FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

A Fact Check on a Presidential Crime

by Sen. RUSSELL FEINGOLD

Myth: Congress needs to hold hearings on the NSA wiretapping program before a measure like censure is discussed.

Fact: The Senate Judiciary Committee has held multiple hearings on the issue despite the refusal of the administration to cooperate. Further hearings and investigation are necessary but those hearings will not change the fact that the President broke the law.

Congress has held multiple hearings on the wiretapping program and the administration has not been forthcoming with information about the program. The Senate Judiciary Committee has held three hearings on the issue ­ on February 6th, February 28th, and March 28th, 2006. The administration has provided only one official to testify before the Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on February 6th. Under questioning, the Attorney General could not cite a single example of a President, other than George W. Bush, who has authorized wiretapping on American soil outside of FISA since FISA was enacted. Nor could he cite a single court decision ­ let alone a Supreme Court decision ­ that holds that the President has the authority to bypass FISA and authorize warrantless wiretaps. Congress does need to hold more hearings to better understand the facts of how the program is conducted but it does not need any more hearings to know that the President broke the law.

Myth: The Senate Intelligence Committee is performing oversight of the warrantless wiretapping program, and that is sufficient.

Fact: The Senate Intelligence Committee has abdicated its duty to be a check on the executive by refusing to fully investigate the program.

On March 7th, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence declined to authorize an investigation into the warrantless wiretapping program despite the fact that the National Security Act of 1947 explicitly requires the President to keep the congressional intelligence committees “fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities.” A new subcommittee of the Intelligence Committee is looking at the program, but this is not adequate oversight or consistent with the National Security Act.

Myth: The law is unclear about whether the President’s wiretapping program is legal.

Fact: The law is clear that the criminal wiretap statute and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) are the only authority for wiretapping individuals inside the United States. The few details that the President has provided about his wiretapping program show clearly that that he ignored these laws.

FISA states specifically that the criminal wiretap statute and FISA “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.” The President and his administration have conceded that the program is conducted without getting the court orders required by FISA.

Myth: Congress gave the president the authority to wiretap Americans on American soil without a court order when it voted to authorize the use of military force in Afghanistan.

Fact: There is no language in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) suggesting that it authorizes the President to authorize warrantless wiretaps of Americans on American soil.

The President has argued that Congress gave him authority to wiretap Americans on American soil without a warrant when it passed the AUMF after September 11, 2001. There is no language in the resolution, and no evidence, to suggest that it was intended to give the President authority to order these warrantless wiretaps. Warrantless domestic surveillance is not an “incident of war” akin to detaining an enemy soldier on the battlefield as the Administration has argued. In fact, Congress passed the Patriot Act just six weeks after September 11 to expand the government’s powers to conduct surveillance of suspected terrorists and spies. Yet the Administration did not ask for, nor did the Patriot Act include, any change to FISA’s requirement of judicial approval for wiretaps of Americans in the United States. Indeed, Sen. Daschle has stated that the Administration asked for language that would have authorized “appropriate force in the United States” and that he specifically rejected that request.

Myth: The Constitution gives the President authority to wiretap Americans on American soil without a court order even if it violates a statute.

Fact: FISA prohibits this kind of wiretapping program. Ever time the Supreme Court has confronted a statute limiting the Commander in Chief’s authority, it has upheld the statute.

The President has extensive authority when it comes to national security and foreign affairs, but given the clear prohibition in FISA, that authority does not include the power to wiretap American citizens on American soil without a warrant. In the landmark 1952 Supreme Court case Youngstown v Ohio, then Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote that presidential authority is at its “lowest ebb” when it is “incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress.”

 

 

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

December 05, 2016
Bill Martin
Stalingrad at Standing Rock?
Mark A. Lause
Recounting a Presidential Election: the Backstory
Mel Goodman
Mad Dog Mattis and Trump’s “Seven Days in May”
Matthew Hannah
Standing Rock and the Ideology of Oppressors: Conversations with a Morton County Commissioner
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
#NoDAPL Scores Major Victory: No Final Permit For Pipeline
Fran Shor
The End of the Indispensable Nation
Michael Yates
Vietnam: the War That Won’t Go Away
Michael Uhl
Notes on a Trip to Cuba
Robert Hunziker
Huge Antarctica Glacier in Serious Trouble
John Steppling
Screen Life
David Macaray
Trump vs. America’s Labor Unions
Yoav Litvin
Break Free and Lead, or Resign: a Letter to Bernie Sanders
Norman Pollack
Taiwan: A Pustule on International Politics
Kevin Martin
Nuclear Weapons Modernization: a New Nuclear Arms Race? Who Voted for it? Who Will Benefit from It?
David Mattson
3% is not Enough: Towards Restoring Grizzly Bears
Howard Lisnoff
The Person Who Deciphered the Order to Shoot at Kent State
Nick Pemberton
Make America Late Again
Weekend Edition
December 02, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
The Coming War on China
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: The CIA’s Plots to Kill Castro
Paul Street
The Iron Heel at Home: Force Matters
Pam Martens - Russ Martens
Timberg’s Tale: Washington Post Reporter Spreads Blacklist of Independent Journalist Sites
Andrew Levine
Must We Now Rethink the Hillary Question? Absolutely, Not
Joshua Frank
CounterPunch as Russian Propagandists: the Washington Post’s Shallow Smear
David Rosen
The Return of HUAC?
Rob Urie
Race and Class in Trump’s America
Patrick Cockburn
Why Everything You’ve Read About Syria and Iraq Could be Wrong
Caroline Hurley
Anatomy of a Nationalist
Ayesha Khan
A Muslim Woman’s Reflections on Trump’s Misogyny
Michael Hudson – Steve Keen
Rebel Economists on the Historical Path to a Global Recovery
Russell Mokhiber
Sanders Single Payer and Death by Democrat
Roger Harris
The Triumph of Trump and the Specter of Fascism
Steve Horn
Donald Trump’s Swamp: Meet Ten Potential Energy and Climate Cabinet Picks and the Pickers
Louis Proyect
Deepening Contradictions: Identity Politics and Steelworkers
Ralph Nader
Trump and His Betraying Makeover
Stephen Kimber
The Media’s Abysmal Coverage of Castro’s Death
Dan Bacher
WSPA: The West’s Most Powerful Corporate Lobbying Group
Nile Bowie
Will Trump backpedal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
Ron Ridenour
Fidel’s Death Brings Forth Great and Sad Memories
Missy Comley Beattie
By Invitation Only
Fred Gardner
Sword of Damocles: Pot Partisans Fear Trump’s DOJ
Renee Parsons
Obama and Propornot
Dean Baker
Cash and Carrier: Trump and Pence Put on a Show
Jack Rasmus
Taming Trump: From Faux Left to Faux Right Populism
Ron Jacobs
Selling Racism—A Lesson From Pretoria
Julian Vigo
The Hijos of Buenos Aires:  When Identity is Political
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail