# Senate Judiciary Hearings on NSA Surveillance
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [February 6, 2006, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256 "2006-02-06T17:18:28Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/1 "2006-02-06T17:18:28Z")
Gonzales is in the hot seat all day today, so I figured we should have a thread to discuss this. Should be interesting!
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/2 "2006-02-06T17:29:12Z")
Nina Totenberg did her usual excellent job of summarising the issues and the law on NPR this morning. This link will take you to a page where you can click to listen to it.
> **[Senate Panel Holds Hearing on NSA Surveillance](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5191188)**
>
> The Senate Judiciary Committee opens hearings on President Bush's use of the National Security Agency to monitor domestic communications. Monday's lone witness is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/3 "2006-02-06T17:30:41Z")
I should note I posted the link above not as an “answer” to the OP but rather as something to help flesh out the issues surrounding all this and perhaps aid in the debate.
---
### Author:  [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/4 "2006-02-06T17:33:36Z")
> [@](#):
>
> “My answers would be the same whether I was under oath or not,” Gonzales told the panel.
So why did Specter refuse to swear him in? This isn’t an afternoon get together for tea and biscuits; or maybe it is.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/5 "2006-02-06T17:35:36Z")
> [@Squink](#):
>
> So why did Specter refuse to swear him in? This isn’t an afternoon get together for tea and biscuits; or maybe it is.
Seemed like was just a power play by the Pubs-- don’t do what the Dems want. Gonzales said he was OK with being sworn in.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/6 "2006-02-06T17:42:59Z")
This is what pisses me off about the debate…
Right now on CSPAN, Debra Burlingame (wife of AA pilot killed on 9/11) is talking about how this program is “vital to the national security”. That is not the issue. The issue is the legality of the program. It might be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but if it ain’t legal we need to either make it legal or scuttle it.
---
### Author:  [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/7 "2006-02-06T17:54:25Z")
I wonder why Gonzales won’t testify under oath. Makes me think he’s got his fingers crossed behind his back.
---
### Author:  [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/8 "2006-02-06T17:58:38Z")
> [@Patty O'Furniture](#):
>
> I wonder why Gonzales won’t testify under oath. Makes me think he’s got his fingers crossed behind his back.
Well, since Bill Clinton got away with lying under oath, there’s just no point in administering oaths anymore.
We have no officially had 100% of our daily requirement of The Clinton Excuse. We now return you to the merits of this debate, already in progress…
---
### Author:  [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/9 "2006-02-06T18:07:10Z")
> [@Patty O'Furniture](#):
>
> I wonder why Gonzales won’t testify under oath. Makes me think he’s got his fingers crossed behind his back.
Maybe because he’s already in trouble with Feingold for intimating that the NSA program was only a “hypothetical” when he was questioned at his confirmation hearings. [Cite](http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013880.html)
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/10 "2006-02-06T18:17:55Z")
It’s been a traditional courtesy to high Administration officials not to swear them in, since that has overtones of accusing them of untrustworthiness. It’s been done in the past, though, on issues that became contentious based on those official’s performance or character rather than policy disagreements. I remember George Schulz resigning as SecState shortly after being sworn in at a hearing, claiming he couldn’t do the job if he wasn’t trusted.
Then, too, a witness under oath (and risking legal penalties) is naturally going to be extremely careful about saying anything, and may just dummy up. If the purpose of the hearing is to draw him out, the oath is entirely counterproductive.
Besides, despite **SteveMB** ’s disclaimer, “the Democrats do it too. Or, well, they would if they could, anyway”. 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/11 "2006-02-06T18:18:56Z")
> [@Hamlet](#):
>
> Maybe because he’s already in trouble with Feingold for intimating that the NSA program was only a “hypothetical” when he was questioned at his confirmation hearings. [Cite](http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013880.html)
Sometimes, I feel that Feingold is the only one in DC who isn’t a completely worthless sac of shit.
I wish we had more of him.
-Joe
---
### Author:  [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/12 "2006-02-06T18:24:40Z")
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> This is what pisses me off about the debate…
>
> Right now on CSPAN, Debra Burlingame (wife of AA pilot killed on 9/11) is talking about how this program is “vital to the national security”. That is not the issue. The issue is the legality of the program. It might be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but if it ain’t legal we need to either make it legal or scuttle it.
