Durbin: Hearings Needed On Warrantless Surveillance

[JABBS]

Echoing the words of Senate colleagues, Sen. Dick Durbin said Sunday that he would consider a motion to censure President Bush for authorizing warrantless surveillance, but only after a proper Senate inquiry into the program.

Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Durbin (D-IL) said the March 13 censure resolution from Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) was "valuable ... (as) a catalyst to have the kind of hearings and the kind of deliberations as to what lies behind this warrantless wiretap situation."

"I can't rule anything out until the investigation is complete. I don't want to prejudge it," said Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat. "But if this president or any president violates the law, he has to be held accountable."

Durbin called inquiries by the Republican-controlled Senate inadequate. Like many Democrats, he was unsatisfied after the Senate Intelligence Committee voted along party lines two weeks ago against such an investigation. Instead, Congressional Republicans cut a deal with the White House to provide Congressional oversight for warrantless surveillance.

"We have a responsibility to ask the hard questions, to find out what the nature of the program is and whether the president violated the law," Durbin said.

***

JABBS has argued in favor of the censure -- and believes Americans of all political stripes should stand up in favor of a president following the law. Unfortunately, support for the censure has been minimal, with only Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) signing on to the measure.

As JABBS has noted, the White House claimed it had "inherent authority" to conduct such surveillance, then undercut that argument by supporting legislation from Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) to "further codify" (read: legalize) the surveillance program.

Republicans have clearly come out against further investigation of the program. As DeWine said, "We don’t want to have any kind of debate about whether it’s constitutional or not constitutional."

Americans deserve better. And if that means taking a circuitous route to investigate a seemingly illegal program, so be it. Feingold's censure motion is unlikely to pass, but it hopefully will force the Republican-controlled Senate to do the right thing, and thoroughly investigate the program.

***

This item first appeared at JABBS.

[savemefromdumbya]

1. w'happen to the enquiry?

[JABBS]

3. as it says in the article ...

"the Senate Intelligence Committee voted along party lines two weeks ago against such an investigation."

[savemefromdumbya]

4. they CAN"T just vote against an investigation - Harry close down Congress

Democrats should be like dogs with a bone! Harry Reid should close Congress until an enquiry is produced! :banghead:

[JABBS]

8. they can

The committee voted not to proceed with an investigation.

Durbin, Leahy, etc., who have said they want an investigation need another avenue -- either another committee, or another reason with the intelligence committee.

[savemefromdumbya]

10. Call for indepenedent investigation then

[JABBS]

11. doubtful

and, given how long the fitzgerald investigation has gone on, we wouldn't find out about warrantless surveillance until well after November. And there's no chance of a commission -- a la the 9/11 commission -- because there's no public pressure on the GOP to allow such a thing.

[savemefromdumbya]

12. Go for the independent commission then

this is serious

[JABBS]

13. Democrats can go for it ...

but it's the same as seeking a Senate investigation. they have to get some Republicans on board first. Otherwise, the idea will be shot down.

[Rose Siding]

2. The roar from the NYT will *deafening*

"We'd be applauding Mr. Feingold if he'd proposed creating a bipartisan panel to determine whether the domestic spying operation that Mr. Bush has acknowledged violates the 1978 surveillance law, as it certainly seems to do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/17/opinion/17fri1.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials&oref=slogin

:eyes:

[gratuitous]

5. And who will call these hearings?

Considering only one party can convene a hearing and only one party can decide whether or not the witnesses are sworn it, who's going to do that?

I like Durbin, and am in favor of his call for hearings. Now, do the necessary follow through and point out that those hearings aren't happening solely due to one thing: A craven, partisan bunch of Republicans for whom party loyalty is more important than the Constitution.

[ladjf]

7. I agree, The only possible , but slight, gain from a hearing would

be for Americans to see once again what crooks the Republicans are. But, that has already been shown countless times before. Real hearings would have been very productive.

[JABBS]

9. as we saw with the port deal

If enough Americans of all political stripes get upset, and contact their representatives, things happen.

If enough Americans said, "The president shouldn't violate the law." Or "I want to know whether the president violated the law." Or, "I'm against warrantless surveillance." and told their representatives that they won't support them if they don't do something ... then there would be bipartisant hearings on the subject.

DeWine's statement is telling. If this can be swept under the rug and forgotten by November, the Republicans win. Bush wins. And that's wrong. Because the law was clearly violated.

[ladjf]

6. Hearings that are under Republican control are pointless

exercises in obfuscation.