Posted on 02/17/2006 3:01:50 PM PST by Phsstpok
Fox News Sunday (Chris Wallace)
NBC Meet The Press (Tim Russert)
CBS Face The Nation (Bob Schieffer)
ABC This Week (George Stephanopoulos)
CNN Late Edition (Wolf Blitzer)
I would particularly ask that anyone with specific knowledge or resources about the topics / guests announced for these shows post them here so that the rest of us can go into the shows with a heads up on what to look for. For example, Will anyone bring up Andrew McCarthy's complete destruction of George Will's column about the legality of the NSA program?
I agree that the Katrina subject will be covered extensively this weekend...but the NSA thing will also.
Did you see Sen.DeWine on Brit's show last night??
He is the one that is suggesting that the NSA programs stay as it is, without having to have further hearing and legislation, that would further "out" classified information.
I think he is advocating a separate "Congressional board" that would have 6 members from each party to get regular updates about who/what/when/where/how...
Funny, how HE isn't a guest on any of these shows.
No. That was a cloture vote on whether or not to take up S.2271 (USA PATRIOT Act Amendment) for debate. Now the Act is up for debate, and a cloture vote on the bill is scheduled for the week the Senate returns from recess, sepcifically Tuesday, February 28. A vote on the bill (good bet that cloture will pass) is scehduled for March 1st.
This [NSA terrorist surveillance] is emerging as a major behind the scenes fight between Congress and the executive.
There's plenty of fighting in the open too ;-) I don't think it's unhealthy, which puts me in a distinct minority among FReepers.
At any rate, I think the Sunday shows will be yawner again this week. Thanks for your prequel work - it's invaluable.
I think the vote on Thursday re: the Patriot Act was just a vote NOT to have it filibustered.
They are scheduled for a cloture vote on Tuesday..and then a final passage vote after that.
After listening to hearing after hearing about the Katrina response...I got the distinct feeling that all this was, was an EGO STROKE for the Congresscritters, in being able to point fingers at others, BUT, since they are the ones to establish Homeland Security...and include FEMA as a part of HS, instead of its own entity...
THEY need some fingers pointed back at themselves...AND their stubborn intent to make this a FED problem FIRST, rather than a city, county, state problem that failed so completely, that by the time the FEDS could LEGALLY do their jobs...it was past a time of "prevention"...and onto "rescue"...
Chertoff is going to be a "whipping boy" on all of the shows tomorrow, but, he is only the one they are USING to get to Bush, who ISN'T on the shows.
I see a lot of "good" in the "fighting" about this...
but, I read on another thread that Peter Hoekstra feels that the NSA program is already dead...that what has already been revealed has effectively made it useless.
Therefore, all of this argueing and posturing, will be more for the "future" and the definition of Presidential powers as written in the Constitution, or it should be..IMHO.
Yikes....I just heard Fred Barnes, on the Beltway Boys say that he likes David Gregory...and even laughed and acted like Gregory did a good job ...
NOW, they are discussing the Peggy Noonan column...Mort disputing Peggy's theory that this would be a good time to replace Cheney...Fred saying that this would be the WORST thing for Bush to do...and that personally, he feels that Cheney is the best Vice President this country has had for years and years...
I didn't see the program. I'm sure that no Senator will propose an activity that "outs classified information." The differences between the various approaches are how stern to get with the President (accusatory Commission or "work with the administration"?), who will provide oversight (if any) in advance of surveillance (courts or self-policed by administration? - will Congress review the program and compose legislation that legitimizes the disclosed activity?), and what will the form of oversight be (if any) post-facto (Courts on a periodic review? Courts on a case by case basis? Reports to Congress?).
There will be a question about what is enough "probable cause" to justify surveillance, and I think that question will only be answered on a case-by-case basis, post facto, by the courts. The enemy combatant detention cases are a prelude to the inevitable -- assuming there will be a criminal prosecution that depends on the terrorist surveillance program for probable cause.
