jaguarr
Be Your Own Hero
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 43,566
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
[SIZE=+2]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001102_2.html
FBI Raid Hits a Constitutional Nerve[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, May 31, 2006; A02
[/SIZE]
When asked to hold hearings on the rendition and torture of terrorism suspects, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) respectfully declined.
Invited repeatedly to probe the Bush administration's leaking of a CIA operative's identity, the chairman sent his regrets.
Urged to have hearings dedicated to the administration's warrantless eavesdropping, Sensenbrenner demurred once more.
But when FBI agents searched a congressional office 11 days ago, Sensenbrenner went up to the attic and found his gavel.
Yesterday, he held the first of at least four hearings into the raid -- the debut was dispassionately titled "Reckless Justice" -- and announced that he will haul the attorney general and FBI director before his committee. He also vowed that he will "promptly" write legislation to prevent a recurrence.
Even before the expert witnesses were sworn in yesterday, Sensenbrenner said his mind was made up. "Documents having nothing whatsoever to do with any crime," he lectured absent administration officials, were "seized by the executive branch without constitutional authority."
The four witnesses performed in the perfect harmony of an amen chorus.
"A wholesale constitutional violation," said former House lawyer Charles Tiefer.
"Unconstitutional," judged constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein.
"Abandonment of fundamental law," said former congressman Bob Walker (R-Pa.). "A recipe for constitutional crisis."
"A profound and almost gratuitous insult," contributed George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. "Raw arrogance."
The lawmakers were not entirely at ease in their new role as sentinels of the Constitution; only six of the panel's 40 members could pull themselves away from the demands of the Memorial Day recess to attend the hearing. "The American people do not begin to understand why there is a concern," allowed Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).
The lack of understanding may have something to do with the fact that the committee is defending the prerogatives of Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), who allegedly stashed $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer. The members and their witnesses found it necessary to pronounce nine times in 90 minutes that nobody is "above the law." Even the panel's handpicked experts argued that it was the copying of Jefferson's computer files, not the search itself, that was illegal.
Democrats needled the majority about the fresh discovery of the committee's oversight authority. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) reminded his colleagues of a "number of examples of overreaching by the executive branch where there's been a total lack of oversight by this Congress: the torture memorandum, detainees, enemy combatants, signing statements, domestic surveillance, data-mining operations."
Sensenbrenner took off his glasses and rubbed his eyes.
But, consistent or not, the lawmakers acted as though they were 17th-century English parliamentarians protecting democracy from King Charles. "For the first time in 219 years, the Department of Justice entered a Capitol Hill office and removed documents and materials without the involvement of a single legal representative of Congress," Sensenbrenner intoned.
Ranking Democrat John Conyers Jr. (Mich.) also recalled "219 years in which, in this history of the United States, [we] have been able to avoid the spectacle of the Federal Bureau of Investigation swooping down into the Capitol."
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) preferred round numbers. "Over 200 years, it hasn't happened," he said.
And the chorus sang. "The Justice Department has sought to redefine a relationship 219 years in the making" (Walker). "Over 200 years, this hasn't occurred" (Turley).
"Professor Tiefer," asked Conyers, "what do you think was behind the fact that we haven't ever had this happen before in 219 years?"
The professor said that this time "they were simply in a hurry."
Sensenbrenner sought to summarize the findings. "It's worked for 219 years," he concluded. "There's no reason to ignore the 219 years of success of separation of powers."
A couple of the witnesses tried to suggest, gently, that Congress was arriving a bit late to the party. Fein called the office raid "simply an additional instrument of the Bush administration to cow Congress," including "a claim of inherent presidential authority to flout any statute that he thinks impedes his ability to gather foreign intelligence, whether opening mail, conducting electronic surveillance, breaking and entering, or committing torture."
This all seemed to wake up freshman Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.). "I've been so much more concerned about the judiciary overreaching in power, and I really had not looked at the executive," he confessed. But after the "phone logs and things," he added, "I've become more concerned."
Issa became dramatic. "We have the power to impeach the attorney general," he reminded his peers, before quickly adding: "I think we're a couple of shakes short of a quorum for that purpose."
"Not yet," Sensenbrenner agreed.
