The story itself comes from the January 30th issue of Human Events, but I want to share with you some excerpts from our elected leaders about the President's wiretapping program that has become such a controversy. The story was a collection of responses from various Senators about whether we should stop the program. The answers you will get will range from inspired and scholarly to downright comical. Note, these interviews were done after General Michael Hayden had testified on the Hill to the Senators about the program. First, the scholarly:Gen. Michael Hayden said the NSA surveillance program collected information about terrorists that we could not have gotten through court-ordered surveillance. So should we continue this program?OK, first thing. Note how careful Senator Hatch is with what he knows. Unlike Pat Leahy, the Leaker, Hatch says up front he is not going to leak anythign secretive. Maybe he should have been put in charge of this program and this crucial tool would not have been rendered impotentby the seditious New York Times.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah): Now, I can’t talk about the program because I know a little bit about it and I am on the Intelligence Committee. But I can say this about it: Listen to Gen. Hayden. He’s the straightest shooter you’ll ever find. He’s non-partisan. He doesn’t get political and he’s talking about protecting our country and protecting our people in this country against some terrible, terrible things. That’s as far as I’ll go.
Just to clarify—
Hatch: You want an opinion legally, the fact of the matter is there are at least two Circuit Court appeals cases that would have backed, that have backed, in essence, what the President has decided to do. There are also inherent powers of the President that cannot be done away with just because of congressional actions. And keep in mind, the 4th Amendment itself says “unreasonable searches and seizures.” I think most every American if it’s really put to them and they really are concerned about terrorism should come to the conclusion that you aren’t going to call these “unreasonable” approaches to try and find out who is against us.
As far as I understand it, Gen. Hayden said there are three aspects to these [intercepts]. One, there has to be international communication.
Hatch: Right.
Has to be linked to Al-Qaeda.
Hatch: Right.
And you could not have done this with FISA.
Hatch: He made it very clear that FISA would have [made it] very difficult to get this done. And he’s right on that.
Next, note how he crafts his answer, using precedent and the actual governing document of this land, the written Constitution (not the one with the right to abortion, the right to protect terrorists, that the democrats have)to show the legality and correctness of this program. A very enlightened answer. Next, let's move on to John Cornyn of Texas:
Gen. Michael Hayden has come out and said that the NSA surveillance program has obtained information about terrorists that could not have been gotten with a court order. Do you think we should end the program? Yes or no.
Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.): You know that’s one of the most amazing things I’ve heard from the critics is no one has called for ending the program, even those who claim—erroneously in my view—that the President has somehow violated the law. After studying the matter, I’ve concluded that the President is not only authorized, but I think, he’s duty-bound to take steps to protect American lives against foreign threats, and I think that this is an important part of that responsibility.
So, you don’t think there are any of your colleagues that would end this program willingly, knowing that it’s caught—
Cornyn: I can’t wait until you write your story because I haven’t heard anybody, even the ones that said, “It’s an outrage! It’s illegal!” Nobody is calling for ending the program because they know it works and they know it saves American lives.
Senator Cornyn hits the nail on the head. This is all about playing the "Watergate Scandal" card. Notice how he said he had studied the problem on his own and had listened to Gen. Hayden. Now, the supposed 'loyal' opposition, beginning with Dick
So, you don’t think the program should be ended?
Durbin: Well, I don’t know what the program is No. 1. No. 2, I don’t know what they’re doing under the program that they cannot do legally. Those are two important questions. But if they’re coming to us and saying, “We need to change the FISA law,” I’ll listen.
Sir, don't you read your briefings? Didn't you listen to testimony? Um, uh, HELLO! This is a guy who loves waving and playing to the gallery of the Senate. Maybe he should pay more attention to the testimony given. "I don't know what it is." Come on now!
Next, Carl Levin, who takes such an "openminded"and clear approach:
Now, Gen. Michael Hayden has said that the NSA program has collected information about terrorists that could not have been obtained through a court order. Should we continue this program? Yes or no.
Sen. Carl Levin (D.-Mich.): I don’t think we ought to. I don’t think the President ought to violate the law.
So you would end the taps now?
Levin: I would comply with the law, and if the law needs to be changed, we can consider the proposed changes. But until those changes are proposed, if they’re proposed, the President should comply with the law. I believe that means if there’s an urgent matter he should do the tapping first then go to courts second. The law provides for that.
OK, so here we are. He doesn't believe the president should violate the law. Hmm, that brings to mind a question about lying under oath by another president, but I will table that. He says he doesn't want the president to violate the law, but that was not the question. The question was should the program be stopped. Of course, Democrats obfuscate and simply refuse to answer the question. Then he goes on to talk about the President should violate the law. Um, okay...
Getting back to the Republicans for a minute, check out soon to be on the road as a comedian:
Gen. Michael Hayden has said that the NSA surveillance program collected information about terrorists that could not have been obtained through a court order. Should we continue this program? Yes or no.Rimshot!!!!
Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.): Yes. Can I add the word “absolutely” to that?
Yes, you may.
Kyl: (Laughing.) Thank you.
A number of your colleagues seem reluctant to say yes. They want to say, “We’re going to have hearings,” and don’t want to make a definitive statement that, yes, this program is valuable and we should listen to Gen. Hayden.
Kyl: The program is incredibly valuable. It needs to continue. It is legal. The hearings are a good thing to explain all that. The problem is that you can’t talk very much about the program itself and you sort of have to accept at face value what Gen. Hayden says. Some people are willing to do that, others are not.
Could you explain to our readers why Gen. Hayden is a better source of information on this than Senate Democrats may be?
Kyl: Because they don’t know very much about it, and he knows everything about it.
Lastly, Jay Rockefeller, you know, the guy who was briefed and briefed and briefed, and yes, briefed about this program. It seems he is tired of this question even though he helped stir it up, and it seems even he is starting to see that harping on it is futile, as judging by his short tone (go and listen to the audio):
Gen. Michael Hayden said that the NSA surveillance program collected information about terrorists we could not have gotten through court-ordered surveillance. Do you think we should continue the NSA program? Yes or no.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D.-W.Va.): No, you don’t ask me a “yes” or “no” question on that subject.
Okay, excuse me. I’m trying to phrase it that way to everyone. Could you comment on that because you issued a pretty strong statement in December about this.
Rockefeller: Yeah. The answer is no. The biggest problem with that right now is that I’m the only Democrat in the Senate who “purportedly” knows what’s going on in this tapping situation, NSA tapping situation. That’s crazy. I think there’s a unanimous feeling on the part of the intelligence committees and also at least the Democratic leadership that what they say should be open, not open, but in closed session to the two intelligence committees. You cannot—it is far too complicated, far too changing—just to go to a meeting and have somebody explain to you what they want to tell you. It’s got to be a lot deeper.
Firstly, God forbid we get an actual straight answer out of a Democrat. And then he goes on to talk about how he is the Only Democrat who knows. Maybe he slept during the briefings....