Exactly what qualifies Debra Burlingame to tell us how vital this is? She lost a husband and of course she has our deepest sympathies. But that doesn’t make her an expert on intelligence nor does it give her opinion any more weight than mine.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/13 "2006-02-06T18:33:15Z")
> [@Patty O'Furniture](#):
>
> I wonder why Gonzales won’t testify under oath. Makes me think he’s got his fingers crossed behind his back.
But, as **XaMcQ** pointed out in this thread – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=355583](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=355583) – it is a crime for a witness to lie to Congress whether placed under oath or not.
---
### Author:  [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/14 "2006-02-06T18:37:29Z")
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> This is what pisses me off about the debate…
>
> Right now on CSPAN, Debra Burlingame (wife of AA pilot killed on 9/11) is talking about how this program is “vital to the national security”. That is not the issue. The issue is the legality of the program. It might be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but if it ain’t legal we need to either make it legal or scuttle it.
More frustrating for me is that “it’s vital to the national security” is a clear lie. Monitoring _al Qaeda_ is vital; doing it without a warrant is not. They could do everything they claim to need to do with warrants.
And that difficult concept is subtle enough to fool the masses, I fear.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/15 "2006-02-06T20:05:03Z")
> [@Hamlet](#):
>
> Maybe because he’s already in trouble with Feingold for intimating that the NSA program was only a “hypothetical” when he was questioned at his confirmation hearings. [Cite](http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013880.html)
Yeah, I’m sure he’s shaking in his boots… 🙂
I gotta say I’m very disappointed so far. Of course, I probably had pretty unrealistic expectations going in. This committee really can’t determine if this program is legal or not. Only the Courts can do that. It’s just a bunch of partisan lawyers bickering about the program, and I think the administration has already determines that the more this get played out in the court of public opinion the better it is for them. I wonder what the next step in this process is…?
---
### Author:  [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/16 "2006-02-06T20:21:28Z")
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> Yeah, I’m sure he’s shaking in his boots… 🙂
True. He may care even less than you what a bunch of Congresspersons think about the program.
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> I gotta say I’m very disappointed so far. Of course, I probably had pretty unrealistic expectations going in. This committee really can’t determine if this program is legal or not. Only the Courts can do that.
True again. I doubt we’ll get the details we need to make a truly informed judgment about the legality/constitutionality of the program. I do think, however, that the hearings are a good thing, for the simple reason that Congress is not just being a rubber stamp to the President’s determination that he is not violating any law. From the very little I’ve seen, Gonzalez hasn’t added anything beyond their already released statements, so it’s kinda a wash. Although Congress can’t determine the finality of the illegal/unconstitutional issue, they can at least define the issue a little better.
> [@JohnMace](#):
>
> It’s just a bunch of partisan lawyers bickering about the program, and I think the administration has already determines that the more this get played out in the court of public opinion the better it is for them.
Of course, because the Republican machine will simply continue to portray the President’s actions as protecting the country against terrorism, and that the Democrats don’t have the fortitude/ability to protect the country. Little things like the truth and the Constitution don’t carry as much weight with public opinion as fear mongering and maverick sensibilities.
> [@JohnMace](#):
>
> I wonder what the next step in this process is…?
2 weeks of the usual talking heads saying the President is doing his damndest to protect the nation while the Democrats want to make it easier for the terrorists to attack America. Beyond that, I’m not sure how the issue would get to SCOTUS for a determination or how long it would take to get the issue resolved. We had to wait a couple years for Padilla and Hamdi, so, whatever happens, it won’t matter for a long time. Well past when it will matter at all.
---
### Author:  [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/17 "2006-02-06T21:00:26Z")
I love the Republican questions. They don’t even need Gonzales there, they just need a dummy that says “yes, I agree”.
---
### Author:  [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/18 "2006-02-06T21:45:01Z")
Man, Biden just had a good row of questions. (I think it was Biden, I’m listening on the radio and it’s hard to ID voices sometimes.) Gonzales didn’t have any good answers, but they were still good questions.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/19 "2006-02-06T22:03:37Z")
> [@SmackFu](#):
>
> I love the Republican questions. They don’t even need Gonzales there, they just need a dummy that says “yes, I agree”.
Well, you must not be listening very well, or you’re jumping to conclusions without listening to the whole thing. Lindsey Graham right now is throwing some hardball questions at Gonzales.
---
### Author:  [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)
#### Post date: [February 6, 2006, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256/20 "2006-02-06T22:07:20Z")
You’re right. I should have restricted my complaint to the ones who are toeing the party line.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-judiciary-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/343256.md?page=2)