Statement
Of Sen. Patrick Leahy,
Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee,
Hearing On Department Of Justice Oversight
Witness: Attorney General Gonzales
July 18, 2006
Three weeks ago, in
Hamdan, the Supreme
Court held that the President is bound to comply with the rule
of law. Three years ago, in
Hamdi, the Supreme
Court held that war is not a blank check for the President when
it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens. Those are two
remarkable statements coming from the Nation’s highest court.
They are not remarkable for the propositions they state. The
Rule of Law was the basic premise upon which this Republic was
founded 230 years ago. They are remarkable, instead, for the
fact that this Administration’s unprecedented record of complete
disregard for the rule of law -- coupled with its arrogance and
secrecy -- made it necessary to say them at all.
Needed Doses Of Constitutional Tonic
The witness before us today has
held two uniquely important roles with respect to the rule of
law. As White House Counsel, it was his sworn duty to advise
the President how to comply with the rule of law. As Attorney
General, he has the further responsibility to lead the Nation’s
enforcement of the rule of law. On his watch, the Bush-Cheney
Administration has repeatedly flouted the laws that limit the
power of the Executive.
During the past few years, the
Supreme Court has rendered three landmark constitutional
decisions regarding Executive power. In all three, it ruled
against the President.
In
Hamdi, the Court
rejected the Administration’s unprecedented claim that an
American citizen can be stripped of the constitutional right to
due process simply on the say-so of the President. The Court
held that Mr. Hamdi was entitled to a fair hearing on the
legality of his detention.
In
Rasul, the Court
rejected the legal premise upon which the
Guantanamo detention center was built. The Bush-Cheney
Administration chose to hold prisoners captured in Afghanistan
on the island of Cuba as a means of avoiding the jurisdiction of
United States courts. The Court held that the writ of habeas
corpus cannot be suspended by housing prisoners off shore.
That brings us to last month’s
decision in Hamdan.
The path to that latest setback to the Administration begins
with a memorandum written by today’s witness. In January 2002,
then-White House Counsel Gonzales advised President Bush that he
need not and should not comply with the Geneva Conventions,
contrary to the advice of Secretary of State Colin Powell. The
President chose to take Mr. Gonzales’ advice rather than listen
to General Powell. In
Hamdan, the Court held that the President is bound by
the Geneva Conventions, and that the President’s military
commissions are illegal. In sum, the Administration is batting
0 for 3 in the Supreme Court.
But the result of this series of
blunders is not merely a strike-out: With respect to Mr. Hamdi,
after nearly three years of incarceration, during which the
Administration insisted that American security would be
seriously prejudiced by even affording him a lawyer, the
Administration set him free in the Middle East.
Four years after the
Administration began transporting prisoners to
Guantanamo, that detention center has become an international
embarrassment which everyone from Tony Blair to Colin Powell has
said should be closed immediately.
And more than four years after
initiating a military commissions program which Attorney General
Gonzales told us was designed to ensure
"swift justice"
close to the battlefield, the Administration has charged a total
of 10 people, convicted zero, and is now back at square one.
Perhaps the only lesson that this
Administration learns from its mistakes is not to get caught
next time. This Administration is allergic to accountability,
whether in the form of judicial review or in the form of
congressional oversight.
The attempt to evade habeas review
by holding detainees at Guantanamo is just one of
a series of measures the Administration has taken to shield its
actions from the courts. The Hamdan case addresses
another. In one of his notorious signing statements, issued
after Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005, the
President asserted that the Act retroactively stripped the
courts of jurisdiction over pending cases. The Court rejected
this claim and instead followed the plain language of the Act,
informed by the legislative history that was actually available
to members of Congress before they voted on the Act.
The case of Jose Padilla presents
another example. Three-and-a half years after detaining Padilla
as an unlawful combatant, and on the eve of Supreme Court
review, the Administration moved to have his case dismissed by
transferring him from military to civilian custody. In a
unanimous opinion, the conservative Fourth Circuit rejected the
Administration’s motion. Judge Luttig pointedly noted that the
motion appeared to be an attempt to evade Supreme Court review
and that it had damaged the government’s credibility.
Warantless
Wiretapping
Meanwhile, with respect to its
secret domestic wiretapping program, the Administration has for
nearly five years evaded even the limited judicial review
afforded by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
In fact, in just the few months since the public and
Congress first learned of the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping
program, the Justice Department has asserted the state secrets
privilege in at least 19 different court cases
challenging that program.
Last week we learned that in closed-door negotiations
with Senator Specter, the Administration made a conditional
offer to submit one of its domestic spying programs to secret
review by a single FISA court judge. As I understand the
Administration’s offer, Congress must first agree to completely
gut FISA and to deprive American citizens of the right to
challenge domestic wiretapping in open court
B
nothing more than ratification of the Administration’s actions
after-the-fact.
So when the President tells the
Chairman of this Committee that he is agreeable to judicial
review of that program and his other actions, I hope that you
understand why some of us are a bit wary.
We should reject the
Administration’s so-called
"compromise"
and instead demand that it submit to the judicial review that
FISA already requires. But more than that, we in Congress have
a responsibility not just to punt to the courts, but to do our
job of holding the Administration accountable. Congressional
oversight is the ultimate democratic antidote to Executive
over-reaching. Oversight makes government more accountable and
more effective.
