G.O.P. Senators Say Accord Is Set on Wiretapping (WH caves on resistance to Congressional oversight)

NY Times ^ | 3/8/06 | DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and SCOTT SHANE

[frankjr]

Moving to tamp down Democratic calls for an investigation of the administration's domestic eavesdropping program, Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that they had reached agreement with the White House on proposed bills to impose new oversight but allow wiretapping without warrants for up to 45 days.

The two [Hagel and Snowe], both Republicans, had threatened to support a fuller inquiry if the White House did not disclose more about the program to Congress.

The proposed legislation would create a seven-member "terrorist surveillance subcommittee" and require the administration to give it full access to the details of the program's operations.

The measure would require the administration to seek a warrant from the court whenever possible.

If the administration elects not to do so after 45 days, the attorney general must certify that the surveillance is necessary to protect the country and explain to the subcommittee why the administration has not sought a warrant. The attorney general would be required to give an update to the subcommittee every 45 days.

It is not clear whether all the Republican critics will back the deal. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said Congress should seek a court ruling on the legitimacy of the program in addition to new oversight.

He [Specter] said he put the administration "on notice" he might seek to block its financing if Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales did not give more information.

[frankjr]

A new Congressional subcommittee is setup to help run war operations. That should make for some nimble decision making in a time of war. Oh well, I guess thanks to the unknown leaker of this NSA program, let's call him "Rockefeller", it doesn't matter so much anymore anyway.

[cricket]

Repubs have required that this 'accord' includes mandatory, daily lie-detector tests of all Demrats who are briefed on any and all security measures. . .right?

If not; this is another failed initiative and Repubs and America will be the worse for it.

[LibLieSlayer]

This headline is misleading. What actually happened was oversight (for this NSA program) was previously 4 persons, and now stands at 17. dims wanted massive investigation (as was the plan in their "leaked" memo's last year) to bring down the President. The Republicans shut them down with this compromise. dims lost, but the lsm will never print that... will they?

LLS

[YOUGOTIT]

Sorry no good anti-Americna in the US Senate. They are responsible for any attack of the terrorist on the United States. They are scum and have tossed their support behind the other traitors in the US senate. We the people need to take their power away and to repeal the 17th amendment so that we can get some real Americans in the US Senate and not this bunch of dumb ass anti-American trash.

[Cboldt]

A new Congressional subcommittee is setup to help run war operations.

Or in the alternative, act as a court by impressing its imprimatur on individual warrantless wiretaps.

... The measure would require the administration to seek a warrant from the [FISA] court whenever possible.

If the administration elects not to do so after 45 days, the attorney general must certify that the surveillance is necessary to protect the country and explain to the subcommittee why the administration has not sought a warrant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/politics/08nsa.html

[bobsunshine]

A little misleading title; Now read this from the NYT and the Post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1580166/posts

From the Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701321.html

[frankjr]

I wonder what happens when after 45 days the AG wants to continue surveillence without a warrant and this new subcommittee disagrees with him? Threats of a full investigation again? Demand the Administration goes to the FISA court? Leak to the NYT?

[sgtbono2002]

I will support Lt. Gov. Steele this year in his run for Maryland Senator, but the GOP is going to come up short when they send out their donation requests here this time.

[Cboldt]

I wonder what happens when after 45 days the AG wants to continue surveillence without a warrant and this new subcommittee disagrees with him? Threats of a full investigation again? Demand the Administration goes to the FISA court? Leak to the NYT?

This issue is moving on multiple fronts. The "success" in the Intelligence Committee is by far not the end of this. I've been rooting around a little bit - did you know that: The Judiciary committee had a second round of hearings on Feb 28? That Gonzales sent a letter to Specter and Leahy on Feb 28 (answering questions raised in the first (Judiciary Committee) hearing? That Leahy prepared a HEATED response to Gonzales letter?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1587406/posts?page=29#29 and following posts have links and some details. I'm having a hard time coming up with easy links to the administration's side of the arguments - hence "my presentation" appears imbalanced. It emphatically is not meant to be imbalanced. At this point I'm just on a data search and dump.

[frankjr]

From Leahy's letter: "Our hearing today will be an academic panel discussion featuring commentators who have not witnessed or played any role in the program that they are discussing..."

I wonder if any of the so-called "academic's" testifying were also part of the group claiming the Solomon ammendment violated law schools first ammendment rights relating to military recruiting on campus. Of course those academics got smacked down 8-0 by the SCOTUS.

I think a full investigation of the NSA program would be good (with classified material only discussed in private session). WH for fighting the WOT and Dems fighting for terrorist rights. But even with hearings, what if in the end there is still disagreement.