In advance of tomorrow’s scheduled U.S. House Judiciary Committee mark-up conference for two Resolutions of Inquiry concerning the NSA’s warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, The BRAD BLOG has obtained the statement to be given by the committee’s ranking member, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).
The resolutions (H. Res 643 and 644) direct the Attorney General to submit all documents “relating to warrantless electronic surveillance…of persons in the United States conducted by the National Security Agency” to the Judiciary Committee for review.
As we reported exclusively last Saturday, in an unusual weekend email notification the Dept. of Justice announced to the committee they would be holding a last minute briefing on the program for them on Monday — in advance of tomorrow’s session. That briefing occurred yesterday as scheduled.
In his statement for tomorrow’s mark-up conference on the resolutions (audio and video to be broadcast live via the Judiciary Committee website beginning at 10am ET on the web), Conyers explains what his resolution — supported by 44 members so far — does and doesn’t ask for.
While seeking documentation from the Attorney General, Conyers will explain that the information is not sought “in a conclusory fashion.”
“We are not saying that the President broke the law or has acted contrary to the Constitution,” according to the congressman, “In fact, this resolution may well produce documents that rebut those allegations.”
He points out that many of “the Nation’s most preeminent legal and intelligence authorities,” from both sides of the political aisle, have questioned the constitutionality of the program, and that even the Dept. of Justice, in last Monday’s briefing, admitted that “some of the legal questions involved here are close calls.”
Conyers goes on to laud the chair of the committee, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), for his recent letter sent to the AG requesting answers to 51 questions about the program. He adds, however, that other committee members have questions they’d like answered as well. Conyers’ asks that those other members would also appreciate having their questions forwarded to the Dept. of Justice on behalf of the committee.
The congressman concludes by reaching out to both sides of the aisle:
“It is time that Congress begins to serve as a genuine check and balance on the Administration. This is not a partisan issue, to me it’s a constitutional issue, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help us, before its too late.”
John Conyers’ complete statement for tomorrow’s conference follows in its entirety…
I urge my colleagues to support my resolution of inquiry, which has been cosponsored by 44 individuals, including every single Democrat on this Committee,
First, let me make clear what materials this Resolution is requesting. It simply asks the Attorney General to submit all documents in his possession relating to warrantless electronic surveillance of telephone conversations and electronic communications of persons in the United States conducted by the National Security Agency, subject to necessary redactions or requirements for handling classified documents. This request would include any and all opinions regarding warrantless electronic surveillance of telephone conversations and electronic communications of persons in the United States, as well as other records which would allow us to better understand the size, scope, and nature of the program.
Second, I want to explain why we are asking for this information. We are not asking for this information in a conclusory fashion. We are not saying that the President broke the law or has acted contrary to the Constitution. In fact, this resolution may well produce documents that rebut those allegations. What is clear is that, assuming what has been reported is true, many Constitutional and legal experts – Republicans and Democrats – have indicated that this secret domestic surveillance program raises substantial questions about whether the program is legal and whether it is constitutional.
These include the Nation’s most preeminent legal and intelligence authorities: (1) Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe; (2) 14 of the nations preeminent legal scholars, including William S. Sessions, the former Director of the FBI under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and William W. Van Alstyne, a Law Professor at William and Mary who was a witness called by this Committee’s Republican Members during the impeachment of President Clinton; (3) Bruce Fein, a former Deputy Associate Attorney General in the Reagan Administration, (4) Jonathan Turley, a Constitutional scholar and another witness called by the Republicans on this Committee during the Clinton impeachment, and (5) the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.
The question before us is not whether you agree or disagree with these individuals, but whether you think their judgments are sufficiently serious to warrant further inquiry by this Committee. I would also add that the Justice Department, when it briefed staff on Monday, indicated that some of the legal questions involved here are close calls.
Third, if you agree that this warrants further inquiry, the question is what kind of action this Committee should take?
I commend the Chairman for sending a letter to the Attorney General asking questions about this program. Many of us have questions of our own and I hope the Chairman will forward them to the Attorney General and ask that they be answered with the same speed.