Roberts told the Times that he does not believe much support exists among lawmakers for exempting the program from the control of the FISA court. That is the approach Bush has favored and one that would be established under a bill proposed by Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio.http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/02/18/ap2537282.html
I haven't found a statement by DeWine or the WH that particularly describes his approach. I think it's a mistake to put this "Constitutionality" question in the hands of Congress, because the Courts will second guess the decision at some point in the future. Better to have the Courts second guessing each other. That is, I don't think a Congressional "it's okay" would provide the kind of judicial certainty that ALL the government players seek.
Yet again, you have me trumped with great points...
When reading your post, I was reminded of the attempts Congress has made to make "partial birth abortion" illegal...and yet a judge somewhere is constantly calling those laws unconstitutional...so, it seems that Congress does have a problem with their law writing in judicial circles anyway.
I saw that weasel Wesley Clark on Fox this afternoon, and he was asked about Kofi Annen's call for Gitmo to be closed down...
Wesley says that these detainees are a world wide problem, and that they should be tried in an International Court...and taken out of American jurisdiction..
Wouldn't that put the troops that captured them in danger of liability through and International Court...a court that President Bush does NOT subscribe to??
Yes and, on first viewing, it bothered me. The premise that Congress or a court must grant the authority for the President to intercept communications from a foreign power to someone in the US is, frankly, insane!
What I have come to understand since then is that DeWine is NOT proposing such a requirement, but instead is offering a mechanism where Congress' fragile egos can be salved in the form of a select committee (with staff) who the administration (whatever administration) must report any program like the NSA surveillance to (report to, not get premission from).
On balance it sounds like a good compromise, dropping the "gang of eight," whom Bush has already reported to under existing legislation, for the "gang of six" from a joint committee, and that sounds like a good thing. Then Roberts throws a monkey wrench into the mix by suggesting that the administration must get permission from yet another FISA like judicial body.
Suddenly DeWine strikes me as leadership material...
I never bought the argument that disclosure of a shift in legal policy caused a shift in methods of hiding communications.
BUT, I would buy that disclosure of the program put political pressure on the President to the extent he unilaterally decided to stop it. Might as well blame the leaker for the stopage. OTOH, if the program is effective and legal, it would be irresponsible to stop it. Since the administration is dug in on the "it's legal" point, the only way it can stop, and safe face, is to assert "no longer effective."
Therefore, all of this arguing and posturing, will be more for the "future" and the definition of Presidential powers as written in the Constitution, or it should be..IMHO.
The Constitution is brief, so the legal parameters are fleshed out in case-by-case decisions. See the old cases on habeas, now coming out of the woodwork for use in the war against terrorists. There's a whole body of case law waiting to be written for this new kind of war.
I saw Tony Snow interviewing Heather Wilson, the Arizona or New Mexico Republican representative, who is a member of the House Intelligence Committee, but NOT in the elite 8...
She is the one with her nose WAY out of joint, and demanded an investigation by the whole House...
Tony tried his best to get her to acknowledge that the fewer the people that are privvy to the actual operational components of this, the better....but, she balked...by saying that the Intelligence Committee in the House has knowledge of all kinds of classified information and hasn't leaked them...
She would NOT be appeased...trust me....she has her panties in a major wad...and I don't think she even cares what consequences may come from this...which makes me even more mad in her case...because I believe she is ex-military.
"Theres a whole body of case law to be written for this new kind of war"....
Boy, is that right....and it should be interesting, while maddening at times as well.
Do YOU think that the POTUS has the Constitutional right to wiretap the foreign calls to or from the USA??
There is a simple response to folks like Heather Wilson. And it is irrefutable:
Alcee Hastings is a Democrat member of the House Intelligence Committee.
Done deal. Not an option (unless we are allowed a firing squad as part of all Committee hearings).
And the premise that "the Intelligence Committee in the House has knowledge of all kinds of classified information and hasn't leaked them" is laughable on its face. This statement, in and of itself, should cause her removal from the committee.
Republican or not, she is an idiot.
One "catty" note....I had to watch her interview muted with closed captioning, because she has one of the most irritating voices in Congress...
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - Lineup By: Mark Kilmer · Section: Other Politics
For Sunday, February 19, 2006Meet the Press (NBC): Host Tim Russert will talk to Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff.
