June 3, 2007

Ashcroft, Gonzales and The Domestic Surveillance Program

I can't speak for the OPJ, but my main reason for having the big word IMPEACH plastered above this blog's logo can be described in three words: warrantless domestic surveillance.

If memory serves, we hoisted the banner just after learning that George W. Bush ok-ed the warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens. It was already possible to surveil citizens if necessary via the FISA court. But for some reason, that wasn't good enough for dubya.

I understand (though I can't condone) the decisions of the Congressional Democrats NOT to pursue Impeachment, but the insult to the Constitution is so great that someone has to be punished for it.

One curiously distasteful aspect of the story has bubbled up recently - the trip to AG Ashcroft's hospital bedside in March 2004.

According to Michael Isikoff of Newsweek, Congress wants speak to Ashcroft about it.

The Nation has a good description of what happened (sub. req):
The frantic race to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's bedside on March 10, 2004, sounds more Hollywood than history: Acting AG James Comey's foot-to-the-floor drive to head off then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card; FBI Director Robert Mueller's startling imperative to his agents to defy any attempt by Gonzo and Card to throw Comey out; the sedated and badly ailing Ashcroft rousing himself from his sickbed to defend the Constitution; the resignation threats by Comey and Mueller. As Washington lore, the episode joins Richard Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre and Thaddeus Stevens's being carried on a stretcher to vote in the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson. And behind all this, the President pushing a wiretap program so blatantly illegal that his own top Justice appointees were threatening to resign.
Some telling details:
    • According to Comey's testimony, for two years the White House had endorsed still unspecified secret wiretaps by the National Security Agency without a warrant or authorization from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. In other words, for two years the NSA and telephone companies had been committing a federal crime with the full endorsement of the Oval Office.
And:
    • In spring 2004, when Ashcroft, Comey and every other responsible official in the Justice Department had reviewed the program and declared that the taps blatantly violated the surveillance law, Card, Gonzales and Bush himself all indicated their intention to go forward anyhow. In plain English, that is a conspiracy.
The Nation continues with a further charge. Since Comey had already been assigned the duties of the AG, while Ashcroft was in the hospital, Ashcroft had no authority to sign off on the program. Whatever "authority" they were looking to present would have been fraudulent. They add:
That is how determined the President was to continue an illegal program.
Now perhaps Impeachment doesn't seem too strong a reaction.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Frank Rich has an interesting take today (6/3) on why impeachment efforts continue to languish.

In essence, Rich believes that, contrary to the ire which Nixon raised in people, our fellow citizens simply can't muster the same feeling about Bush.

They don't like him and they think he's a moron...but they just "want his Presidency to be over!"

I think this is why, with the clocking ticking and the end of Dubya's term in sight, the Congressonal Democrats are smart to not become embroiled in a contentious impeachment effort....for it would color politics for years to come.

You might think that would be good, that it would give the Dems a platform to run on...but my guess is that the nation is not only ready, but desperate for some positive news coming out of DC...not another kurfluffle which would be painted (rightly or not) as just another inside baseball, political dust up.

Pilt

Dayvoe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dayvoe said...

For those who are curious to read Rich's column. It's here.

I can see Rich's point. However, I still hold my position that the insult to the Constitution (and the idea of a free society) has been so great that someone has to be held accountable.

If the insult is allowed to just pass, then what's do be done the next time an " epic blunderer surrounded by Machiavellis" sits in the Oval office?

Anonymous said...

Perhaps it was Digby who was writing about this, but whoever it was made a very good point that really resonated with me: By not moving to impeach Bush and Cheney, what Congress, and Democrats in particular, are saying is that it is okay for the President to break the law, that political expedience is more important than the rule of law. That's the point we've reached in this country, politics rules all.

And, sadly, you can't just blame Congress for this. The public is also to blame. We are apathetic and hypocritical. Many people are also stretched way too thin - moms and dads both working while trying to juggle a few kids and manage to squeeze in a few minutes of normalcy or peace each day. So, in many respsects, it's hard to blame some people for just not having the energy to devote to really taking an active interest in things that they don't perceive as having a direct impact on their lives - or at least not enough of an impact to get them to do anything, or at least just pay closer attention.

Perhaps the saddest part of it all.

Anonymous said...

Whigsboy -

You make some very good points. Congress is, in many ways, simply responding to what they perceive the public wants. Politicians and parties spend millions every year doing research and polling; if they thought an impeachment would pass muster with the great unwashed masses, you can bet they'd be the first to file the Articles.

But my guess is that, because of some of the items you mention, as well as the ambilvalence noted by Rich, the voters just don't have the stomach for it.

And yes, it is very sad.

Pilt

Gloria said...

I believe we, the people, at least those of us who are voters, have already done our job, which is to elect the representatives we feel will best represent us.

Voters spoke loudly & clearly in favor of peace & withdrawl from Iraq, in the '06 General election.

The problem's with the representatives we elected. They aren't representing us, they aren't doing their job.

Anonymous said...

Yes gloria, you, as the people have done your job in electing a Congress who has the power right NOW to stop this war by defunding it, yet don't have the balls to do it. Why? Because they know that their chances of an 08 victory will be shot to hell, so instead they politicize the war and keep our troops (who they claim they care about so much) in harms way.

They have the power, and they do NOTHING but sit on their asses.

Now, they (along with the Republicans) now want to give illegal immigrants complete work to citizenship (translation: amnesty). Nice. What part of "illegal immigrant" do these imbeciles not understand? What part of upholding the law don't they understand.

The Democrats (and Republicans alike) are in a race to see who can get to the illegals first...in hopes of that all important vote.

The law does not matter anymore. We're headed down a dark path.

Anonymous said...

The law does not matter anymore. We're headed down a dark path.

Indeed we are. It began 20-Jan-2001.