Congress’s
Oversight Duty
It is time for Congress to fulfill
its constitutional duty by acting as a real check on the
Executive branch. A Congress that defers to the President and
ratifies his continuing illegal actions is no better than a
President who seeks to immunize or ignore illegal conduct of his
subordinates. Congress needs to act and truly be an independent
branch of the Government. A start is real oversight.
For too many months the
Department of Justice has shown blatant disregard for this
Committee and its oversight role by dispatching junior deputies,
unauthorized or unable to answer our questions. Instead of
providing us with information, these subordinates were sent to
parrot the Administration’s talking points. This is not an
Administration that recognizes or learns from its mistakes. The
Bush-Cheney Administration does not engage in soul-searching.
Instead, it blithely maintains, as its witness told us last
week, that "the
President is always right."
Recently, the Republican chair of
the House Intelligence Committee complained that the
Administration has breached its responsibility to keep his
Committee informed of ongoing intelligence operations. Just
last week, the New York
Times reported that the Republican chair of a House
Financial services subcommittee on oversight accused the
Administration of being too secretive and failing to adequately
inform Congress about the Treasury Department’s questionable
bank records program. The Republican chair of the House
Judiciary Committee described the Attorney General’s testimony
as "stonewalling."
If only Congress had insisted all along on truly effective
oversight, all Americans would be better off.
The cost to American liberty, our
standing in the world, and to the security of our soldiers and
citizens is staggering
C
even more than the half a trillion dollar cost of the war in
Iraq. Instead of coming to this Committee to get authority
under the law to gather intelligence to advance the war on
terror, the Administration chose to simply snub Congress.
Instead of coming to Congress to create a credible and effective
justice system for the war on terror, this Administration chose
to disregard congressional power under the Constitution to
"make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water"
and to cobble together an illegal system for military
tribunals.
The result has been the dangerous
specter of illegal Government surveillance at home and a
military tribunal system which has undermined our standing in
the world, jeopardized our troops abroad and compromised our
moral values. The Supreme Court’s repudiation of the President’s
military tribunals has given our system of checks and balances a
constitutional tonic that was sorely needed.
Decline In
Anti-Crime Support
Further, turning to our domestic
situation, despite great gains in the war on crime during the
1990s, this President, Attorney General and the
Republican-controlled Congress have cut more than $2 billion in
funding for state and local law enforcement since 2001. It may
not be coincidental that we are now witnesses a dramatic rise in
violent crime. Last year alone, violent crime increased at the
fastest rate in 15 years. Just as we see a world made less safe
by a flawed foreign policy, when we look at our domestic
situation we see a nation with rising crime, more at risk and
more divided. Last week, for example, following a dramatic wave
of homicides, D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey declared a crime
emergency in the Nation’s Capital. There have even been
expressions of deep concern about crime on the National Mall
B
just a short walk from where we are today -- after serious crime
incidents in recent weeks, directed at tourists. Many of us
recall the Bush Administration’s firing of former Park Service
Chief of Police Teresa C. Chambers three years ago, when she
dared to publicly warn Congress and the American people that,
quote, "There’s not
enough of us to go around to protect those green spaces anymore,"
a reference to the Bush Administration’s cuts in the anti-crime
budget for the Park Police. Her warnings seem particularly
prescient today, and her firing by the White House seems all the
shabbier.
Today’s oversight hearing provides
another new start for Congress to stop rubber-stamping the
questionable policies of this Administration and to finally say
‘enough is enough.’ By acting unilaterally, in secret, and in
violation of the laws passed by Congress, this Administration
has acted as if it were above the law for far too long. I hope
all Members of this Committee, Republican and Democrats alike,
will join me to restore the constitutional checks and balances
that have been systematically eroded by this Administration, and
I hope that we can begin that process today.
At the beginning of my remarks, I
quoted the words of President Reagan’s first Supreme Court
appointee, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote in
Hamdi that war is
not a blank check for the executive. Last month in
Hamdan, President
Reagan’s last Supreme Court appointee, Justice Anthony Kennedy,
wrote that concentration of power in the Executive
"puts personal
liberty in peril of arbitrary action by officials, an incursion
the Constitution’s three-part system is designed to avoid."
Congressional oversight is essential to that three-part
system. Its restoration is long overdue.
The People’s
Attorney, Not The President’s
During the confirmation hearings
on his nomination to be Attorney General, several members of the
Committee emphasized that in his new position, Judge Gonzales
would no longer be the President’s attorney, but the people’s
attorney. The importance of the person who serves as our top
law enforcement officer to be able to act and advise
independently has come into even sharper relief over the last
year, and especially with these Supreme Court decisions.
The last time the Attorney General
appeared before this Committee, he was not very responsive. I
hope he will not repeat that performance today. I hope that he
will answer our questions. I hope he will admit mistakes and we
can join together in meaningful oversight and genuine
accountability. I hope today is the beginning of real oversight
activity for this Committee and an open exchange of information
from the Administration. The American people, expect -- and
deserve -- no less.
# # # # #