies, "I believe I won that election, but that it was your will that I did not serve. I've come to understand that now."

God thinks for a second and says, "OK, very good. Come and sit at my left."

God then addresses Bill. "Bill, what do you believe in?"

Bill replies, "I believe in forgiveness. I've sinned, but I've never held a grudge against my fellow man, and I hope no grudges are held against me."

God thinks for a second and says, "You are forgiven, my son. Come and sit at my right."

God then addresses Hillary. "Hillary, what do you believe in?"

Hillary says, "I believe you're in my chair."

Orrin Hatch; "The President certainly did not break the law."

Three reasons:

1.Senate is not authorized to punish the President. Censure is punishment. Impeachment is the only form of punishment that is allowed. He is sharing a one-line resolution of Pres. Jackson. This line of reasoning seems to be that they cannot do anything outside of COnstitutional authorization, including condemning the President for stepping outside of Constitutional authorization.

Excuse me while my head spins...

Boobie Hatch

2. President Bush may NOT have lied.

3. We are at war.

Therefore this an inflammatory attempt to weaken this President in a time of war.

War, not war... WHATEVER!

The president weakened himself by breaking the law...

PERIOD!!!!

Protecting the president and putting him above the law weakens our NATION...

PERIOD!!!

monkey,
Good thing you are not in this room, where the most outrageous statements go unchallenged.

"Our President is an honest man" drew a laugh.

Who the hell made such a statement?

Honest?

Unbelievable... LITERALLY!

An attorney from Houston just leaned over and said to me, "George Walker Bush is a war criminal. He is not an honest man."

monkey,
Jeff Sessions

Sessions... figures.

He also doesn't believe anyone should take an oath while testifying.

"And I think it's not necessary that a duly confirmed Cabinet member have to routinely stand up and just give an oath when they are, in effect, under oath and subject to prosecution if they don't tell the truth." - Jeff Sessions

That's nothing, monkey, Cornyn just insulted John Dean, called him a convicted felon and someone who has written a BOOK. {{{Shudder}}}

Cornyn is a piece of dung that one scrapes off the bottom of ones shoe.

First witness asks Congress to condemn the post-Vietnam Congress. Professor Turner. Not President Bush, who has broken no laws.

Cindy Sheehan:

.. one lesson that we should have learned from Vietnam is that there is always a war and an enemy in the offing. The neo-con war machine is planning the new "ist" and "ism" for us to fear next, when the "ism" du jour fails to sufficiently frighten us. We must stay on our guards against this.

Buddhists say that a person dies twice. Once when his/her physical body dies and once when the last person to remember him/her dies. We should never forget the lesson of Casey and his untimely death on the altar of the war machine. We should never have forgotten the lessons of the millions dead in Vietnam who were sacrificed on that same altar. Casey and the millions of others who have been tragically killed by our leaders in worship of greed for money and power will never die as long as there are people working for peace and justice. This is their gift to us. Let's never forget them. Their deaths can't be in vain.

-------

(from this article:
FOCUS | Cindy Sheehan: Casey Austin Sheehan
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/033106Z.shtml
Cindy Sheehan writes: How many families has BushCo sent on this spiral of never-ending grief and pain? Tens of thousands of people here in America have been debilitated by their policies, and another country and its people lie in ruins for lies and deceit. How many families around the world have black holes in their lives that can't be filled by any light, but suck the light and life from the marrow of the fabric of those families?

This is unbelievable. Mr. Fein is doing a good job though here. (Iran-Contra experience huh! Good, he is used to dealing with scumbags.)

Bruce Fein
No body knows how many are targeted, why they were targeted, etc. so you can't make a 4th amendment assessment of the spying program.

No one in Congress contemplated use of Iraq war resolution. For Bush to come up with this after 4.5 years smacks of an O'Henry ending.

We need to know what's going on before another terrorist attack.

Pardon my ignorance, but who the hell is Professor Turner? What a freaking lunatic.

