Austin's Dome

Senator Pat Robert's reply to DNC Chairman Howard Dean comments about the NSA reminding people of Nixon is at:

http://roberts.senate.gov/02-03-2006.htm

My response to the Senator are under the italics


With respect to this important program, you stated, President Bush's secret program to spy on the American people reminds Americans of the abuse of power during the dark days of President Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew. As Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, I find your statements to be irrational and irresponsible. Any suggestion that a program designed to track the movement, locations, plans, or intentions of our enemy particularly those that have infiltrated our borders is equivalent to abusive domestic surveillance of the past is ludicrous.


Senator Roberts does make a good point about not pre-judging the intentions of the NSA spying program, but can't the same argument can be said about his position? We haven't even had a single Judicial Committee meeting on the legal aspects of the spying yet, but he has already come out with a strong public defense of it. Chairman Dean's statement is easy to understand because the secrecy and the recent confused public defense of it DOES remind many people of Nixon and Agnew.


You'd think that Senator Roberts, who as the head of the Intelligence Committee has access to the inner workings of domestic spying, would be interested in getting the Administration's full argument made public before he would make the statement that any accusations about the abuse of it is ludicrous. If the program is all above the board legal and hasn't abused domestic surveillance, let the Judicial Committee and his own committee give the Administration the platform to do so. His getting ahead of the Judicial Committee is also a reminder of what the Nixon Administration did once the accusations of impropriety started against it: stonewall any investigation into it.


When Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson approved the electronic surveillance of Martin Luther King, those Presidents were targeting American citizens based on activities protected by the First Amendment. When President Richard Nixon used warrantless wiretaps, they were not directed at enemies that had attacked the United States and killed thousands of Americans.


Of course, we were in the midst of a cold war at the time when Kennedy and Johnson approved the surveillance of King and Nixon used warrantless wiretaps. The threat of the Soviet nuclear arsenal was a real danger which was borne out by the Cuba Missile Crisis. The terrorist capabilities of al Queda do not compare to what a Soviet Nuclear attack would have wrecked upon our nation. Sure, we don't want another terrorist attack in the US, but let's not lose perspective about what threat terrorism is to our national security because having the ability to kill thousands doesn't mean our nation is in grave peril.


The Senator seems to missed the whole point of FISA. No one argues that the President can't order surveillance of American citizens, the argument is that they have to the show reason why they want to surveil upon somebody because of the abuses that happened to this unchecked power in the past. The problem wasn't that Martin Luther King was surveilled upon, the problem was that the information gotten through surveillance was used to try to intimidate him. I know the Senator isn't implying here that the government does have the right to use surveillance in this way, but the question has to be asked, how can anyone be sure this isn't happening unless there is some independent oversight?


I believe Americans understand that the careful and targeted program authorized by President Bush has no relation to the abuses of the past. Indeed, its closest antecedent is the direction of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to Attorney General Robert H. Jackson on the eve of World War II. With war looming and reports of lurking enemy saboteurs, President Roosevelt ordered the use of domestic electronic surveillance to target persons suspected of subversive activities. As President Roosevelt noted, "It is too late to do anything about it after sabotage, assassinations and fifth column activities are completed." Significantly, President Roosevelt's direction was issued despite a statute (Section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934) and Supreme Court precedent (United States v. Nardone, 302 U.S. 379 (1937)) that prohibited such wiretapping.


Of course, the key statement here is "the eve of World War II." There is no doubt that al Queda has the capability to launch a terrorist attack, but it is also apparent that they don't have the ability to launch a naval fleet with the firepower that the Japanese were able to against Pearl Harbor. Saying President Roosevelt ordered a similar program doesn't in anyway diminish the fact that President Nixon abused a similar program. I believe President Bush when he says that he will do everything in his power to protect US citizens from another attack, but I also expect the President to be forthcoming about what programs he is enacting for this and when most members of Congress have to learn about such a program from the news media, it makes the legality of this program seem suspicious. The Administration then compounds this by arguing in the media a rationale that they earlier used to argue against amendments submitted in Congress to change FISA.



When President Bush exercised his constitutional authority and responsibility as Commander-in-Chief to target international communications between potential terrorists within this country and al Qaeda members overseas, he recognized, just like President Roosevelt, that after a terrorist attack occurs [i]t is too late. Our nation had been attacked on September 11, 2001, by foreign enemies. We were, and are still, at war with an enemy that Congress identified in an Authorization for Use of Military Force (Pub. L. No. 107-40 (Sept. 18, 2001)). Much of the war against al Qaeda is being fought overseas Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq. But the war against terrorism is not confined to foreign lands. The war against terrorism is being fought every day in our own backyard. America is a battlefield.


If America is a battlefield, then don't be naive enough to expect "no civilian casualties." We recently bombed Pakistan in hopes of killing al Queda members and we killed civilians while we did it. If we can ask those countries to accept the death of civilians because this is war, we shouldn't expect that we won't suffer some of our own along the way. No one wants another terrorist attack on US soil, but you cannot argue "that terrorism is not confined to foreign lands" and then expect that your country won't share its burden of war.


In peacetime and especially when our nation is at war, our leaders, including the chairmen of our political parties, should be more careful and better informed before they criticize the intelligence programs that protect our nation. Vibrant debate is important in our free society, but that debate should be serious and rational, especially where national security is concerned. Too many are looking at national security issues through partisan lenses. I have seen it on the Intelligence Committee for the past three years. Our nation, and the men and women of the military, law enforcement, and the intelligence community, deserve better.


The Senator is elegance here, but let's bring to mind the statement he made when he voted for President Clinton's impeachment:

http://www.ameriroots.com/impeachment/senator_roberts.html

Are we to have standards for the President different from standards applied to other citizens? Americans long ago rejected the imperial presidency. The President is not above the law. He is not a king.


The precise reason why so many people on both sides of the political divide in our country are troubled by the administration's admission that it has been been spying without using the FISA court is because we have "long ago rejected the imperial presidency." If Senator Roberts is confident that this secretly ordered domestic spying program is in good legal order and is run judiciously, than he should have no qualms with either his Committee showing how it isn't being abused or the Judiciary Committee openly showing the President's rationale for it. If it is legal and above board, let's quickly get it back under the rug so it doesn't damage the effectiveness of it anymore. If the Senator really believes we don't have "imperial presidents" or "kings" then he should do everything in his power to show how this Administration isn't acting either. This is the way to honor the people who are fighting this war.