Questions alone – which can be ignored or danced around – are not sufficient. This Committee has always taken the common sense approach that the best way to find out what people were thinking at the time they made decisions, is to get the documents they wrote at that time reflecting those thoughts. In fact, on a number of matters – including biometric passports, judicial sentencing practices, the Civil Rights Commission, and Legal Service Commission – the Chairman’s first step has been to obtain and preserve relevant documents.
The Washington Post has written, that the Executive Branch treats Congress “as an annoying impediment to the real work of government. It provides information to Congress grudgingly, if at all. It handles letters from lawmakers like junk mail, routinely tossing them aside without responding.”
It is time that Congress begins to serve as a genuine check and balance on the Administration. This is not a partisan issue, to me it’s a constitutional issue, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help us, before its too late.
Finally Conyers…Its time you, Sensenbrenner and the rest get full answers on this program.
I want to see all the documents….subpoena and get every document you can, so we can find out just how deep the program goes.
In testimony Russell Tice said to Rep. Chris Shays and Dennis Kucinoch, that there are "other programs" which go even further and are highly extreme.
Find out what those programs are…..begin the resolution of inquiry.
Now.
Doug E.
Liddy Dole should Shut her Hole on NSA Wiretaps .. .. .. .. ..
Here’s a link to an article regarding Tice as mentioned above by Doug
Conyers: I’ll warn you I have zero faith in congress now and you better be doing your job and not a coverup. I had to smash and crack down hard just to get them to force open Able Danger hearings….You and Sensenbrenner make this Resolution of Inquiry work, that is all I can say.
If it doesn’t work out, I’m endorsing the challengers for everyone and going to the courts for full fledged removal as well as re-instatement of the voting act.
You better not be kidding.
Doug E.
Close call my behind! They ILLEGAL WIRE TAPPED PEOPLE! Who they need to keep tabs on is the murdering fascists in the White House who has ties with KNOWN terrorists like the Saudi’s! Keep tabs on them instead of us peace activists, their the ones with ties to Bin Laden family and Saudi’s who are KNOWN to funnel $$ to terrorists! And why in hell is people in our country selling property,etc. to Saudi’s when it is KNOWN they support terrorism? GREED, in more ways then one, is literally destroying our nation and it MUST be stopped and now, including the corporate whoring in D.C! Go Conyers go! Right on John, give them HELL!
No, the investigation is about to fold if you can believe the Washington Post. The latest "briefings" (lies) about the program have done what was predicted–got the folks hot to investigate all cold on the idea. Tidbits of terror have been thrown to them like bones to dogs. They now believe the President is accommodating them without getting him to recant his illegal position, all in the name of fear. Or else Bush is just blackmailing the Senators straight out with tidbits of their own telephonic past.
Off topic:
Why was Paul Hackett forced to leave the ohio race? Anyone else hear about this?
Conyers, as a member of the minority party in congress, has no power. He has only strength.
He is building a record, a legacy of wrongs done by the neoCon fascist elements that took over the American government, and who are the majority party these past ten years.
When one party attains the white house, the congress, and the courts, the corruption within power (I call them power toxins) begin to spawn.
They reproduce madly until madness prevails and there is no way out. Until elections.
Demands upon the minority rather than the majority is promoted and promulgated by the party in power as a diversion. It gives new meaning to the bully party.
Talking points of the republicans target the minority and victims. They have repeated it so much that it fills the MSM, blogs, and opposition party’s own mental gymnastics.
It is time for the minority party to snap out of it and realize that true American politics is composed of just accountability … not unjust accountability.
The type of accountability that blames and punishes the bully party, the majority party, is just.
The November elections are the time for Americans to stand up and show the world about what we call accountability.
Vote the majority party out, lock, stock, and barrel.
Vote for anyone but republicans. Until they wise up for real and reject fascism.
