Specter says no 'blank check' for Bush on spying

Reuters ^ | 16 January 2006

[Aussie Dasher]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee promised a thorough investigation on Sunday into President George W. Bush's secret domestic eavesdropping program and said there would be no blank check for Bush.

Sen. Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania, said Bush in theory could face impeachment charges if found to have violated the law by authorizing the program, but he did not endorse that approach and had heard no serious talk of it.

News of the covert domestic spying program last month sparked an outcry by both Democrats and some members of Bush's Republican party. Many lawmakers and rights groups questioned whether it violates the U.S. Constitution.

The judiciary committee has scheduled hearings on the issue and U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has said he will testify on the administration's legal justification. The operation includes eavesdropping on U.S. phone calls and reading e-mails. The hearings are expected next month.

"We're going to explore it in depth," Specter said on ABC television's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos."

"I don't see any talk about impeachment here," Specter said. "I don't think anybody doubts that the president is making a good faith effort, that he sees a real problem as we all do, and he's acting in a way that he feels he must."

Still, the senator insisted, "we're not going to give him a blank check, and just because we're of the same party doesn't mean we're not going to look at this very closely."

[Aussie Dasher]

Arlen big-noting again, or Arlen undermining the President?

[softwarecreator]

I don't see any talk about impeachment here

Oh puhlease!!!  Has there been a day since he was elected that this wasn't mentioned?

[K-oneTexas]

... I do think that Bush overstepped his bounds ...

IMHO, I have the opposite view based on reading Article II of the Constitution and the inherent powers of the Commander-in-Chief. Not in FISA a statute contrived by Congress, written at a time when many only wanted to hobble the National Security.

However this can be good. First, Republicans are not kicking, screaming and hollering to avoid any truth finding - as the Democrats have done in a previous Administration (that will remain nameless).

Second, maybe the checks and balances are supposed to work this way rather than in our courts. The courts should be a last step.

Third and last, Americans will see, if televised, exactly who they voted for and what they got.It would bring it home much better since the last "poll" I saw puts a majority of voters on the President's side wanting security.

[moonman]

Surely Sen. Specter, there must be some obscure Scottish Law which allows this. Besides, take the Attorney General to task over this, he's the one who gave the go-ahead and said it was legal.

[K-oneTexas]

I know. That could be the catch that sheds some real light on the Democrats. Light that voters might not be so fast to forget.

[airborne]

Arlen doing what he does best.

Getting himself more face time.

[thelastvirgil]

Just one more volley in the never ending struggle between the legislative and the executive. The three branches are designed to be equal, but the judiciary and congress consider themselves more equal than the executive branch. It is time both are forced to swallow the big reality pill that G.W. has prepared for them.

Specter? He is a disloyal, egoist bastard that forgets who brought him to the dance. That last statement is my entry into the obvious understatement of the day award. Snarlin' is no different than any other of the arrogant pricks that plague us all.

[mcg2000]

[Mike Darancette]

The hearing before the Judiciary Committee should be a hoot since they can only discuss the law and Constitution as it would apply to hypotheticals since the Judiciary Committee does not have the security clearance to discuss the facts. I don't think they can even call anybody from the NSA or CIA and ask them questions (at least in open session) as to what was done.

Gonzalez should explain the law to Spincter in terms the Senator can understand by citing some obscure Scottish law.

[plain talk]

overstepped his bounds? How? What the CIA is doing w.r.t monitoring international calls has been done for years. If you don't believe the CIA should be spying then why have a CIA?

[goodnesswins]

LOL....that's good!!! I love it.

[TADSLOS]

A blank check from Abramoff is perfectly acceptable, however...

[Gritty]

I can't wait for the likes of Kennedy, Biden, Feinswine and Schumer to strut their stuff again on live TV. It should be as entertaining as watching them make complete asses of themselves with Judge Alito, but this time they will be sticking up for the likes of Al Qaida and Bin Laden instead of NARAL and Ralph Neas.

This will be good. Please pass the popcorn!

[Waco]

Talk down around the pool hall is that there is an obscure Scottish law that requires the release of the Barrett report. Suck on that, Spec.

[Thebaddog]

Arlen's a deal cutter. My hunch is that W campaigned for him in his last senate run in return for clearing the way for the USSC candidates. But Arlen is talking large before the last deal is done. Can't he stay bought or is there another something else to be done?

[The Shootist]

The legislature is supposed to keep the executive in check, I do think that Bush overstepped his bounds, but it doesn't matter all that much.

A President's war powers are plenary, which means, "Complete in all respects; unlimited or full". Given that, how did the President "overstep his bounds"?

[Brian Allen]

<< Arlen big-noting again, or Arlen undermining the President? >>

Snarlin' Arlen is a "Democrat" of the "former" variety.

A RINO, that is, who was a self-serving crook when he "used to be" a "Democrat" and has consistently been a self serving RINO crook ever since!

And is of course indistinguishable from any other "former" [RINO] "Democrat" and is as ever undermining the president.