GOP Rep. Heather Wilson Calls for NSA Probe

NewsMax ^ | 2/8/06

[areafiftyone]

The Republican chairwoman of the House subcommittee charged with overseeing the National Security Agency announced her own misgivings with the Bush administration’s controversial terrorist surveillance program Tuesday and called for a full congressional inquiry into the matter.

The congresswoman, Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., is chair of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence.

With the announcement, she became the first Republican on an Intelligence Committee, from either the House or Senate, to call for a full investigation.

Wilson told the New York Times that she had "serious concerns,” arising, at least partially, from the fact that the administration has withheld information about the operation from lawmakers.

Though Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday, the inquiry was limited to the legal justifications for the operation and did not reach operational detail. The administration has also met frequently with the Gang of Eight – a group that includes party leaders in the House and Senate, and both intelligence committees.

But Wilson said continued limited briefings were "increasingly untenable.”

Vice President Cheney explained the administration’s reticence to discuss operational details of the program in an interview Tuesday on "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”

"It’s important for us,” he said, "if we’re going to proceed legislatively, to keep in mind there’s a price to be paid for that, and it might well in fact do irreparable damage to our capacity to collect information.”

[kajingawd]

;)

[montag813]

She's in danger of losing her New Mexico house seat.

Well I am going do whatever I can to make sure she does. Stupid bitch. God forbid she wants to probe the leakers!

[Stajack]

Congresswoman Wilson's other votes mean nothing. SHE'S WRONG ON THIS ONE. Now that she's gotten her way, it's just a matter of time until one of her colleagues completely ruins the NSA Program by leaking more info to the press. And I rather doubt that the Congresswoman will be taking to the cameras to ASSUME RESPONSIBILTY AFTER THE NEXT ATTACK. In that event, it will be the President's failed national security program, 100%

[dennisw]

Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right

[HawaiianGecko]

 

"I agree it's not a question of being any RINO overall, though I would say this: on a matter of the most critical national importance, with the 'Rats and MSM working overtime to dishonestly harm the WH and the country on this issue, Rep. Wilson (and Senator SPECTRE) have given the 'Rats cover to claim their assault is not the scummy partisan maneuvering that everyone knows it to be."

Now, I'm of the opinion the Democrats will gain the most ground by NOT having hearings. They can say anything they want and the MSM will print whatever they say. However, it's hard to cover up actual testimony in a hearing as witnessed with AG Gonzales on Monday. Fox, MSNBC and CNN all showed live coverage of the C-Span feed.

True not everyone gets cable. Probably more people don't even pay attention to the news at all. But in my opinion this will work out very good for the GOP in the long run as it gives us a great tool to maintain the line that the Democrats are weak on security.

This of course all hinges on my belief that the President is doing nothing illegal, mind you. If he is then all bets are off.  I'm a proponent of a strong executive and I have believed for the last 30 years that congress has weakened the office of the President. I view this argument as a debate in favor of the executive and I believe it will win politically and legally.  Even if it turns out the NSA is doing something illegal, I still believe it is a political winner.

Look at the Democrats on Monday. Nearly all of them on the Judiciary Committee including the loudmouths like Durbin and Schumer were saying they'd be happy to make changes and give the President the authority to do what he is doing. Why would they do that if they didn't know they are in deep do-do?

Lastly, Wilson isn't trying to embarrass the President or hurt national security. She has made a political calculation and I'm sure she didn't make it in a vacuum.  What would she have to gain if she were to demonstrate that the top of her party is breaking the law?  Does she think the Dems will not run a candidate against her in November just because she started an investigation? 

Her thinking would have to be: it will make me look good and if the President gets impeached over it, there will be no political backwash and the people of NM will keep me a Republican in the house.  Her other thought might be, hey if we investigate and the President turns out to be a national hero, I can say I threw sunlight on it.

[Thickman]

I got a call from Wilson's campaign tonight and I told the caller that my support was in serious review after her Spector-like performance today. To think that I was one of the ward chairmen that helped her get the GOP nomination in her first special election - aargh!

[Just A Nobody]

got a call from Wilson's campaign tonight

What a coincidence! Were you aware of the Republican Mainstreet Partnership when you worked on her campaign?

