(Missed the very beginning of the program, thus the elipses and the mid-sentence beginning)
Wallace: ...and you called John Dean as a witness, and he said this is worse than Watergate. Senator, do you *really* believe there is *any* comparison?
Feingold: Actually, I do think this is worse. Not in terms of personal misconduct. Our greatest priority in this country is fighting the terrorist elements that attacked up on 9/11. But when the president breaks the law, and doesn't admit that he's broken the law, and then advances theories about being able to override the law and torture, and having a pre-emptive doctrine of war, what he's trying to do is change the nature of our government. He's trying to change the nature of our presidency into an imperial presidency, so this is one of the greatest challenges in our history, to Congress to stand up and make sure we still have the rule of law and checks and balances. That's why it's actually more significant than the very serious events that occurred at Watergate.
Wallace: Well, Senator, let me explore that comparison with you, if I can. Did President Nixon brief member of Congress more than a *dozen* times before and during Watergate?
Feingold: Certainly not, and that's not the point. In fact, President Bush broke the law when he did not brief the entire intelligence committee.
Wallace: But, but, but, the fact is, President Bush briefed the congressional leaders, both House and Senate, Republican and Democrat, also the leaders of the intelligence committee, Republican and Democrat, both House and Senate, before and during this NSA wiretap program, isn't that a big difference?
Feingold: Well, Chris, where I come from here in Wisconsin, if you break the law, and you go tell people you're breaking the law, that doesn't make it okay. If you're breaking the law, you're breaking the law. In this case, the president does not have a legal leg to stand on. And we have this problem of one-party rule in our system of government right now, where the Republicans in the House and Senate are not standing up like some Republicans did in Watergate, and saying "Look, we need to stand together and say that the president needs to return to the law. We all support wiretapping terrorist, but what the president is doing here is a frightful assault on our system of government, and he has to be called on it. I could have proposed something more severe. A censure resolution is, in my view, a modest way to acknowledge the illegality and cause the president to return to the law.
Wallace: Let me explore that Watergate connection a bit more. Has President Bush created an enemies list, has he used the federal government to punish his political opponents, has he authorized break-ins of his political enemies?
Feingold: Well, again, Chris, this is not a criticism of the President in some sort of criminal law, day to day problem like President Nixon had. This is really a much bigger deal. As George Will has said, this was the very reason for the Revolution that we had in this country, that we did not want a monarchical presidency. So I think these days, when we look at the Nixon impeachment and the Clinton impeachment, we forget what the real reason for high crimes and misdemeanors was. To make sure the president doesn't cause himself to be involved in personal misconduct, but that he doesn't achieve a power that is like King George III. So this is actually, even though in terms of the president's personal misconduct, not as serious, much more dangerous to our system of government, to our republic, and frankly, Chris, it weakens us in the fight against terrorism to have a president who is thumbing his nose at the laws of this country. This isn't good for us.
Wallace: Senator, I want to go back to the briefing of congressional leaders, because, as I did say, he did brief congressional leaders of both parties more than a dozen times. It has been reported that when he set up the program, before he actually started it, that the White House suggested that there should be perhaps some legal changes made to the program, and the congressional leaders said no, because if so, the program would leak. In that sense, aren't the congressional leaders complicit in the lawbreaking?
Feingold: Well, of course they were limited in what they could say about it, because of the rules in terms of the Gang of 8 and the intelligence committee people, and I want to remind you that the president broke the statute from 1947 by not fully informing the *entire* intelligence committees. So he didn't even achieve a legal basis there. That's not the main point, but to somehow suggest that the President of the United States gets off the hook because he briefed a few members who couldn't talk about it, is to miss the point. The point is that the president is making bogus arguments about somehow when we authorized the Afghanistan invasion we agreed to this, you know that's been laughed out of the halls of Congress. It's a very sad moment when the president can't admit, look, he can say he did it with good faith, he can say he was trying to do the right thing, but he has to admit he went too far here, and he could do what he needs to do under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We all support that, we just need him to return to the idea of the law, and not, really, create a very divisive situation in our country that weakens us in the fight against terrorism internationally.
Wallace: Senator, let's talk about what's at the base of this, which is the NSA warrantless wiretap program that the president authorized. Have you been briefed on the program?
Feingold: I've been briefed to some degree, but certainly not completely. I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and we got *somewhat* more information than other senators get, but then the full briefing is only being given to a sub-portion of the intelligence committee, and that's one of the reasons I decided it was time for the censure resolution, because it became clear that there was not going to be the kind of investigation that had to happen to find out exactly what this program is all about.
Wallace: Do you know how the NSA decides whom to wiretap? Do you have any evidence that the civil liberties of *any* innocent Americans have been violated?
Feingold: I know some things about it, but I'm not able to talk about it. What I can tell you is this--is that I am absolutely convinced after five hearings, three in the judiciary committee, two in the intelligence committee, that there *is* no legal basis for this. I may not know all the details, but it's clear from everything we've heard, that you can't sort of create a new law, or a new statute, or a new Constitutional provision. The president has admitted publicly that he did this outside of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They have basically been laughed out of the room when they say that the Afghanistan invasion resolution allows this, and all they have left is the idea that somehow the president has inherent power to make up whatever laws he wants, and you know what? That would be the opposite of our system of government, so we know what we need to know to know that this conduct is illegal, but there's much more to be known about the program, and I think at *least* all members of the intelligence committee. Hopefully more member of Congress would be carefully briefed on this, because how are we supposed to consider legislation that the president might want here, or senators might want, if we don't know what this program precisely is.
Wallace: Let me ask you about that Senator, because almost two dozen members of Congress have been briefed in detail about the program, members of the House and Senate intelligence committees. None of them after those detailed briefings have criticized the program in public. I want to put up the comments of two Democrats who have been briefed. Senator Diane Feinstein said, "I think it's a very impressive program." Congresswoman Jane Harman, *the* top Democrat on House intelligence said, "I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security." (She's said other things too, Chris.) Senator, it seems that the people who are criticizing this program are the ones who know the least about it.
Feingold: Of course it's essential to national security, all we have to do is bring it within the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and I know that Congresswoman Harman has said specifically that she does not believe that we need to change the law in this area, that it could be done within the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. So the very member of Congress that you've cited has said that, "We all think that this program is important", but it can be done within the law. That's the point. The White House keeps acting as if we don't want them to be able to do this. Of course we do, we just need a court check and balance, that's what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is all about, to make sure that the White House doesn't run amok or that somebody doing this doesn't abuse the law. So there's no dispute about whether we should have it, and those very senators, including Senator Levin, himself have certainly not said publicly that it's essential that we go outside of the law to do this. I've seen none of them say that, and none of them will say that.
Wallace: But none of them have talked about censure, so if you need to change the law, why not just change the law? Why do you have to call for censuring a president in the middle of wartime?
Feingold: Are we going to have a system, Chris, where whenever the president wants to make up his own law, he goes ahead and does it, and we say, "Gee Mr. President, you broke the law, that's too bad. Let's make a law to make what you're doing legal." What kind of a government is that? What kind of a system is that, what kind of message to our kids--you don't like the law, just make up whatever you want to do, and keep going. It's outrageous! And frankly, if there isn't some accountability, apart from the need to possibly look at some legislation, if there isn't some statement that the president can't just make up his own laws, what have we come to? Who are we? It's an outrage, and every member of Congress and every American should say to the President, "Mr. President, we respect your commitment in the fight against terrorism, but you've got to return to the law. You've got to return to the way we do things in country."
To be continued
Alternate link for comments