Hackettt was advised to leave the race because big wig Dem centrists (he named Chas Schumer/Sen/NY and I think Harry Reid/Sen/Nevada) said the other Dem nominee named Brown had a better shot at winning. Schumer’s office declared he counseled this course, but "Hackett’s decision was his own". For those who feel the old guard Democratic party is too cautious and spineless, this is additional evidence. If "moderates" –be they Dem or Repub– hold the balance of power or the reins of power, nothing is going to change. This argument applies to the newstory in WAPO suggesting the Senate investigation in warrantless wiretapping is about to cave under White House pressure. WH "briefings" were aimed at cooling the heels of Republican "moderates" like Olympia Snowe who was initially ruffled by circumventions of FISA law. She cooled off, as did two other Repub moderates. Were they feigning outrage at the WH all along to placate local constituents? Were they genuinely persuaded the President would mend his ways and consult with Congress from now on? Were they blackmailed by NSA tidbits focused on their own senatorial or private conversations? Who knows. But as moderates, they showed they have no spine and no stomach to take the issue into the halls of Congress and before the American people to defend their branch of government or citizens’ rights.
Vote the bums out. All of them. Hackett should run for higher office or as an independent. He would fracture the cozy Democratic party relationships. He might lose to the Republicans in so doing. But he’d be proving himself in ways most Dems can only dream about doing.
I’ve been making a constant barrage to see to it Hackett runs as an independent; and I will also see to it he gets all the funding he needs. Its high time, third party’s coming out strong now.
Doug
Ed Schultz was all in a dither today about Hacket being swift-boated by some dems who are supposedly claiming he is guilty of war crimes.
What is up with that?
So Congress is gonna try and crack a whip on something Bush and Cheney did that was wrong? They pose this as a question because the fcking robots in Congress are the biggest bunch of corporate sellout Yes men ever to hold chairs in the legislative branch. Why don’t you stick a wire tap up Dick Cheney’s ass and you might..might be able to figure out who the biggest lying murderers in this world are. This is not a question. So why don’t you reinvestigate 911 and everything else these pricks have done since illegally taking power in 2000? The 1st election Bush LOST. I really like you John. You are 1 of the only Congressmen I respect. So far no impeachment and no jail time for the biggest deficators on OUR Constitution since it’s creation. Say what you want BUT actions speak louder than words. So while you are at it stick a log up George Bush’s ass since his administration just proposed (again) they want to sell 800 million acres of OUR PUBLIC WILD LANDS. These Rusters must go to JAIL or Publically hanged.
#12 correction it’s 800,000 acres of wild lands put up for unnecessary corporate profit and Bushit greed to build more roads and housing tracts in our wild lands that must be protected for wild animals and future generations of AMERICANS.
Yes! Vote for anyone but republicans. Until they wise up for real and reject fascism.
Martin #14 The answer is …
The legal structure of our congress does not support a multi-party system, and is designed for a two party system. It is a winner take all affair.
This is not good, but it is reality.
Under the law of the House and Senate, "the Senate divides its tasks among 20 committees, 68 subcommittees, and 4 joint committees" … "The chair of each committee and a majority of its members represent the majority party. The chair primarily controls a committee’s business" (link here).
Take an example where republicans win 30 seats, independents win 28 seats, greens win 29 seats, and democrats win 13 seats. We can now easily see that this will not work well.
The republicans with 30 seats end up as the majority party. Remember that the majority party and the majority are not the same thing in our system. The majority, in this example, is 70 votes (greens, indys, and dems), but the majority party is the republicans because they got those 30 seats.
Therefore, they get the committee chair on each and every committee, and they get the majority number of members in each and every committee of congress.
So, in our system, the majority of seats would be governed by the minority republican 30 seats.
Anyone see any way to improve this?
I do. The polls show that the body politic favors democrats in the upcoming election, and voting democrats into the majority is the public will.
We would have an easier time prevailing upon them to change the rules.
It should be pro rata based upon percentage of seats.
Committees should be distributed to all parties based upon percentage of seats in a pro rata configuration.
Otherwise, when independents, greens, democrats, and other parties fight each other the republicans always remain the majority party and therefore always control the congress.
So …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Click Here and Support Clint Curtis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
🙂 😛 :crazy: :doze: