Sensenbrenner is an ASS
Darn... I hate when I get typos in the title of my article. What I really meant to say is that Sensenbrenner is a fASciSt. There, that's better.
I've never been much of a fan of the Republican congressman representing Wisconsin's fifth district; in fact, I even went up to Wisconsin last fall to help campaign for his opponent, Bryan Kennedy. But he still managed to lower my opinion of him with his Real ID Act, a controversial immigration bill that he tacked onto a vitally important military spending bill that was voted on in May.
And then there was last Friday's hearing on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Prior to Friday's hearing, the House Judiciary Committee had held a number of hearings on the act in which Sensenbrenner, the committee's chairman, would only allow testimony on the act's less controversial provisions. So the Democrats on the committee asked for an additional hearing to take testimony from opponents of the Patriot Act.
Just under two hours into the hearing, Sensenbrenner launched into a monologue in which he attacked the witnesses and the committee's Democrats as being irresponsible. He stated that he had listened patiently enough, but thank you, the hearing is adjourned. Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) raised a point of order, but Sensenbrenner pounded his gavel, got up, and left the room along with the other Republicans on the committee. There was never any motion to adjourn.
The microphones were turned off, and as Democrats and other participants continued to speak, the recorder was told to stop entering the testimony into the record. But while the final minutes of the hearing may not appear in the official record, they were captured on C-SPAN, and we the people can watch and know what happened.
Here are some links:
Dembloggers.com video: Sensenbrenner gavels hearing to a close.
Video Part 2: Remaining participants have their say.
Air America's Randi Rhodes interviews Sheila Jackson Lee.
And I did a rough transcription of the end of the hearing (below in the comments).
posted by Mark M @ 6/14/2005 08:25:00 PM
1 Comments:
James Sensenbrenner: The Chair now recognizes himself.
Sensenbrenner: First, the Chair would like to thank all the witnesses for coming and appearing and particularly in preparing your testimony on short notice. Uh, let me say that the purpose for which this hearing was called and the scope of the hearing was stated in the letter that was submitted to me signed by the Democratic members which was the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act. I've sat here listening very patiently to the testimony to the questions... to the answers... and much of what has been stated is not relevant to the 16 sections of the USA Patriot Act which were sunsetted when the law was enacted in October of 2001. One of the things that the people who are opposed to the Patriot Act have been doing is stating that the Patriot Act was responsible for a whole host of frustrations or objections to administration policy. This hearing confirmed that fact, that the Patriot Act is being used as a buzzword for people who have very broad-brush objections. I think that when Congress debates the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, we ought to stick to the subject. And that subject is the 16 provisions of the Patriot Act, which we must consider and decide whether to reauthorize, whether to lapse, or whether to amend. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with Guantanamo Bay. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with enemy combatants. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with indefinite detentions. Those were provisions of other sections of the law, many of which occurred prior to the enactment of the Patriot Act in October of 2001. The so called Preppie (phon) Memorandum, uh, which had a blanket closure of immigration, uh, proceedings, uh, was issued before the Patriot Act was enacted, and the Deputy Attorney General testified earlier this week that it's no longer being followed. And some of the testimony related to provisions of the Patriot Act that were not sunsetted -- and this committee put the sunset on provisions of the law which actually increased the powers of law enforcement, but did not put the sunset on those provisions of the law which restated the powers that law enforcement had had prior to October of 2001. I think particularly irresponsible, and indicative of the broad brush accusations of the Patriot Act, was what I just heard: saying the Patriot Act has resulted in Minutemen being on the border... That's not true, and that's irresponsible. And I think anybody who knows what is going on...
Sheila Jackson Lee: Gentleman, yield?
Sensenbrenner: No, I will not yield... Will, will, uh... uh, uh... will see that fact. You know, let me say that I think this hearing very, very clearly shows what the opponents of the Patriot Act are doing. They'll talk about practically everything but what's in the Patriot Act and what this committee is, is considering. The only really relevant testimony that I heard was, uh, from Mr. Pitts, uh, relative to Section 215 of the Patriot Act, uh, that said that librarians have been receiving, uh, all kinds of questions from law enforcement. I'd like to ask you, Mr. Pitts, to submit for the record the names of the librarians that have received actual Section 215 orders from the Fiza (phon) court, uh, to produce business records. And we'll give you a week to put that in the record. So thank you all for coming today. I thank the members for... (unintelligible)
Jackson Lee: Gentleman, yield?