Lee Casey--lawyer, worked at Justice earlier.
Never testified before Committee, consider it an honor to be asked.

Censuring Bush over NSA program would be a severe miscarriage of justice. Fully within Constitutional statutory and constitutional authority.

This is not Watergate.

Program is targeted, not widespread. Fully consistent with FISA.

Dispute is really narrow.

Karen, can you open a new live blogging thread, or do you want me to do it?

Also, ask Dana Milbank if he will be writing something that does not show his jaded opinion of democracy and *yawn* world-weariness with the Constitution.

John Dean - ooooooh, nice start.

Lee Casey--lawyer, worked at Justice earlier.
Never testified before Committee, consider it an honor to be asked.

Censuring Bush over NSA program would be a severe miscarriage of justice. Fully within Constitutional statutory and constitutional authority.

This is not Watergate.

Program is targeted, not widespread. Fully consistent with FISA.

Dispute is really narrow.

Not widespread. As Justice pointed out, FISA permits electronic surviel ithout a warrant if otherwise authorized. Trots out the war amendment again as the justification for NSA.

Dick, I opened a new thread for the live blogging of the hearing.

John Dean takes the stand.
No president in history has ever adopted a strategy of expanding presidential powers for the sake of expanding presidential powers.
Announced at outset of BC presidency. GAO dispute, NSA programs, etc.
Rather than come to Congress, they want to act without approval.
Lincoln, in his strenuous violations of laws, came back to Congress and asked for permission.

Looking at censure per se, this Committee is very aware of Clinton impeachment, debated in House and Senate, common denominator, everyone agree that censure is a political proceeding.

Looking at history of censure, four clear instances, JQ Adams, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James Buchanan, all censures motivated by partisan political activity.

Professor Micheal Gearhart? citied as authority. No prohibition that would prevent a censure.

Why a censure? Shouldn't be a partisan question, should be institutional pride. Over the last few years, growing tendency to let the president dowhat he wants with virtually no oversight.

Presidents take note when they're not been called. Nixon was proud at throwing down the guantlet.

As I track constitutional law, censure appropriately worded is correct.

John Schmitt, served as assistant AG under Clinton, lifelong Dem, but feels strongly that censure of president is unwarranted and inappropriate, demeans and undermines serious discussion of this issue.

My own legal judgement in article was and is that the president had authority under Artile II, notwithstanding fact it is inconsistent with terms of FISA.

President has authority under Artlce II to order surveil. of foreign powers in U.S.

Further question is whether Congress can take that inherent authority away from Pres. 2002 opinion of FISA court, said it took for granted that Pres. had consitutiontal authority to order warrantless survel, and Congress could not challenge it.

Attorney Gen. Edward Levy under Ford, to clean up mess left by Dean and his colleagues. Congress could and should establish a court to review, but was always clear that Pres. could still act outside confines of FISA. Levy emphasized gray areas, new technologies. He got it exactly right. Bush asked NSA to do a better job after 911, and NSA said yes, but not under FISA. It's the president's inherent constitutional authority.

Still no basis for censure. No evidence that Pres. authorized in good faith, rely in good faith on legal advice from Justice Dept. Censure is simply wrong.

More legislation in this area would be OK, but censure is irrespondible and a disservice.

Q. to Dean. In Feingold's resolution, when I read the Whereas clauses, there is evidence of "bad faith".
Dean: Had a censure resolution been issued about Nixon's conduct, it would have been a God-send.

Spector: Fein, censure is not different from oversight. When we do oversight and haul in Ex branch officials, I've never heard anyone say censure for what you've done. Shouldn't censor every legal disagreement. You are a very good lawyer. Look at powerful circuit opinions on Article II. But Bush told the Gang of Eight, and Rockefeller wrote a letter complaining. Lots of precedent for informing the relevant committees.
Wasn't the gang of 8 informed, so there was not secrecy? Deepseated complex legal issue that gives Pres basis for taking his position without calling to task for censure.

