Is This What We Have Come To?

I don't intend to overblog on the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings on the illegal NSA program. There is a lot of great live blogging going on - here, here, and here- by more able bloggers than I. But I have been watching/listening and only halfway through the first day, we are, as Sen. Specter noted, off to a bad start. But not for the reasons he said so. The most significant event of the day to me, so far, has been Specter refusing to swear in Gonzales, even after noting the Attorney General had no objection to it. Other committee members like Feingold and Leahy questioned this, given past statements and the fact that he has been sworn in on previous appearances before said committee. They insisted on a vote on the matter. Needless to say, the vote went down party lines and Mr. Gonzales was not sworn in. By this act alone, I can already tell how this is all going to end.

Republican senators so far have refused to challenge the legality of the program in any major way. They have thrown out many rhetorical challenges (particularly Specter) to the administration's judgement and legal defenses, but aren't pushing beyond that to the deeper issue of imperial overreach or acknowledge the numerous people inside the administration (such as former Deputy Attorney General Comey) who objected to the program and refused to authorize it. Sen. Sessions was the worst in this regard, using his entire time repeating back Gonzales' talking points to him. And Gonzales' talking points/answers have bordered on the absurd. One of the worst was, in response to a question on the President's 2004 statment - "a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed by the way." - when the Attorney General replied "As you know, the president is not a lawyer". Of course, one does not have to be a lawyer to know that to be doing one thing while saying another is called a lie. This was one of the many Clinton-esque "it all depends on what the meaning of is is" evasive answers he gave.

Democratic senators are asking better questions but are limited by odd rules, including one prohibiting them from showing video of previous administration statements on these issues. During the lunch break, before a press gathering outside the hearing the room, the Democrats did use the opportunity to show the video and answer media questions. This ended when a Powerline blogger verbally confronted Sen. Durbin who reminded this clueless Pajama-wearing blogger how the Constitution works and I can't recall where it came from, but it ended with the Powerline-r screaming a Dan Rather reference at the Senator as he was leaving.

Also during the lunch break, Sen. Sessions and other Republicans spoke to the press gathering to defend the administration. Then, in one of the cheapest, most disgusting ploys I've seen in recent memory, they brought out a relative of someone who died on 9/11 to defend this program. This woman spoke of her lost loved one and the attacks and said we must not become complacent and must continue to battle terrorism, noting Osama is 'still out there'. Ignoring this latest in a long line of shameless politicizing of 9/11... THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE, PEOPLE. Fighting terrorism is not the issue. No one disagrees with that. But there is no law preventing the government from doing the things they need to do to track down potential terrorists. To the contrary, they have passed numerous (and occassionally questionable) laws like the Patriot Act to radically increase their powers in this regard. The President authorized a surveillance program that directly violates the law for reasons that are dubious at best.

That is the issue- our laws, our Constitution, our (supposed) checks and balances.

Is this war on terror going to result in a radical reworking of our system of government?

Republican Senators like Specter and a few others (the usual 'mavericks' like McCain, etc) have all said in recent interviews that this program violates the law and that the President does not "have a blank check" to do as he wishes... but when it comes to the most common sense issues such as swearing in the Attorney General (with a history of misleading statements) in a hearing on potential executive abuses, they all toe the party line. By that act alone, these hearings have been exposed as a farce. They will accomplish nothing.

Until we have an independent special prosecutor (which has always been the case in similar investigations), we won't get real answers. This isn't even my frustration at not getting my personally desired results, but simple frustration that a constitutional debate as significant as this (one that could have permanent ramifications for our country) is being treated like another partisan squabble. If Congress is willing to sell themselves out to protect their party, then an independent review is needed. I won't hold my breath.