DEMS DO "THE NSA STRADDLE"

Democrats Praise President Bush's Terrorist Surveillance Program One Minute; Outraged The Next

Dems Try To Have It Every Way On President Bush's Terrorist Surveillance Program:

"[Democrats] Could Pay A Large Price - Though A Political One - If They Do Not Strike The Right Tone In The Debate Over The National Security Agency's Domestic Eavesdropping Program." (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Balancing Act By Democrats At Hearing," The New York Times, 2/7/06)

"As They Head Into The 2006 Midterm Elections, Democrats, Eager To Pick Up Congressional Seats, Know They Must Look Tough On National Security Issues." (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Balancing Act By Democrats At Hearing," The New York Times, 2/7/06)

"Democrats Are Both Outraged By President Bush's National Security Agency Surveillance Program And Content To See It Continue. They Are At This Incoherent Pass Because Their Reflexive Hostility To The Program Is Tempered By The Dawning Suspicion That They Might Be On The Wrong Side Politically Of Yet Another National-Security Issue - Thus, "The NSA Straddle". (Rich Lowry, Op-Ed, "The NSA Straddle," National Review Online, 1/31/06)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): "Now, You [Attorney General Gonzales] Make A Very Strong Case In Your Presentation Here About The Authority In Which You Are Acting On. You Talk About The Authorization By The Congress, You Talk About Inherent Power, You Talk About The President Having The Authority And The Power To Do This." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI): "[I] Just Want To Read Again What You [Attorney General Alberto Gonzales] Said. 'As The President Has Said, If You Are Talking With Al Qaida, We Want To Know What You're Saying.' Absolutely Right. No One On This Committee, I Think No One In This Body, Believes Anything Other Than That, And I Want To State It As Firmly As I Can." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)

Sen. Feingold: "All Of Us Are Committed To Defeating The Terrorists Who Threaten Our Country, Mr. Attorney General. It Is, Without A Doubt, Our Top Priority." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): "Every Single Member Of Congress Agrees [The Bush Administration] Should Have The Tools Necessary To Protect The American People." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)

Sen. Leahy: "We All Agree That If You Have Al Qaida Terrorists Calling We Should Be Wiretapping Them." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY): "[I] Want The President To Have All The Legal Tools He Needs As We Work Together To Keep Our Nation Safe And Free, Including Wiretapping." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)

Dems Criticize Terrorist Surveillance Program, Launch Partisan Attacks Against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): "This Whole Program Has Been Questioned In Terms Of Its Legality ..." (Sen. Kennedy, Press Conference, 2/6/06)

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI): "[I] Do Believe [Your 2005 Confirmation Testimony] Was Materially Misleading. But I Am Even More Concerned About The Credibility Of Your Administration." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)

Sen. Feingold: "You Wanted This Committee And The American People To Think That This Kind Of Program Was Not Going On. But It Was And You Knew That. And I Think That's Unacceptable." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): "[T]he Bush Administration [Did] Not Seek Broader Legal Authority, It Kept Its Very Existence Of This Illegal Wiretapping Program Completely Secret ..." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)

Sen. Leahy: "[T]he Press Caught You Violating The Statute With This Secret Wiretapping Of Americans Without Warrants." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)

Some Dems Even Want Bush Administration To Expand Terrorist Surveillance Program:

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE): "[I] Don't Understand Why You Would Limit Your Eavesdropping Only To Foreign Conversations ... It's Only Emanating From A Foreign Country, Correct? ... Why Limit It To That?" (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)

Sen. Biden: "Well, The President Said He'd Do Everything Under The Law To Prevent Another 9/11. The Communications That Occurred Within This Country, Not Outside This Country, Which, In Fact, Brought About 9/11 Would Not Be Captured By The President's Efforts Here." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI): "Just To Go Back To What Senator Biden ... Referred To About Al Qaida-To-Al Qaida Within The Country, You're Saying We Do Not Get Involved In Those Calls ... To Those Of Us Who Are Listening, That's Incomprehensible." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)

Sen. Kohl: "If You Would Go Al Qaida-To-Al Qaida Outside The Country ... But You Would Not Intrude Into Al Qaida-To-Al Qaida Within The Country ... There's Something That Unfathomable About That Remark." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)

"When we broke the Jap code and used it to win the Battle of Midway, we didnt get a warrant for spying. Was that wrong???"

"Of course not. Were Japanese agents calling spies in the USA? Probably, and I'm sure we intercepted some of them."

And it would be strange indeed if the US army had to get court orders on any transmissions on US soil to Japanese contacts.

This is the issue. The Dems see this as a 'law enforcement' issue, and many of us see this is a wartime powers issue.
The President is well within rights to do this under the latter powers, and this is clearly not purely 'law enforcement' since what we are doing is preventing the next crime, not solving the last one.

"Please also remember that we put Japanese nationals in detention camps, legally."

It wasnt right then and wouldnt be legal now, USSC Korematsu decision was wrong.

"Why haven't we done that to Muslims here today? Do you think that would be legal now??"

No. Do you?

That's a bit of a red herring to bring up vis a vis a very limited, focussed, justified, not-very-instrusive program that is picking up information from those who talk to suspected terrorists.

Gore called the NSA program a 'massive domestic wiretap program'. Well, it's not massive, it's not domestic, and it's not really wiretapping. but other than that, he has it pegged.

This is the issue. The Dems see this as a 'law enforcement' issue, and many of us see this is a wartime powers issue.

I agree. But I'm having a hard time grasping the follow-through, the "action" that is taken to stop attacks. Will the military come on the scene with the information gathered? Will the suspects be ushered off to military brigs and subjected to military trials? Or will even those formalities be dispensed with?

If there is arrest, detention and trial other than military, i.e., ending up in court, then one bumps into evidentiary issues and the 4th amendment.

I can imagine the same sort of jumbled up situation with regard to surveillance that we now have with detention, Hamdi, Hamdan, Padilla, Rasul, etc.

Or is it better that Congress and the Courts forgo interaction with the President on this? Why bother with laws and judges, eh?

Some people - including many conservatives and Republicans - are saying that we should be getting warrants to do so as the FISA law requires.

President Bush tried that but the Clinton appointed judges on the FISA courts denied him those wire tapping warrants.

Even the FISA courts have been corrupted by the Clintons.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.