Transcript for February 12
MEET THE PRESS NETCAST & PODCAST |
Get Meet the Press when & how you want Click here to see Sunday's MTP netcast. (After 1pm ET each Sunday) |
REP. HOEKSTRA: The president told the truth in terms of if we are going to domestic to domestic, there is a court order. Obviously at that time, we in Congress knew, or at least the eight of us knew that if he was taking—if we were listening to al-Qaeda on one end calling in to the United States, that there was not a court order, there was not a warrant.
MR. RUSSERT: The president never said domestic to domestic. He said, “A wiretap requires a court order. When you’re talking—when you’re tracking down—talking about chasing down the terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.” So he’s suggesting to the American people that he is bound, as president, to get a court order. He was not saying, “I have inherent congress—constitutional authority to do what I want to do.”
REP. HOEKSTRA: I think that’s accurate. The president was focused on making sure that when al-Qaeda’s calling into the United States, we were listening.
REP. HARMAN: I think we...
MR. RUSSERT: You think the president misled the American people?
REP. HARMAN: ...I—I think we should be listening. I support this capability, but I also think Congress should be listening. I think that this entire program now should be briefed to the two intelligence committees, as is required by the National Security Act of 1947. There were some—some briefings this...
SEN. ROBERTS: Not right.
REP. HARMAN: Let me just—can I finish my thought, Pat?
SEN. ROBERTS: Certainly.
REP. HARMAN: Briefings earlier this week, which were extremely helpful, of all of the members of our committees, all of whom are very responsible. We’re only 36 members total that we’re talking about, and those members should decide whether this program fits within the law, and if it does, which I think it does, we should all declare victory. If it does not, then we should be changing the law or changing the program.
MR. RUSSERT: The vice president said Congress would leak like a sieve. You couldn’t possibly brief that many people.
REP. HARMAN: I—I find that ironic, Tim, since one, these leaks came from the administration, nobody in Congress knew. Two, the White House declassifies the information it chooses to declassify, and there’s material in the newspapers that the vice president may have authorized his then-chief of staff Scooter Libby to talk about classified portions of the national intelligence program.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Daschle, knowing what we know now, should the president stop this program?
SEN. DASCHLE: No, absolutely not. I think it’s a very valuable program. But again, as I said, it’s a false choice, Tim, to say that you can either stop the program or protect the rules of law. I think we’ve got to respect the rule of law, and that’s what this is about. The law was put in place, it’s worked effectively, we know now it can be just as applicable. If they want to see some changes to it, let’s find changes. I think there ought to be an investigation by the appropriate committees of Congress and look into NSA to see how we might it effectively. Let’s not just depend on the administration to give us their guidance, let’s look at it ourselves. Let’s do that. And I think if we did that, we can make this law work, and we can do both: protect the rule of law and protect the citizens of the United States.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you think the program should be stopped?
REP. HARMAN: No. I think the program should go on, I think the program should fully comply with FISA.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Roberts, let me ask you a very serious question. Do you believe that the Constitution gives the president of the United States the authority to do anything he believes is necessary to protect the country?
SEN. ROBERTS: Yes, but I wouldn’t say anything he believes. I think you go at it very, very carefully, and that’s been done by every president that I know of. And it’s very important to point out, not only for this president but for the next one, because we have a different kind of war, a different kind of threat, a different kind of technology. And again, the FISA court, and I don’t mean to pick a fuss with my good friend Jane, who I agree with 90 percent of the time. But it is an outdated law for this threat and the time equation that we have to have to stop terrorists. Not only for President Bush, past presidents have done this, future presidents will have to have that authority. The 1947 National Security Act said, yes, you will inform members of Congress. But Congress itself then went in and passed a law and said, if it is sensitive information and would reveal sources and methods, then you have to limit this, and it has been limited to the leadership, who better, and the four people on the intelligence committee. We were briefed. Now, I don’t know, I don’t know how else I can say it.
- Discuss Story On Newsvine
- Rate Story:
View popularLowHigh - Instant Message
MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS |
Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: |

