Censure Hearings Scheduled For Friday

Next week is a key week for those wanting to see accountability for King George...

Reuters: Senate hearing set on move to censure Bush

The Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee announced on Friday it would hold a hearing next week on a call by a Democratic lawmaker to censure President George W. Bush for his domestic spy program.

In a one-sentence notice, the panel said the hearing would be held next Friday by the order of its chairman, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter...

Scheduling it for a Friday? Doesn't sound like Specter considers this a serious matter.

You can contact all the Senate Judiciary Committee members- here.

Ask them what the President would have to do before they held him accountable for anything.

Let's also hope this is not a partisan nightmare like the Alito hearings ended up being (they will be, of course, but I'm trying to be optimistic). I would hope that the Committee members put aside their partisan leanings, remember the oath of office that they took, and use this as way of trying to get accountability and answers from an administration that holds them in ill regard.

I also hope that the hearings ignore the false debate that is quickly becoming the the conventional wisdom... namely the notion that Democrats (well just Feingold, Harkin, and Boxer right now) want to censure the President for spying on terrorists. The Democrats need to make sure to get that crap out of the way first thing. This is not a fictional debate between the War President and weak Democrats who want to help Al Qaeda. It is an issue of executive power and of the fate of checks and balances during wartime.

The President's case is weak, which is why he and his followers are busy knocking down strawmen, calling people 'moonbats', and accusing critics of not wanting to capture terrorists. The fact that he is winning this debate is only because Democrats are letting him. They need to stop letting him.

They should also remind people that the President is the one who has politicized this war.

I posted this before, but here are some questions Senators should debate...

Why did the President need to break the law, as opposed to simply wanting to? How did the incredibly accomodating provisions of FISA (which, among other things, provides options for retroactive warrants) hamper the President's ability to move quickly in ordering surveillance? What attacks/plans has this program thwarted that could not have been uncovered using legal surveillance?... to date, the White House has not answered this.

Also, did the President and the Justice Department just think up the AUMF and/or Article II legal justification after the program was outed or is that what they believed all along? Why did the President make several statements in 2004 making it clear (falsely) that all wiretapping involved court orders? How does this program relate to recent reports of the Pentagon (etc) spying on peaceful political activists? How many secret, illegal spying programs are going on? Will Congress or the courts ever be briefed on them? Since no court orders or records are kept of this warrantless wiretapping, how can they offer assurances that innocent Americans aren't being spied on (factoring in FBI reports noting that this has happened)?

More- Considering terrorists are very well familiar with methods and practices of surveillance, how did the leak hurt national security? Does the President respect whistleblower laws? What impact does jailing reporters have on a democracy? Does the President believe there is any limit to his power? If so, where specifically would he draw the line?

I will send a heartfelt thank you letter to any Senator whos asks these questions.

By the way, I came across this story today in regards to the question of how pervasive the domestic spying is- DOJ: NSA Could've Monitored Lawyers' Calls (AP). This, along with news of other government agencies spying on protestors, is a good starting point for a debate on the extent of the program's reach.

Meanwhile, the calls for full-on impeachment of the President grows louder-
Near Paul Revere Country, Anti-Bush Cries Get Louder

This censure debate is more important right now, but it's just something to keep in mind.

Finally, Ward Sutton expresses in cartoon form what I've been saying all week... The idea that the Republicans want this issue out there because it's win for them is a complete bluff. They are scared of what will happen when someone as smart and strong as Feingold can rally public support in his favor and they are reacting desperately- trying to squash investigations and running ads accusing Feingold of undermining the war on terror.

The Democrats need to call this bluff- or else, they will have some explaining to do to angry constituents.