Fein: Secrecy, we don't have info on advice Bush received before authorizing NSA, and he's resisting giving it. It's still secret.

Fein: Informing 8 members is not enough; accountability to the entire Congress, that indicates nature of program in enough detail to assess its wisdom. If you don't know #s, or results, how can checks and balances be bought.

Fein: It's still so secret, Congress can't tell what happened.

I'm so disgusted already I can't watch anymore.

This country is a joke... and I ain't laughing.

Leahy: Mr. Dean, you see censure as a way of preserving the balance of powers, whether the President has to abide by the law. If Pres doesn't like law, he has to come to Congress to ask for change.

Dean: President shouldn't want to be in position where there's a debate. He's using it as another example to test his power.

Leahy: evolution of Bush's position: latest is the war resolution to go into Afganistan to get Ben Laden, which ironically they never did.
What if they declared war? Would that have allowed Bush to disobey law.

Dean: Don't think so. Cites Youngstown case, where court made clear Pres didn't have unlimited power.

Leahy: Dems and Rs raised questions about Dubai port takeover, with specific statut requiring mandatory review. Admin did not follow this law. Why no call for censure there.

Fein: The claim of power is different, much more extensive. He can open our mail; he can enter our homes; he can torture detainees; all in name of "gathering foreign intelligence." Consequences are so much more momentus.

Fein: Congress is empowered to regulate the powers of the U.S. govt, under the necessary and proper clause. FISA was a judge bewtween the spy and the spyee. On July 31, 2002, Justice said FISA was working beautifully, and need no changes in it. We have not been informed of why it no longer works.

Leahy to Schmitt: President acted on basis of credible leagal advice. Who knows that? We asked Attorney General for info? It's being withheld.

Schmitt: Both President and General Hayden has said they relied on these lawyers.

Leahy: We don't know what the credible evidence is, and the one person who could answer the question (Leahy yells) WON'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Senator Hatch: Presidents don't give up their private advice. AG has appeared here. Most classified program in the federal govt. I think some of arguements are not only fallacious but ridiculous.Come on, presidents do have power. No question Congress should do what it can to oversee these matters.

Hatch: Dean, 9/14/2001, you published article examining power to fight terrorism. Article I, Section 8, does not put the C ngress in charge of counterterrorism. Long quote from Dean article that appears to support Bush's actions.
But today, Dean says opposite article.

Dean: In 9/14/2001 article, looking at broad powers of the president. I did not say President had authority to violate any existing statute. Prima facie evidence.

Hatch: No evidence.

Dean: I believe it's part of a pattern,

Turner: JAy, Hamilton, etc. gives president power to manage foreign affairs . Power taken away after Vietnam, War POwers act. They're restoring things to the way they were. I'm not going to let Bin Laden talk to an American. We know FISA contributed to 911. Coleen Rowley was angry she couldn't get a FISA warrant. General Hayden says if he had this program prior to 911, it's his professional judgement we could have found. A lot of harm done in wake of Vietnam.

Hatch: Feingold resolution's conclusion that President should be punished by censure that he broke the law. If this premise is even arguab le, then censure fails.

Hatch: a lot of presidents have relied on view that their authority could not be constrained by need to obtain foreign intelligence.

We know FISA contributed to 911???????

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????

Is there a kangaroo in there?

Karen,

What is the at atmosphere in the room? Does it seem like the Republicans are going to rubberstamp their votes or do they appear to want to actually investigate and hold this administration accountable?

Was there any indication you heard through prior conversations in the room?

How many media representatives are there.

Graham: You mean that you think the President and his people don't believe what they say?
Goes after the breakin at Watergate?
Did Nixon cover up a crime? Badged.

Dean: National security reason

Graham: He's really badgering Dean.

Dean: Nixon covered up because what happened while they were at the White House, breakin Daniel Ellsburg.

Graham; That's why you went to jail.

Leahy: Just a minute.

