Dear Senator Roberts

I just finished reading your editorial in the USA Today. You know, the one humorously titled "We're doing our job." Yes, as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, you're doing a bang up job, sir. I particularly liked the part where you did nothing for the last three years.

But perhaps I'm being unfair. I should at least respond to the substance of your op-ed. You write:

Anyone who has served on a congressional intelligence
committee has struggled with the issue of secrecy. How do
we assure the public that we are fully informed and
conducting vigorous oversight of our nation's intelligence
activities when we can say little to nothing about what we
know?

Well, perhaps you could start by holding hearings, closed-door ones if necessary. Or how about investigating the obvious politization of intelligence in the leadup to the Iraq invasion, like you promised you were going to? In fact, how about investigating anything? Have you ever heard of a subpoena?

It's the job of the Senate Intelligence Committee to
oversee the intelligence community, ensuring that it's
protecting Americans against a vicious enemy while
respecting civil liberties. With respect to the National
Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program, the
committee is doing its job. It's very secret, and oversight
must be conducted in a closed environment.

Come on, Pat. Who's kidding who? Your "oversight" consisted of you and a few others being passively briefed every once in a while about the general nature of the program. You were not able to consult lawyers or even your own staff about what you heard, and your knowledge of the program is entirely limited to what the administration feels like telling you. You make it seem like you are personally poring over data and reading the transcripts of intercepted calls. Please. There is no individualized attention here whatsoever. You have no idea whose calls are actually intercepted or whether there has been any abuse. You have no idea whether these intercepts are really preceded by a showing of probable cause. All you've ever done is sit in a room and listen to a powerpoint presentation.

Oversight of classified information requires a balance
between the executive and legislative branches. The
executive owns the information and has the responsibility
to protect it. The legislative branch wants the information
for oversight. Like many disagreements between the
branches of government, compromise is required.

What!?! The executive branch doesn't "own" any information. It merely possesses it. And Congressional intelligence committees are entitled by law to that information.

At my insistence, we have expanded oversight from two
members of the committee to all 15 members.

At your insistence? Pat, you and I both know that you would have been perfectly fine with the status quo. If the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" had never been publicly reported and the ensuing outcry had not occurred, there is no way you would have "insisted" that the full committee be briefed. And again, allowing the whole committee to attend the standard powerpoint presentation is not oversight, it's just what the law required all along.

Any president, not just President Bush, is the commander
in chief and is responsible for protecting Americans from
enemy attack. Presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt have
used their inherent legal authority to conduct electronic
surveillance to protect the nation. When executed with the
necessary safeguards, oversight and secrecy, electronic
surveillance can be a powerful weapon to detect our enemies.
Without it, Americans would be less safe.

Oh please. Do you really take us for such rubes? Of course we would be less safe without surveillance. That's why no one has ever suggested that we stop conducting surveillance on suspected terrorists. And you know damn well that what President Bush is doing has NOT been done by anyone, let alone "presidents since FDR." As the chairman of the Intelligence Committee you know that there is a law on the books, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which expressly criminalizes the very surveillance that the president has authorized the NSA to do. While all presidents have authorized surveillance activity, only Bush has authorized a kind of activity that is expressly and unambiguously forbidden by statute.

You claim that "when executed with the necessary safeguards" and "oversight", "electronic surveillance can be a powerful weapon to detect our enemies." I fully agree. As do all Americans. And that's the problem. Unless you are personally reviewing every instance of warrantless surveillance, Senator, it's really hard to see how you would have the first clue whether the proper safeguards are in place. By definition, warrantless surveillance is conducted without judicial oversight and without independent individualized review. Congress long ago decided that both of those elements were "necessary safeguards." And on that point, Congress has never changed its mind.

But on your watch, Senator, the President of the United States stopped following the law. He simply disregarded the safeguards that Congress had worked so diligently to implement and fine-tune over the years. And you did nothing about it.

So don't tell us that you're doing your job. You're not. You're dissembling and engaging in shameless straw-man arguments in the most widely-read newspaper in the country. You're actively blocking any investigation into an admittedly illegal program. You're enabling an ongoing violation of the very laws you are supposed to be overseeing. I don't doubt that you believe in this program, but in a democracy, laws are not changed by executive fiat. If you think this program should be legal, then make it so, but don't disgrace the institution you work for and the constitution itself by pretending that it doesn't matter what the law says.