[Peace-discuss] Byrd on hand worth impeaching Bush

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Senator Byrd on Monday "expressed his strong concerns about
possible violations of the Constitution in the Bush
Administration's admitted practice of spying on American
citizens."  Not a bad beginning on a brief for impeachment.  I
think that we should begin to press for it.   --CGE]

  No President Is Above the Law
  by US Senator Robert C. Byrd
  Floor Speech
  December 19, 2005
 
Americans have been stunned at the recent news of the abuses
of power by an overzealous President. It has become apparent
that this Administration has engaged in a consistent and
unrelenting pattern of abuse against our Country's law-abiding
citizens, and against our Constitution.

We have been stunned to hear reports about the Pentagon
gathering information and creating databases to spy on
ordinary Americans whose only sin is choose to exercise their
First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. Those Americans
who choose to question the Administration's flawed policy in
Iraq are labeled by this Administration as "domestic terrorists."

We now know that the F.B.I.'s use of National Security Letters
on American citizens has increased one hundred fold, requiring
tens of thousands of individuals to turn over personal
information and records. These letters are issued without
prior judicial review, and provide no real means for an
individual to challenge a permanent gag order.

Through news reports, we have been shocked to learn of the
CIA's practice of rendition, and the so-called "black sites,"
secret locations in foreign countries, where abuse and
interrogation have been exported, to escape the reach of U.S.
laws protecting against human rights abuses.

We know that Vice President Dick Cheney has asked for
exemptions for the CIA from the language contained in the
McCain torture amendment banning cruel, inhumane, and
degrading treatment. Thank God his pleas have been rejected by
this Congress.

Now comes the stomach-churning revelation through an executive
order, that President Bush has circumvented both the Congress
and the courts. He has usurped the Third Branch of government
- the branch charged with protecting the civil liberties of
our people - by directing the National Security Agency to
intercept and eavesdrop on the phone conversations and e-mails
of American citizens without a warrant, which is a clear
violation of the Fourth Amendment. He has stiff-armed the
People's Branch of government. He has rationalized the use of
domestic, civilian surveillance with a flimsy claim that he
has such authority because we are at war. The executive order,
which has been acknowledged by the President, is an end-run
around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes
it unlawful for any official to monitor the communications of
an individual on American soil without the approval of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

What is the President thinking? Congress has provided for the
very situations which the President is blatantly exploiting.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, housed in the
Department of Justice, reviews requests for warrants for
domestic surveillance. The Court can review these requests
expeditiously and in times of great emergency. In extreme
cases, where time is of the essence and national security is
at stake, surveillance can be conducted before the warrant is
even applied for.

This secret court was established so that sensitive
surveillance could be conducted, and information could be
gathered without compromising the security of the
investigation. The purpose of the FISA Court is to balance the
government's role in fighting the war on terror with the
Fourth Amendment rights afforded to each and every American.

The American public is given vague and empty assurances by the
President that amount to little more than "trust me." But, we
are a nation of laws and not of men. Where is the source of
that authority he claims? I defy the Administration to show me
where in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or the
U.S. Constitution, they are allowed to steal into the lives of
innocent America citizens and spy.
When asked yesterday what the source of this authority was,
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had no answer. Secretary
Rice seemed to insinuate that eavesdropping on Americans was
acceptable because FISA was an outdated law, and could not
address the needs of the government in combating the new war
on terror. This is a patent falsehood. The USA Patriot Act
expanded FISA significantly, equipping the government with the
tools it needed to fight terrorism. Further amendments to FISA
were granted under the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002
and the Homeland Security Act of 2002. In fact, in its final
report, the 9/11 Commission noted that the removal of the
pre-9/11 "wall" between intelligence officials and law
enforcement was significant in that it "opened up new
opportunities for cooperative action."

The President claims that these powers are within his role as
Commander in Chief. Make no mistake, the powers granted to the
Commander in Chief are specifically those as head of the Armed
Forces. These warrantless searches are conducted not against a
foreign power, but against unsuspecting and unknowing American
citizens. They are conducted against individuals living on
American soil, not in Iraq or Afghanistan. There is nothing
within the powers granted in the Commander in Chief clause
that grants the President the ability to conduct clandestine
surveillance of American civilians. We must not allow such
groundless, foolish claims to stand.

The President claims a boundless authority through the
resolution that authorized the war on those who perpetrated
the September 11th attacks. But that resolution does not give
the President unchecked power to spy on our own people. That
resolution does not give the Administration the power to
create covert prisons for secret prisoners. That resolution
does not authorize the torture of prisoners to extract
information from them. That resolution does not authorize
running black-hole secret prisons in foreign countries to get
around U.S. law. That resolution does not give the President
the powers reserved only for kings and potentates.

I continue to be shocked and astounded by the breadth with
which the Administration undermines the constitutional
protections afforded to the people, and the arrogance with
which it rebukes the powers held by the Legislative and
Judicial Branches. The President has cast off federal law,
enacted by Congress, often bearing his own signature, as mere
formality. He has rebuffed the rule of law, and he has
trivialized and trampled upon the prohibitions against
unreasonable search and seizures guaranteed to Americans by
the United States Constitution.

We are supposed to accept these dirty little secrets. We are
told that it is irresponsible to draw attention to President
Bush's gross abuse of power and Constitutional violations. But
what is truly irresponsible is to neglect to uphold the rule
of law. We listened to the President speak last night on the
potential for democracy in Iraq. He claims to want to instill
in the Iraqi people a tangible freedom and a working
democracy, at the same time he violates our own U.S. laws and
checks and balances? President Bush called the recent Iraqi
election "a landmark day in the history of liberty." I dare
say in this country we may have reached our own sort of
landmark. Never have the promises and protections of Liberty
seemed so illusory. Never have the freedoms we cherish seemed
so imperiled.

These renegade assaults on the Constitution and our system of
laws strike at the very core of our values, and foster a sense
of mistrust and apprehension about the reach of government.

I am reminded of Thomas Payne's famous words, "These are the
times that try men's souls."

These astounding revelations about the bending and contorting
of the Constitution to justify a grasping, irresponsible
Administration under the banner of "national security" are an
outrage. Congress can no longer sit on the sidelines. It is
time to ask hard questions of the Attorney General, the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director
of the CIA. The White House should not be allowed to exempt
itself from answering the same questions simply because it
might assert some kind of "executive privilege" in order to
avoid further embarrassment.