FOX News Sunday: Host Chris Wallace has Senators Lindsey Graham and Evan Bayh to discuss Birdshot-gate and Katrina. Former Senator Alan Simpson, Republican of Dick Cheney's home State of Wyoming, will be on to discuss the veep.
Face the Nation (CBS): Host Bob Schieffer chat with Senators Bill Frist and Babs Boxer, bringing in Elizabeth Bumiller (New York Times) to help him ask questions.
This Week (ABC): Host George Stephanopoulos will chat with Chertoff then with Senator Joe Lieberman and Chairman Tom Davis of the House Katrina Committee.
Late Edition (CNN): Host Wolf Blitzer will have Chertoff, Senator Saxby Chambliss of the Senate Intel Committee and Dem Rep. Jane Harman of House Intel. Plus, of course, his usual cast of thousands.
-----Why can't I see anything notable coming from Russert and Chertoff? It will be interesting to see if Evan Bayh, thinking ahead to 2008, will continue his slow crawl toward hysteria. We haven't heard from Saxby for a while, and it will be interesting to see where Harman comes down this week.
The review of the shows will be live here at RedState.com tomorrow at some time around 2p ET.
Congress (both state and Federal versions) are too reluctant to use their power to impeach the judges. One of the reasons I don't like Gonzales is his decision while on the TX Supreme court in one of the parental notification cases. By construing statutory language in a certain way, they caused the statute to lose its intended effect. The statute stands, it wasn't struck down, but it's effectively gutted, and wrongly so.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1440372/posts?page=45#45
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1441076/posts?page=14#14
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507174/posts?page=267#267
Congress need not "take it" if a judge rules against the will of the people as expressed in statutory law. Things get much more intense though, when the issue is framed in Constitutional terms - as it is with balance of powers and executive action vs. the rights of the people as expressed in the Constitution.
All those "old" surveillance cases that you see cited? Truong, Keith, Katz? They touch on that battleground, and they are much more complex that the cherry-picked cites that are so popularly quoted. A unanimous Supreme Court TOSSED evidence in the Keith case! The decision is also a likely force that encouraged FISA legislation.
Really neat stuff, seeing how our three branches of government tussle and negotiate.
Wesley says that these detainees are a world wide problem, and that they should be tried in an International Court...and taken out of American jurisdiction..
Wouldn't that put the troops that captured them in danger of liability through and International Court...a court that President Bush does NOT subscribe to??
I'm against International Court as a matter of preserving national sovereignty.
You bring up an interesting question too, that being the role of the agent who brings the accused to the court. I think NATO brought Milosevic to International Court, and as a general matter, LEO and military actors aren't likely to have personal liability for their actions under lawful orders. In short, I wouldn't worry about troops liability, regardless of which court they tender their captures to.
Should be an interesting Sunday AM. I see the odds are stacked, once again, against President Bush.
Add me to your ping list, please.
I do not think he has the power per se. And he isn't asserting a power, per se. He qualifies the activity as ALWAYS involving a suspect.
This gets to the point I asked you about a couple weeks ago -- what is the planned USE of the information? At some point, it has to be useful to put into ACTION. It's pure waste to listen for the sake of listening.
I've said from the start, we don't have enough information about the legal policies of the program to asses its constitutionality. Depending on one's assumptions, my opinion/conclusion can come out on one side or the other.
And I honestly think that if we know bad guys, suspects, that we ought to be surveilling them in-country even more earnestly than we watch their international communications. Once on the ground here, they can hurt us!
I see the odds are stacked, once again, against President Bush.
That, my friend, is a given
I just read your post with the link to Keith...
Even though they ruled against the Attorney General in that case, they seemed to purposely make the case of it "domestic" intelligence...
I did find this quote, by Chief Justice Hughes, interesting:
"Civil liberties, as guaranteed by the Constitution, imply the existence of an organized society maintaining public order without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of unrestrained abuses".
Chief Justice Hughes
Cox v. New Hampshire
1941
I know that ultimately, this was discounted in this case, but if you picture a Taliban type government overthrowing our government, by using our system of protecting civil liberties in their quest to overtake us...it makes one wonder at the risk vs. precedent.
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.