Ode to Donna Edwards’ Wheaties

/26 Comments/in , /by

I don’t actually know that this sudden outbreak of spine and seemingly coordinated messaging among Democrats is the result of seeing Donna Edwards kick a Democratic incumbent’s behind, but she’s a great person and might as well get the credit. Here’s Silvestre Reyes:

Because I care so deeply about protecting our country, I take strong offense to your suggestion in recent days that the country will be vulnerable to terrorist attack unless Congress immediately enacts legislation giving you broader powers to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans’ communications and provides legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the Administration’s warrantless surveillance program.

[snip]

If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don’t have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations– including al Qaeda– that have gained strength since 9/11. We do not have nearly enough linguists to translate the reams of information we currently collect. We do not have enough intelligence officers who can penetrate the hardest targets, such as al Qaeda. We have surged so many intelligence resources into Iraq that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, you have allowed al Qaeda to reconstitute itself on your watch.

You have also suggested that Congress must grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. As someone who has been briefed on our most sensitive intelligence programs, I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized.

The issue of telecom liability should be carefully considered based on a full review of the documents that your Administration withheld from Congress for eight months. However, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago.

[snip]

I urge you, Mr. President, to put partisanship aside and allow Republicans in Congress to arrive at a compromise that will protect America and protect our Constitution.

I, for one, do not intend to back down – not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.

We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won. [my emphasis]

Read more →

Share this entry

John Yarmuth (D-KY): 2006 Was About the Rule of Law

/75 Comments/in /by

(Thanks to Selise for the YouTube)

You never know who is going to sound like a DFH blogger these days. Many of you were talking about Steny Hoyer sounding like one in the Contempt debate. And how about John Yarmuth (D-KY), who reminds us that 2006 was at least partly about restoring the Constitution.

In November of 2006, the American people decided to give the Democrats control of the House of Representatives and the Congress. I was fortunate enough to be elected as one of the 43 new Democrats in that class. And many people said in examining that election, "Oh, we were elected because of the War in Iraq." But that’s not what I heard. What I heard when I was campaigning in 2006 and I think most of my colleagues in this class would say the same thing is, we want to return to the tenets of the Constitution. We want to restore the checks and balances that the Founding Fathers prescribed. We want to make sure that this President and every President is held accountable, is not above the law.

The Gavel has another passage of Yarmouth’s speech along with another YouTube.

The Democrats are almost looking like the Democratic Party today. You think they noticed Donna Edwards’ win?

Update: multiple typos fixed, thanks to selise and wkwf and SkinnyMinnie.

Share this entry

Two-Fronted War in Defense of the Constitution in the House

/114 Comments/in /by

The AP reported on Steven Bradbury’s tortured logic about water-boarding.

”The set of interrogation methods authorized for current use is narrower than before, and it does not today include waterboarding,” Steven G. Bradbury, acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, says in remarks prepared for his appearance Thursday before the House Judiciary Constitution subcommittee.

”There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law,” he said.

That is, waterboarding is not legal today, but it could be tomorrow if Bradbury made it so at the bidding of David Addington.

That tortured logic is part of Bradbury’s prepared statements for an appearance before HJC’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties (click here to follow along).

Meanwhile, Chairman Conyers is appearing before the Rules Committee (on CSPAN1) supporting his contempt resolution, describing the importance of the contempt resolution to the balance of powers.

Some have said we risk more if we lose this fight. If we countenance a process where our subpoenas can be readily ignored, where a witness doesn’t even have to bother to show up or tell us that they’re not coming, then we’ve already lost. This is not a matter of vindicating the Judiciary Committee.

Republicans are playing nasty–interrupting the Lantos memorial for stupid parliamentary tricks. Lamar Smith thinks we shouldn’t pass this rule because we won’t also allow the government broad powers to wiretap us.

And Bradbury is assuring "the committee that every opinion I sign represents my best judgment regardless of political currents."

I’ll try to follow both hearings.

Nadler: Is waterboarding a violation of the Federal torture statute?

Bradbury: I think it was reasonable to say that it didn’t violate the Federal torture statute. Your description of the procedure is not accurate description of procedure used by CIA.

Nadler: My description is one given to us by former interrogators.

Read more →

Share this entry

Conyers Has Gotten Cranky

/33 Comments/in /by

Just a quick post (I promise, I’ll catch up tomorrow) to observe that Conyers seems to be getting fed up. Yesterday he was handing long "to do" lists to Fred Fielding. Today, it’s taking the next step in ratcheting the pressure on the Bush Adminsitration.

Recommending that the House cite someone for contempt of Congress is a step that the Committee, and I as Chairman, take with great reluctance. Unfortunately, it is a step that is clearly necessary to preserve the role and constitutional prerogatives of Congress as an institution, in addition to getting to the bottom of the U.S. Attorney controversy.