Graham: It's my five minutes, and I'll do what ...
This is apple and oranges. Anyone who thinks Nixon thinks he had constitutional authority to do break ins. This is an honest sincere debate. Supreme Court in Hamdi case, to put someone in jail despite some citation. O'Connor, inherent to fighting a war is putting people in prison

Graham: Could Congress ever do anything to regulate forces during a war. The middle ground to me is the Congress and President work together.

Dean: Graham's premise

Graham: He condoned it.

Dean: He had a totally different agenda.

[This was by far the most contenious exchange, with Graham doing the usual Republican thing of making the argument personal, and refusing to let the witness answer.]

My reply to Orin Hatch comes from the book Accountability of Power written by Mondale. In it, he called for a more accountable Presidency under the checks of the Cabinet, the Congress, the media, and the public.

Isn't this what Feingold is attempting to do? How many other people will stand up for the morally right decision in this? There is no doubt what that decision should be. What is in doubt is if anyone there will take this morally correct decision and hold it proudly before them and their constituents.

A no vote on censure is a immoral and politically-made decision.

Inherent power vs. plenary power.
Fein: If Congress is silent, President can act. Article I empowers Congress to regulate every agency. After exhaustive hearings showing a power of abuse, Congress decided to regulate these powers. When the target is an American citizen standing on American soil, Congress asked for independent neutral magistrate as a check on reasonableness of search and seizure. It's a regulation, not an elimination.

Leahy: What do you mean by history repeating itself.

Dean: Nixon writes about throwing down gauntlet. He was testing where he could take his policies and authorities. With a divided government, it was a rougher road to hoe. History is repeating itself because there is no check as there has been in the past.

Leahy: Has to leave.

Hatch: Presidents may push envelopes to "protect the American people." No evidence president is defying Congress. President informed two chief judges on FISA, and have operated for years with 8 leaders of Congress. So that these top secret matters don't get out and undermine our country.

Hatch: FISA works beautifully quote, predating launch of program.

Speed--Dept. Of justice itself that said FISA worked beautifully in the summer of 2002, a statement made months and months after the warantless surveillance program began.

Leahy: We still don't know what's going on.

Posted by: monkey at March 31, 2006 09:39 AM

They are masters at putting their opposition in a no-win. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Why can't we think like that? It takes planning ahead, to the detail, like a chess player. But they're good at it.

Feingold: Greatest threat to our history in Bush's collective claims about NSA, torture, etc.

I don't believe they believe for one minute that the war resolution allowed everything.

[Graham comes RUNNING back into the room]

To Fein, why do you think supporters of FISA insist that admin supporters say FISA didn't work.

Fein: Trying to confuse the public. F
Feingold: This intention to disort, to make Americans think we don't want to wiretap terrorists. I am one of the least partisan members of Congress. Sometimes I drive the Democrats crazy.

Dean: One of my concern is that, let's say Chairman's bill passes, what concerns me, is if that law is sent to White House, Dick Cheney will be drafting signing statement to gut the law.
New development, we've seen it with the torture bill. I don't have to veto it, I'm just going to ignore the law.

Feingold: 2002 torture memo: How is the legal argument, and led Senate to vote 90-9 any different fromNSA.

Fein: Not a narrow theory. President has inherent constutional authority to gather foreign intelligence. The theory applies to all methods of gathering intelligence, opening mail, breaking in houses. Admin. has not denied.

Graham: To say there is a moral equivalent to breaking in an opponent's house, to this President's decision to surveil the enemy. This is an honest debate on role of president in time of war.
Never been honest debate to authorize or condone breaking into opponent.
Mr. Turner, I think your opinion goes too far. Can Congress pass Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Turner: Power is checked in some areas. Article I, section 8; Attorney General of US whether Congress has the power to issue UCMJ. AG said No.

Graham: Could the Congress require by statute that the President send over every target list before a military action is taken.

Fein: no

Graham: Fein agrees that there is a point where Congress goes too far. Do you believe Supreme Court that the Afgan force resolution is authority to president to retain an enemy combattant.