Jerrold Nadler: Chairman.
Jackson Lee: Gentleman, yield?
Nadler: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman...
(crosstalk, unintelligible)
Sensenbrenner: ...and the committee is adjourned. (strikes gavel)
Nadler: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
(microphones turned off, Republican members of the committee rise and exit)
Male voice: (unintelligible)
Nadler: I said point of order.
Jackson Lee: Do we have any press in the room who want to hear our side of the story?
Nadler: Mr. Chairman, ... (unintelligible)
(microphone turns on)
Nadler: ...indefinite detention, and that's relevant to a Patriot Act hearing. And part of the problem is that we have not had the opportunity to have hearings on all these other administration policies that have led to the abuses such as indefinite detention. But the other thing that I wanted to say, and that I will say at this point, even though the Chairman is not going to listen, is -- and I wish... (mic is cut)
(Nadler raises voice to be heard)
Nadler: ...like what he said before...
(gallery reacts with amusement)
Nadler: ... is that it is very obvious... the United States must continue to be a beacon of values of justice and freedom and liberty. And those of us who question some aspects of the Patriot Act, and those of us who question a number of the... Those of us who question... I notice my mic has been turned off, but let me be heard anyway. For those of us who question some of the actions of the administration, um, are seeking to make sure that our tradition of liberty and freedom is continued unsullied. And that when we question acts of an administration or particular agents of the executive branch, we are not besmirching the honor or tradition of the United States -- we are seeking to uphold it. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
(applause)
Jackson Lee: I was asked to... I asked to yield.
James Zogby (Arab American Institute): (unintelligible) ...something totally inappropriate. No mic on, and no record being kept. But I think if we are lecturing foreign governments about the conduct, of their behavior with regard to opposition... When I see the behavior I saw here today, as an American, I'm really troubled about what kind of a lesson this is going to teach to other countries in the world about how they ought to conduct an open society that allows for an opposition with rights. And I'm sorry... I'm very upset.
(applause)
Chip Pitts (Amnesty International): (unintelligible)... in the British House of Lords said about what is happening to Democracy, creating legal black holes. There's nothing unpatriotic about asking questions. And we do need to, we do need to do that or we're in serious jeopardy. Thank you.
Jackson Lee: May I also say this: The question that was asked about is there a way under the Patriot Act to prove your innocence, I think, goes to the actual constitutional underpinnings of what we believe in -- which is that you're innocent until proven guilty.
(raises copy of Constitution)
Jackson Lee: The fact that you are not able to answer that question disturbs me. And recounting of some of the darker moments in our history says to the audience and to you what we are trying to do here is to avoid dark moments in our history so that we can be the shining city on the hill. And the fact that there are individuals being called patriots that are going to the border as Minutemen, taking up arms because of the fears and the authority that they think they have under the Patriot Act is again a reason to be concerned. I am shamed of what happened here today along with you. I thank you all for your presence here, and to those young ladies that I looked at who are sitting on the back seat, I would not suggest that you are Muslims or not, but you are different from me. And I believe that the Constitution should protect all of us. And we're all innocent until proven guilty. And the Patriot Act as it is presently contrived denies the rights of individuals who are innocent, deports people who are innocent, detains people who are innocent, and abuses people who are in detention centers without any opportunity to address their grievances. It causes me to cry, it causes me to pain, but I'm going to stay in the fight, and we're going to win this fight.
(applause)
Hearing continues off the record, with Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) questioning Carlina Tapia-Ruano of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Captions on C-SPAN read:
"Chairman Sensenbrenner (R-WI) formally gaveled this hearing to a close at 10:20am ET."
"Democratic committee members & some witnesses are continuing to speak on the subject of the hearing."
Post a Comment
<< Home