The Judiciary Committee voted on July 25 to recommend the contempt resolution because, despite months of effort to secure voluntary compliance, the White House has refused to provide access to crucial information requested by the Committee. In fact, as of today, I have written nine letters over more than eight months trying to resolve this matter. But despite duly issued subpoenas, the White House has determined that it has the unilateral authority to prevent Mr. Bolten from providing us with a single piece of paper and to prevent Ms. Miers from even showing up at a Committee hearing.

If the executive branch can disregard Congressional subpoenas in this way, we no longer have a system of checks and balances. That is the cornerstone of our democracy, and it is our bipartisan responsibility to protect it. As our former colleague, Republican Mickey Edwards, has explained, taking action is crucial in order to defend Congress "as a separate, independent, and completely equal branch of government."

Because the White House has refused to reconsider its confrontational position, I believe we have no choice but to bring this contempt resolution to the floor promptly and to ask that this Committee adopt a rule to facilitate doing so. [my emphasis]

I’m particularly interested in the degree of specificity in Conyers’ letter:

Along with the contempt resolution, .I ask the Committee to include in its rule the appropriate process for consideration of H. Res. 980, a privileged resolution authorizing the Judiciary Committee to initiate or intervene in civil litigation to enforce these two subpoenas. The need for this resolution became clear just last week, when the Attorney General unfortunately testified before our Committee that he is inclined to follow the White House’s view and forbid enforcement of the contempt resolution.

Read more →

Share this entry

FISA: On to the House

/47 Comments/in , /by

Sorry I missed all the misery on FISA votes today. Though I can’t say I’m sorry to have missed the Senate committing collective hari kari again.

Which, of course, sends FISA back to the House. The Blue Dogs are no doubt ready to bend over for Bush. Again. But John Conyers isn’t going to go quietly. He sent Fred Fielding a long "to do" list, some of it relating to requests going

First, please provide access to all Members of the House Judiciary Committee those briefings and materials you have made available to 19 Members as of now. Currently, it is my understanding that the entire membership of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has been permitted to be “read in” to the TSP program. The only Committee of jurisdiction that has not been offered the same access is the House Judiciary Committee. This is unacceptable and serves little purpose but to impede our Members review of the program and understanding of your request for retroactive amnesty.

Second, please provide the Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel Department of Defense, from John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Robert J. Delahunty, Special Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States. It is believed that this Memorandum is dated either October 17, 2001, or October 23, 2001. Based on the title of this document, and based on the contents of similar memoranda issued at roughly the same time, it appears that a substantial portion of this Memorandum provides a legal determination and analysis as to the nature and scope of the Presidential war powers to accomplish specific acts within the United States. Congress is entitled to know the executive branch’s interpretation of its constitutional powers.

Third, please provide copies of filings, correspondence or transcripts of colloquies with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court about TSP or other warrantless or other electronic surveillance programs, containing legal analysis, arguments, or decisions concerning the interpretation of FISA, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force enacted on September 18, 2001, or the President’s authority under Article II of the Constitution.

Read more →

Share this entry

FISA Liveblog And Trash Talk Thread Tuesday 2/12/08

/108 Comments/in , , , , /by

Another day, another sellout. That may actually be a good question to ask to ask any Congresscritter you can get your hands on, or voice to, over the next eight months. "What was you personal price for selling out the Constitution and my privacy? As a taxpaying constituent and citizen, I am entitled to an honest answer; what was your price?" What are the odds that even one single critter gives an honest answer? About zero is my guess. Document the atrocities as you see them today, I will be in and out, as I believe Marcy will be. A good lawyer always makes a record for appeal, even when he or she is losing miserably. So, make a record; Phred demands it! Because we are certainly going to be appealing what our Senate, and Congress, is doing to us and our Constitution by their cancerous and derelict actions on FISA.

Share this entry

Don’t Gag Ma Bell

/119 Comments/in , /by

I’ve been dissing my Congressman John Dingell by not pointing to the letter he, Bart Stupak (also from Michigan) and Edward Markey sent their colleagues about the FISA bill. But it raises an issue that deserves more attention. After discussing the rationales for telecom immunity, they point out,

For the past five months this Committee has asked, in a bipartisan manner, the phone companies and the Administration to explain whether they acted outside the bounds of the law and what would justify Congress telling a Federal judge to dismiss all lawsuits against the phone companies. The phone companies respond that the Administration has gagged and threatened them with prosecution if they respond to our inquiries. When the Committee requested that the Administration either remove the gag or provide the Committee with the relevant information, the Administration repeatedly refused. Surprisingly, even at this late date, the Administration has not deemed it important enough to respond to our repeated inquiries or even to brief the Committee Members in closed session.