Fein: Yes

Graham: reads u.s. Code

Fein: Doesn't cover war.

Graham: FISA applies differently in war environment than in 1978.

Fein: Disagrees

Graham: FISA passed in peacetime, now we're in war.

[Notice the reference to "war", the permanent war.]

Fein: FISA passed under nuclear war threat.

Graham: I think there's a genuine very narrow focus.

Spector: He has legislation to amend FISA. Good idea?

Schmitt: yes, it was a good idea.

Casey: certainly has merit, need to keep in mind, FISA can keep working.

Spector; other legislation to let wiretap for 45 days, then go to FISA, or subcom on Intelligence. Is this adequate?

Schmitt: get more comfort from court making an upfront decision on constitutioanly of program.

Casey: would be adequate to provide a check on the president.

Spector: Sufficient to sidestep FISA and go to Intelligence Committee.

Casey: Don't need the courts involved in everything. But FISA approval let's evidence into other trials.

Turner: FISA court better than Intel. Com.

Spector: In Feingold resolution, do you think there are circumstances where a program would be within the president's constitutional authority.

Fein: President in times of war has 15 day window, in FISA, and Congress could extend the period.

A law is a law is a law.

I don't give a damn if those defending the President say it doesn't matter because the agenda is better this time.

This president and his staff and cabinet must not be above the law.

They aren't offering candy to a little girl to be nice.

And it's not enough that that their law breaking has caused millions to suffer. That is proof enough that their motives and agendas are not pure as Grandma's apple pie. The BIGGEST attempt to call something corrupt and crooked pure and good that towers above ALL THE OTHER ATROCITIES is that they think they are above the law. Bigger still they have ALREADY BROKEN THE LAW, and by doing so they have actually arrogantly and beligerantly already PLACED THEMSELVES ABOVE THE LAW.

CENSURE.

Fein: Admin's defense has been "dynamic" according to the AG. We don't know what was stated initially, to know where the program began.

Feingold: Shifting justifications. Arguments on military force, it's preposterous, but Admin. defenders persist in making this argument, including 2 witnesses. Wonder whether this War resolution was even made!

Fein: Glaring in Spector's program, everything he's asking for, you could do now under FISA. Admin. has evadede a judicial review of program.

Feingold: First brief effort to justify under FISA, then authorized by Afgan resolution, and only then assertions of unlimited Ex. power.
Quotes John Mitchell (from a blogger named Greenwalt?) saying no Americans need to fear.
As Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." That's why Congress passed FISA after Nixon abuses.

Dean: Thinks Justice Dept. on Mitchell's warantless surveillance relied on King George III

Graham: If you censure, you would kill this program, and handicapp future presidents.
Mr. Fein, would you agree that Supreme Court has used the resolution to justify detensions.
If you had asked me the day I voted in the House did I intend to revoke FISA? I would have said No.

Fein: Admin's defense has been "dynamic" according to the AG. We don't know what was stated initially, to know where the program began.

Feingold: Shifting justifications. Arguments on military force, it's preposterous, but Admin. defenders persist in making this argument, including 2 witnesses. Wonder whether this War resolution was even made!

Fein: Glaring in Spector's program, everything he's asking for, you could do now under FISA. Admin. has evadede a judicial review of program.

Feingold: First brief effort to justify under FISA, then authorized by Afgan resolution, and only then assertions of unlimited Ex. power.
Quotes John Mitchell (from a blogger named Greenwalt?) saying no Americans need to fear.
As Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." That's why Congress passed FISA after Nixon abuses.

Dean: Thinks Justice Dept. on Mitchell's warantless surveillance relied on King George III

Graham: If you censure, you would kill this program, and handicapp future presidents.
Mr. Fein, would you agree that Supreme Court has used the resolution to justify detensions.
If you had asked me the day I voted in the House did I intend to revoke FISA? I would have said No. He goes through long list, "bureaucratic nightmare called FISA." DOn't need warrant to follow enemy in time of war. If U.S. govt believes that courts should still check. My legislation says that you don't need a warrant to surveil the enemy, but when you contact an American citizen, you have to go to FISA.
Congress needs to draw2 a line.

