Posted on 02/18/2006 11:38:10 AM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, breaking ranks with the president on domestic eavesdropping, says he wants a special court to oversee the program.
But less than a day later, a top aide to Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., sought to clarify his position.
Roberts told The New York Times that he is concerned that the secret court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act could not issue warrants as quickly as the monitoring program requires. But he is optimistic that the problem could be worked out.
"You don't want to have a situation where you have capability that doesn't work well with the FISA court, in terms of speed and agility and hot pursuit," Roberts said Friday.
While he didn't know how such a process would work, Roberts also said the much-discussed National Security Agency program "should come before the FISA court."
Roberts was not available on Saturday. The Senate Intelligence Committee's majority staff director, Bill Duhnke, said the Times story didn't reflected "the tenor and status" of the negotiations between Congress and the White House, as well as within Congress.
Duhnke said Roberts is looking at changes within the federal law but not necessarily involving the approval of the court.
"The senator remains open to a number of legislative and oversight options," Duhnke said Saturday. "His preference is always that the entire (intelligence) committee be briefed and involved in oversight issues. He also realizes that, as you negotiate between the branches, that isn't always possible."
Duhnke said Roberts hopes that during this negotiation process that all sides can be accommodated.
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 (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio.
White House officials have said their bar for agreeing to any legislative changes would be high. They have signaled they are open only to legislation that would "further codify" in law the authority the president insists he already has without Congress' approval, something officials believe would be accomplished with DeWine's proposal.
Bush also has been cool to expansive debate about the program, saying Friday that the discussion going on now is "too bad, because guess who listens to the discussion? The enemy."
Roberts has defended Bush's program, which was revealed by the Times in a story in December. Bush says the program to monitor electronic communication between the United States and international sites involving suspected al-Qaida operatives is vital to anti-terrorism efforts.
On Thursday, Roberts said he and the White House had agreed to give lawmakers more information on the nature of the program and that the administration had committed to making changes to the FISA law. At the same time, he delayed a Democratic effort to call for an investigation of the program.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., makes a statement after the committee met in a closed session on Thursday, Feb. 16, 2006 on Capitol Hill in Washington. Roberts said he has worked out an agreement with the White House to change U.S. law regarding the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program and provide more information about it to Congress. (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)
I asked this before. WHY would we let the FISA Court decide if the FISA Court should be able to trump a Presidents Constitutional Authority? What group in Washington ever said they had no jurisdiction over something?
The Congress whines about not having oversight and then they pass it off to a secret court to run the war because the Congress doesn't want the responsibility of knowing what is going on.
If they're incapable of doing an honest job, why should we vote for any of these incompetents?
It's so typical. They write fuzzy laws and rely on the courts to decide their true meaning. Being in Congress means always ducking the hard decisions. That's what happens when your number one priority is getting reelected vs. defending and upholding the Constitution.
Everytime a special committee or special panel is formed the participants are paid. So it's costing us, the taxpayer more money. None of these committees and panels operate for free, and the members demand a hefty price to "serve".
What are you talking about? Are you high?
And for the above posters who obviously advocate a single-branch government, your outrage should be directed at the US constitution, not necesarily at those who are trying to keep relevant the offices they were elected to.
The President could have a halo above his head and wings under his jacket, but I still wouldn't advocate unchecked presidential authority.
I for one cannot figure out why a member of Congress believes that he himself can be an expert on a given topic. Just what qualifications does he have? Being elected makes him an expert?
Letting the courts take over will get us all killed.We will have to spend all our time worrying about the stupid rights of diaperheads.
"... that all sides can be accommodated."
Hmmmm? I wonder if one of the sides is THE PROTECTION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM THE TERRORISTS!!
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.