MSNBC Hardball - Transcript

MSNBC Hardball - Transcript

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

MITCHELL: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Senator John Cornyn is a Texas Republican and member of the Armed Services Committee. Senator, welcome.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX), ARMED SERVICES CMTE.: Thank you, Andrea.

MITCHELL: Senator Levin just said that he thinks not only did the president go beyond the law, beyond what is appropriate, but that Congressional notification does not really count here, that the court needs to supervise, and that this needs to be investigated.

You‘re a lawyer and a member of the Armed Services Committee - the Intelligence Committee rather. What do you think about what needs to be done?

CORNYN: Well, certainly, I think it‘s appropriate for Congress to have oversight hearings of any intelligence-gathering activity. But the president appears to be discharging his responsibility to intercept communications between al Qaeda operatives in the United States and overseas under an authority assumed not only by this president but by President Clinton, Carter and Reagan.

And I haven‘t gone back any further, but my assumption is, after having done some research, is this is a power that all presidents have thought they had to protect the American people.

MITCHELL: Let me interrupt you there, because my understanding of the law—and I‘m not a lawyer; you are, sir, but my understanding of the law is that the National Security Agency is not permitted, has never been permitted to go without court supervision to monitor Americans domestically. That‘s the province of the FBI. The NSA can intercept communications, perhaps some foreign embassies; foreigners are their targets.

But the difference now is that these are intercepts between Americans, U.S. citizens and others in the U.S., and people overseas, and that that is where this crosses a line.

CORNYN: Well, this has to do really fundamentally, I think, with whether you can do this without a court order or without a warrant, as we would talk about it in a criminal justice context.

And President Bush has—believes he has this authority. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act review court has assumed that he had this authority. And my research has revealed that every president, at least back to Jimmy Carter, has argued that they have the same authority.

MITCHELL: But why didn‘t he go to court? He could‘ve gone to court.

We understand that 4,713 times between 2002 and 2004 they did go to court. Only 96 cases were revised by the judge, four were rejected outright out of 4,713.

Why didn‘t he go to court then? The court is obviously not really throwing up objections.

CORNYN: Well, in some instances, the need for speed in actually getting the—surveilling the conversation is very important.

MITCHELL: Yes, yes, but there‘s a 72-hour—they can do it and then they‘ve got 72 hours to go to the court after the fact. Doesn‘t that give them plenty of time to get this done?

CORNYN: Well, the fact is it‘s not an exclusive method to get the information under the president‘s authority under the Constitution.

You‘re right, you can go ahead and do it and then come back 72 hours later, but I don‘t understand how that makes the case of the critics that you can‘t do this without a court order or warrant, because I believe that both of those procedures would be available.

The problem is, as Director Mueller testified before the Judiciary Committee...

MITCHELL: FBI director.

CORNYN: Excuse me.

MITCHELL: The FBI director.

CORNYN: FBI Director Mueller in 2004, he said, unfortunately the FISA process has become cumbersome and bottle-necked, and they had delays that have discouraged the process of getting approval to get that kind of information. And he‘s concerned about it, and I am too.

MITCHELL: Well, one of the things you said recently is that you can‘t worry about civil liberties when you‘re dead—something to that effect.

So you‘re basically coming down hard on the side of protecting American citizens if it‘s a choice between privacy, civil liberties on the one hand, and protecting against a possible terror attack?

CORNYN: I think it‘s a false choice between civil liberties and security. I think we need both. But there needs to be a balance.

And I think the president has a responsibility to use every legal means available to him to get intelligence that he can use to protect Americans lives. And that‘s really, I believe, what he‘s done in this instance.

MITCHELL: Senator, do you think that Alberto Gonzales, because he was White House counsel at the time, would have to testify? What is the—what ground rules will Republicans want to establish as to who testifies? What about Condi Rice? She was national security advisor when these decisions were made.

CORNYN: Well, Andrea, this is a classified program. But the "New York Times," having written about this program, has now disclosed to our enemies what we‘re doing and how we‘re doing it. So ...

MITCHELL: Now the how, they just disclosed the what. They didn‘t disclose any methods.

CORNYN: They—well, that‘s right, but the hearings would have to be conducted under strict guidelines to make sure that our classified intelligence-gathering capability isn‘t compromised.

But clearly, Congress does have an important role. Oversight is important. But what I disagree with is those that suggest that somehow this is a new and made-up power that no other president has exercised, because that‘s just not true.

MITCHELL: And, Senator, do you think that these hearings would have to be closed hearings, that the American people would never get answers to what went on?

CORNYN: Well, part of it would certainly have to be. I don‘t know whether all of it would have to be.

But, you know, this is the most sensitive sort of intelligence-gathering that we really can‘t afford to let our enemies know about or they‘ll be able to evade it. And so at least some of it would have to be classified and remain closed.

I know that strikes people as odd, but it‘s really a matter of our national security and protecting Americans against further terrorist attacks.

MITCHELL: Thank you very much, Senator John Cornyn. To be continued.

CORNYN: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562660/