Theonly time you need a warrant is when

Fein:

Graham: I feel really strongly; censure takes program in wrong direction. I am ready to find middle ground. Surveil foreigners, but you never allow surveillance of American citizen without eventually getting a court review.

Feingold: If this were only an issue of how Spectorand Graham handled issue, would not need censure. Problem: when program was revealed, White House took a different course. Choce to put forward bogus argument, and then an inherent power argument that has no end. That's why I take the step of proposing censure. Sincere belief that if we do not act, it will go down as one of the great failures of the Congress.

Spector: Letter from professor Cass Sunstein: There can be no doubt that the program has been subject to serious legal objections. In face of a legally controverfsial assertion of power, look at facts first, not censure.

Spector; NY Times on Feingold: the censure proposal is a bad idea."
"A stunt" San Diego Tribute
This hearing is important as a further exploration of the President's inherent powers that we have to come to grips with, and the authority of the Congress to legislate on these subjects, and most of all the paramount authoirty of the courts. We may have set a record of Judicary com by holding 4 hearings during March. Wanted to press President to allow some judicial review. Long resolution, but not a word about "bad faith." ''

That concludes the hearing.

[This item is from Dick Bell, sitting in for Karen, who had to leave the hearing. So these conclusions are mine, not hers.]

The immediate scrums after the hearing broke up centered on Sen. Feingold. There were questions about why there weren't more Democratic Senators present; Feingold said Leahy's opening statement was the strongest statement Leahy has made to date, that they rarely hold hearings on Friday, and that he's seen fewer Senators in the middle of the week [all of which your correspondent can testify is true.]

In his post-hearing remarks, Feingold emphasized that his principle reason for seeking censure had little to do with the NSA spying itself, and that focusing on the narrow issue of the NSA actually helped the White House by taking attention away from the pattern of Bush's power grabs. He joked that being attacked by the New York Times "probably helps me."

Feingold said afterwards that he had chosen censure in order to avoid the wrenching impeachment process. He pointed out that while the Republicans predicted Bush's polls would shoot up in response to Feingold's censure resolution (the RNC is running an ad conflating censure and impeachment), nothing of the sort has taken place.

He told a questioner that he felt he had no choice but to bring this resolution in order to defend the rule of law: "A Democratic Party that doesn't stand up for the rule of law is not the Democratic Party I want.

What was really extraordinary was that this hearing took place at all. While the formality of the hearing restrains the intensity of debate, this hearing room is also a very long way from the back rooms of the blgosphere. Feingold, and the grassroots support of his work, was able to force onto the public record very clear statements about the dangers of the course that Bush has put us on.

In that respect, John Dean was perhaps the most on message speaker. His argument about Bush seeking more power for the sake of gathering more power, unlike most of the earlier presidents whose power-grabbing was in the interest of some program or project.

The effectiveness of Dean's arguement lit a fuse under Sen. Graham, who spent a good deal of his time bullying Dean about events during Watergate, while completely ignored the substance of Dean's critique.

Late in the hearings, Graham left the room for an extended period, but when Feingold started really unloading on Bush, Graham came hustling back into the room, ready to start baiting Dean once again. Note that Graham also spent some time presenting himself as the guy who wants to find "a middle ground," and that he said he thought there were places where Bush had gone too far. Graham has 2008 presidential ambitions, and they were on display today.

There's nobody left now but interns cleaning up the mess, disconnected the mikes, and gathering up the nameplaces. Keep up the pressure.

Fabulous work Dick/Karen... I've been reading as I can from my mole hole:)

"A Democratic Party that doesn't stand up for the rule of law is not the Democratic Party I want."

Ummm... holy canoli.

Thanks Dick and Karen.

Dick and Karen,

Thank you for these thorough updates. I agree Dick, we must keep up the pressure.