Understand, John Dingell is a long-time friend of the telecoms (and can muster an awesome lecture to constituents on telecom history on demand). And this is the crowd in the House that legislates on telecoms more generally.

Yet the Administration won’t let Ma Bell talk to them–at least not about her overwhelming need for immunity. The Republicans claim that, unless Ma Bell gets immunity, she’ll go out of business. But they won’t let her tell that to the legislators who know the telecom business best.

So it’s not just the Administration’s justifications for their illegal spying program they’ll show to only 20 or so members of Congress in each house. They won’t even let Ma Bell make her case herself. 

I’m traveling tomorrow through Wednesday, so I won’t be glued to the teevee to liveblog the FISA votes. But I’ll try to touch base as the Senate vote develops.

Share this entry

Why Bush Is So Desperate to Get Bradbury Approved

/185 Comments/in /by

There has actually been pretty good coverage–even in the traditional press–of Bush’s intransigence over the Bradbury nomination. Here’s the AP, for example.

The nomination of Steven Bradbury for assistant attorney general is especially controversial.

In January, Bush renominated Bradbury, refusing to yield to Democrats who oppose a permanent job for the official who signed legal memos authorizing harsh interrogations for suspected terrorists. Bradbury has been serving as acting chief of the Justice Department’s Office of Legislative Counsel. Bush wants the Senate to confirm Bradbury as permanent head of the office.

Senate Democrats complain that two secret memos from Bradbury in 2005 authorized the CIA to use head slaps, freezing temperatures and waterboarding — a practice that invokes drowning fears — when questioning terrorism detainees.

And even better is this article from the LAT: 

Read more →

Share this entry

Working Extra Hours Is Extra-Constitutional

/40 Comments/in , /by

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that, according to the Tuesday-through-Thursday Republicans and the Most-Vacation-Ever President, working extra days is extra-constitutional. That’s the implication, after all, of the Administration’s little temper tantrum over the fact that the Senate stayed in session over Christmas to prevent Bush from recess appointing Steven Bradbury.

Q Tony, Reid’s quote on that was — he said he called John Bolten, who, "He called me back and said it is Bradbury or nobody. I said, you’re willing to now allow 84 of your people to get approved because of this guy? He said, yep, that’s what the President wants."

MR. FRATTO: I think what the ask of the administration was, was for the President to give up his constitutional authority to make recess appointments. The power to make recess appointments is granted to the President in the Constitution. And that’s what the President was being asked to forego.

Now, the Senate, then, went and took the extra constitutional act of — over the holidays, of engaging in speed sessions with the soul purpose of frustrating the President’s constitutional authority to make appointments.

So it’s not an offer that we make — you know, that we would find credible or appropriate. And it’s also, again, not the way this system is intended to work. The system — the way it is intended to work is the President nominates, the Senate reviews the nominee, and they can give an up or down vote on these nominees, and we can either put them in place, as the President intended, or the Senate can vote them down. That’s the power that the Constitution gives them.

Apparently somewhere between Article I and Article II of the Constitution it mandates vacations. Who knew??!

Share this entry

Arlen “Scottish Haggis” Specter Enumerates Bush’s Law-Breaking

/15 Comments/in , , /by

(Thanks to Selise for the YouTube)

Yesterday, Scottish Haggis went even further than he did the other day the other day in asserting that Bush broke the law when he instituted his illegal wiretapping program. He asserted flatly that Bush had violated two statutes (FISA and the National Security Act).

I believe it is vital that the courts remain open. I say that because on our delicate constitutional balance of separation of powers, the Congress has been totally ineffective on oversight and on restraining the expansion of executive authority. But the courts have the capacity, the will, and the effectiveness to maintain a balance.

But we find that the President has asserted his constitutional authority under article II to disregard statutes, the law of the land passed by Congress and signed by the President.

I start with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides that the only way to wiretap is to have a court order. The Executive Branch initiated the Terrorist Surveillance Program in flat violation of that statute. Now, the President argues that he has constitutional authority which supersedes the statute. And if he does, the statute cannot modify the Constitution. Only a constitutional amendment can. But that program, initiated in 2001, is still being litigated in the courts. So we do not know on the balancing test whether the Executive has the asserted constitutional authority.

But if you foreclose a judicial decision, the courts are cut off. Then the executive branch has violated the National Security Act of 1947, which mandates that the Intelligence Committees of both the House and the Senate be informed of matters like the Terrorist Surveillance Program. I served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the 109th Congress. The chairman and the ranking member, under protocol and practice, ought to be notified about a program like that. But I was surprised to read about it in the newspapers one day, on the final day of argument on the PATRIOT Act Re-authorization. It was a long time, with a lot of pressure–really to get the confirmation of General Hayden as CIA Director–before the executive branch finally complied with the statute to notify the full Intelligence Committees.

Read more →

Share this entry