[oceanview]

she certainly should not chair this subcommittee. the leadership needs to replace her, she is not fit to hold this position.

[roses of sharon]

Well, she just made an appearance on Keith Olberman tonite.

That seals it for me, she is just another liberal media whore.

[Just A Nobody]

Oh, but they say that the Soros money was returned. *cough*

[p23185]

Well except for the 8 top bipartisian positions that were repeatedly briefed (15 people total with turnover). Geez, why might the President want to keep a top secret program involved his Constitutional right to surveil the enemy to a limited group? She is just pissed that she in on an intel subcommittee and didn't know about it. Boo hoo.

You mean the Admin TRIED to keep it top secret. My opinion is the leak is right there on the Hill. I would refuse to tell them any more until someone is brought to justice for leaking TOP SECRET information all over the streets of NY and DC.

[Just A Nobody]

Yikes! You watch Keith?

Did she divulge any national secrets during her appearance?

[roses of sharon]

Unfortunately I was surfing, and spotted her.

She just kept repeating how this was her "job", you know, "oversite".

I wonder where her oversighten' skills were before 9/11, when she and her colleagues were supposed to make sure we had good intell laws?

[Just A Nobody]

I wonder if ANY of the CONgress critters have ever read the constitution...other than KKK Byrd, that is.

[oggy]

It is not an issue of spying on Al Quieda everyone agrees that this should be done. The issue is if the administration is spying on Americans then a warrant is needed. This they have not done and have not released the details of who they have been spying on. Thus they could be spying on you or me or their political opponents or journalists at the moment we do not know who has been spied upon.

This is the issue not about spying on Al Quieda but on spying on American citizens without a warrant that can be obtained 72 hours after the wire tap has happened.

[Boot Hill]

oggy:   "The issue is if the administration is spying on Americans then a warrant is needed."

That is simply incorrect.

That was never made more clear than it was in the Truong case. Truong, a U.S. resident alien, and Humphrey, a U.S. citizen and an employee of the USIA, conspired to commit espionage by delivering confidential government documents to the communist government of Vietnam from 1976 to 1977. In this case, the court held that the intercepts did not require a warrant since both defendants were acting as agents of a foreign power and thus the intercepts were a legitimate exercise of foreign national security intelligence gathering.

Note that in Truong, both the origin and destination of the intercepted calls were within the United States. Note also, that both defendants were U.S. residents, and in Humphrey's case, a U.S. citizen, as well. Yet the court held that these were foreign national security intercepts and thus they didn't require a warrant.

[spintreebob]

If the administration is spying on Americans then a warrant is needed.

You have drunk the kool-aid. Two points:

Read the 4th. Only unreasonable searches are prohibited. The Supremes have consistently held many types of search and seizure to be reasonable (over the objections of libertarians like me as to stretching what is reasonable. For example, the police are allowed to set up a roadblock on the highway and check if I am DUI or wearing a seatbelt or not, with no "probable cause".

But Supremes have declared it unreasonable for the police to watch a tavern parking lot, observe people stumble from the tavern to their car, have trouble putting the key in the ignition, and then the police stop them on the public highway for suspicion of DUI.

I disagree with the Supremes about what is reasonable or unreasonable?. But there is no disagreement about what the yardstick is and it has nothing to do with "warrants" which is a separate topic.

It is the intentional changing of the subject by the Dimocrats that is the essence of the current debate. They can't win on the real issue. So they put up bogus arguments.

Do you buy the switch of the Dimocrats and drink their kool-aid?

There is a 2d (and narrow) point. The Supremes have (correctly) held that there is no expectation of privacy to radio waves (unlike wired telephones). The 4th amendment does not apply to radio waves because those radio waves are not "person, houses, papers, and effects".

[Kimberly GG]

Any thoughts on how these briefings and the leaks that are sure to come because of it will affect the importance of the investigation and outcome into who leaked (Rockefeller/staff) this classified information to the NY Times in the first place?

Dems (Rockefeller) have made light of the original leak of classified information because of the number of statements/clarifications made by Bush and Administration themselves on this program since the 'whistle was blown'.

[Eva]

There is an editorial in the WSJ that calls for an end of FISA. We can only hope that this is what Heather Wilson has in mind.

[auboy]

How many of us trust our three members of Congress? I only trust one of mine.