Sen. Patrick J. Leahy Holds a Hearing On Preserving the Rule of Law in the Fight Against Terrorism

Extract

---

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy Holds a Hearing On Preserving the Rule of Law in the Fight Against Terrorism

U.S. SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HOLDS A HEARING ON PRESERVING THE RULE OF LAW IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM

OCTOBER 2, 2007

SPEAKERS: SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY, D-VT. CHAIRMAN SEN. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, D-MASS. SEN. JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., D-DEL. SEN. HERB KOHL, D-WIS. SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF. SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD, D-WIS. SEN. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, D-N.Y. SEN. RICHARD J. DURBIN, D-ILL. SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, D-R.I. SEN. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, D-MD.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, R-PA. RANKING MEMBER SEN. ORRIN G. HATCH, R-UTAH SEN. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, R-IOWA SEN. JON KYL, R-ARIZ. SEN. JEFF SESSIONS, R-ALA. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C. SEN. JOHN CORNYN, R-TEXAS SEN. SAM BROWNBACK, R-KAN. SEN. TOM COBURN, R-OKLA.

WITNESSES: JACK GOLDSMITH, FORMER LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[*] LEAHY: I apologize for being late. I periodically get these nosebleeds and it started at the worst time this morning.

But the subject of today's hearing is one of the most fundamental tests that we face as a nation: Can we maintain respect for the rule of law and our Constitution in time of crises?

I think the administration failed the test. The attacks of September 11th shook the nation. The grave threat from international terrorism that we experienced that day remains real. And our government does have the responsibility to protect against further attack. Everybody agrees on that.

But that's not its only responsibility. The government also has to protect our security without doing harm to the liberties we value and the vibrant system of checks and balances that the founders created to preserve those liberties.

But rather than working to preserve those checks and our constitutional balance, this administration set out to accomplish a radical realignment of the powers of the government. This goal was an unprecedented expansion of executive authority.

The administration has used the threat of terrorism to justify this expansion, but its genesis was well before September 11th.

And the reason why it's important to look at using this as an excuse to do away with our liberties: We will face the threat of terrorists throughout our lifetime and our children's lifetime, both abroad and at home. One of the greatest terrorist attacks in this country was Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City; a former member of our own armed services and an American citizen.

Now, key members of this administration have long held the view that the president should not be encumbered; not by laws, not by Congress, not by the courts. And to accomplish this vision of executive power, the White House set out to limit knowledge of important legal decisions to a tiny, powerful cabal of like-minded lawyers.

The group was led by Alberto Gonzales, then counsel to the president, and by the counselor to the vice president, now his chief of staff, David Addington. If you might disagree with these lawyers, then you weren't allowed in the discussion. And, of course, Congress, at all costs, was to be denied any input into critical decisions.

Now, there's no doubt that secrecy and insularity and unilateralism are powerful tools that have been used before to expand executive authority. And secrecy, insularity and unilateralism have become the hallmark of this administration's dealings with Congress, their allies and with the wider world.

And we've begun to see the great cost this has exacted on American values and constitutional principles and our standing as we pursue our national interests around the world.

We see it in a system of detention that, rather than being above reproach and an example to the world, has lost credibility with our allies. And, worse than that, it has become a powerful rhetorical tool for our enemies.

We see it in the terrible abuses at Abu Ghraib, which stained us as a country and which were a direct results of a lack of clarity and restraint in the rules about interrogation. And no matter what we do now to correct it, those pictures will be used against the United States by the people who do not support us for years and years to come.

We see it in a president who chose to violate a surveillance law, rather than come to Congress to get it changed, sewing seeds of distrust and suspicion for himself and, no doubt, for many presidents to come. We see it in the president's cavalier use of his pardon power to override a jury verdict to convict a top White House aide of lying to a grand jury and the FBI.

We see it in the White House's efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement by the unprecedented mass firing of U.S. attorneys, who this president had appointed, in orde...

See the full content of this document

---