How convenient these a-holes suddenly become worried about protecting the virtures of the Consitution when THEIR rights are being tread upon. Bastards.
jag
FBI Raid Hits a Constitutional Nerve[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, May 31, 2006; A02
[/SIZE]
When asked to hold hearings on the rendition and torture of terrorism suspects, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) respectfully declined.
Invited repeatedly to probe the Bush administration's leaking of a CIA operative's identity, the chairman sent his regrets.
Urged to have hearings dedicated to the administration's warrantless eavesdropping, Sensenbrenner demurred once more.
But when FBI agents searched a congressional office 11 days ago, Sensenbrenner went up to the attic and found his gavel.
Yesterday, he held the first of at least four hearings into the raid -- the debut was dispassionately titled "Reckless Justice" -- and announced that he will haul the attorney general and FBI director before his committee. He also vowed that he will "promptly" write legislation to prevent a recurrence.
Even before the expert witnesses were sworn in yesterday, Sensenbrenner said his mind was made up. "Documents having nothing whatsoever to do with any crime," he lectured absent administration officials, were "seized by the executive branch without constitutional authority."
The four witnesses performed in the perfect harmony of an amen chorus.
"A wholesale constitutional violation," said former House lawyer Charles Tiefer.
"Unconstitutional," judged constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein.
"Abandonment of fundamental law," said former congressman Bob Walker (R-Pa.). "A recipe for constitutional crisis."
"A profound and almost gratuitous insult," contributed George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. "Raw arrogance."
The lawmakers were not entirely at ease in their new role as sentinels of the Constitution; only six of the panel's 40 members could pull themselves away from the demands of the Memorial Day recess to attend the hearing. "The American people do not begin to understand why there is a concern," allowed Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).
The lack of understanding may have something to do with the fact that the committee is defending the prerogatives of Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), who allegedly stashed $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer. The members and their witnesses found it necessary to pronounce nine times in 90 minutes that nobody is "above the law." Even the panel's handpicked experts argued that it was the copying of Jefferson's computer files, not the search itself, that was illegal.
Democrats needled the majority about the fresh discovery of the committee's oversight authority. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) reminded his colleagues of a "number of examples of overreaching by the executive branch where there's been a total lack of oversight by this Congress: the torture memorandum, detainees, enemy combatants, signing statements, domestic surveillance, data-mining operations."
Sensenbrenner took off his glasses and rubbed his eyes.
But, consistent or not, the lawmakers acted as though they were 17th-century English parliamentarians protecting democracy from King Charles. "For the first time in 219 years, the Department of Justice entered a Capitol Hill office and removed documents and materials without the involvement of a single legal representative of Congress," Sensenbrenner intoned.
Ranking Democrat John Conyers Jr. (Mich.) also recalled "219 years in which, in this history of the United States, [we] have been able to avoid the spectacle of the Federal Bureau of Investigation swooping down into the Capitol."
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) preferred round numbers. "Over 200 years, it hasn't happened," he said.
And the chorus sang. "The Justice Department has sought to redefine a relationship 219 years in the making" (Walker). "Over 200 years, this hasn't occurred" (Turley).
"Professor Tiefer," asked Conyers, "what do you think was behind the fact that we haven't ever had this happen before in 219 years?"
The professor said that this time "they were simply in a hurry."
Sensenbrenner sought to summarize the findings. "It's worked for 219 years," he concluded. "There's no reason to ignore the 219 years of success of separation of powers."
A couple of the witnesses tried to suggest, gently, that Congress was arriving a bit late to the party. Fein called the office raid "simply an additional instrument of the Bush administration to cow Congress," including "a claim of inherent presidential authority to flout any statute that he thinks impedes his ability to gather foreign intelligence, whether opening mail, conducting electronic surveillance, breaking and entering, or committing torture."
This all seemed to wake up freshman Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.). "I've been so much more concerned about the judiciary overreaching in power, and I really had not looked at the executive," he confessed. But after the "phone logs and things," he added, "I've become more concerned."
Issa became dramatic. "We have the power to impeach the attorney general," he reminded his peers, before quickly adding: "I think we're a couple of shakes short of a quorum for that purpose."
"Not yet," Sensenbrenner agreed.
How convenient these a-holes suddenly become worried about protecting the virtures of the Consitution when THEIR rights are being tread upon. Bastards.
jag
