Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NSA EAVESDROPPING: Senate deal with White House violates Constitution
Salt Lake Tribune ^ | March 10, 2006 | Editorial

Posted on 03/12/2006 6:10:32 PM PST by Cboldt

When the Bush administration launched its secret, warrantless eavesdropping program on communications between the United States and foreign countries, it briefed eight members of Congress.

None of them raised public objections to this obvious threat to Americans' civil liberties under the Fourth Amendment. Now, Senate Republicans have cut a deal with the White House. In exchange for avoiding a full Senate inquiry into the eavesdropping, the White House has agreed to inform two seven-member "terrorist surveillance subcommittees" of Congress about the details of how the program works.

We don't see that this is much of an improvement. Before, there were eight members of Congress in the loop. Now there will be 14.

True, the so-called "Gang of Eight" didn't get the details about what the nation's electronic spies at the National Security Agency were doing. Supposedly, the new subcommittees will. They also can bring members of their staff into the process. In addition, the Bush administration reportedly has agreed to seek warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court whenever possible.

Apparently, however, the NSA could conduct surveillance for 45 days without a warrant of any kind. If it decided to go beyond that period, the attorney general would have to certify that the warrantless snooping was necessary to protect the country and explain to the subcommittees why a warrant has not been sought. The attorney general would have to update this information every 45 days.

This is not reassuring. Remember, this would be the same same attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, who argues that Article II of the Constitution, which makes the president commander in chief of the armed forces, combined with the congressional resolution to fight the war on terror, is all the authority President Bush needed to launch warrantless eavesdropping on people in the United States. We don't buy that insupportable argument, and we don't believe any American who treasures civil liberties and the separation of powers should, either. Besides, the Constitution requires that warrants be obtained from the courts. We do not see how informing congressional committees that the NSA is violating the Fourth Amendment solves anything or holds the executive branch to the letter of the Constitution. It is the courts, not Congress, that decide probable cause and whether the law has been broken.

That's in the Constitution, too.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: 109th; homelandsecurity; nsa; spying; surveillance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last
This issue isn't going to "go quietly."
1 posted on 03/12/2006 6:10:35 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

But, it would HELP if these editorial writers would at least get it right---instead of making it seem that Americans are being eavesdropped on for no reason...and that is IS domestic.

Sure, fine, let's have a debate about the long term use/abuse of such a system...but, let's not impeach or Censure a sitting POTUS/CIC at a time of WAR...because he felt we had to do whatever it takes to prevent another attack here at home.

Besides, with the degree of judicial acitivism we have experienced...I am not so sure putting these decisions in the hands of non-elected judges is necessarily the best way either, do you??


2 posted on 03/12/2006 6:15:27 PM PST by Txsleuth (Bush-Bot;WaterBucket Brigader;and fan of defconw)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
With the same BS spin also...


3 posted on 03/12/2006 6:16:07 PM PST by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

These people have no clue that they will be the first ones up against the wall if we loose the global war on Islamo-fascism.


4 posted on 03/12/2006 6:16:55 PM PST by SubMareener (Become a monthly donor! Free FreeRepublic.com from Quarterly FReepathons!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
This issue isn't going to "go quietly."

I'm already starting to hear the crickets chirping.

5 posted on 03/12/2006 6:18:56 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

No one is paying attention to this nonsense except the leftists and the media. Let the dems in moderates states run on this issue and see how far they get.


6 posted on 03/12/2006 6:19:29 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

yes, but on this issue (unlike the ports issue) - public opinion is in a far different place.

the administration can (hopefully) stick to its guns and go toe to toe in the battle on this issue, and win the political battle here.


7 posted on 03/12/2006 6:19:31 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth
I am not so sure putting these decisions in the hands of non-elected judges is necessarily the best way either, do you?

Actually, on a case-by-case basis, I think the "third party approval" of searches is better in the hands of judges than in the hands of Congress.

But I also think the law that defines how far the President has to share his judgement is as subject to revision as any other law.

Not for you, but for those who don't read my general postings, I don't necessarily think the President has to get court approval for all searches or surveillance, or that FISA describes the ultimate boundary. I think the issue is unsettled.

8 posted on 03/12/2006 6:20:46 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
This is essentially a technical legal argument. For an editorial board to just make blanket conclusions on legality without referencing a single case is irresponsible and to use a simple word; ignorant.
9 posted on 03/12/2006 6:22:22 PM PST by don'tbedenied ( D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
The problem is the media. They will play this up as much as possible.

I don't think it is going away as long as the media has its way.

10 posted on 03/12/2006 6:22:23 PM PST by mware (A teacher of geography.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

The ENTIRE klinton admins. said "nothing to it, don't matter, fergit it, moveon", when the issue came re klinton listening in. Everyone is supposed to not remember that tho. Gorelick??? Ya there?


11 posted on 03/12/2006 6:27:45 PM PST by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
This issue isn't going to "go quietly."

Does it need to be handled only politically, or only legally, or both? Will Feingold's demand for sanctions precipitate anything more than publicity for him? I have only questions, no answers just now.

12 posted on 03/12/2006 6:30:38 PM PST by Bahbah (An admitted Snow Flake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Can you tell me under what authority a President is required to tell Congress anything about the program?


13 posted on 03/12/2006 6:30:41 PM PST by MNJohnnie (Are you not entertained? Are you NOT entertained? Is this not what you came here for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

I wonder if Feingold had a nudge from Rockefeller on his plan??

Rockefeller is SO MAD that Roberts won't agree to a major investigation...

I just hope that the investigation that the Justice Department has started into WHO leaked this information to the NY Times bears fruit soon....otherwise, this Censure attempt might get more attention than the "real crime" of the leak itself.


14 posted on 03/12/2006 6:33:55 PM PST by Txsleuth (Bush-Bot;WaterBucket Brigader;and fan of defconw)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

War is Hell.


15 posted on 03/12/2006 6:36:36 PM PST by Whispering Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah
Does it need to be handled only politically, or only legally, or both?

In the long run, I think it plays both in Congress and in the courts - with "in the courts" being a case-by-case issue.

"How was it that the government learned Mr. Wasabe was planning to ...(insert terrorist activity of your choice)?"

Will Feingold's demand for sanctions precipitate anything more than publicity for him?

He and Byrd are working the extreme end of the political spectrum, but even supporters of the surveillance are mindful that to be useful (in court), the surveillance is more likely to be accepted by a judge if Congress has agreed with the principle that constitutes the "cause" for investigation.

I have only questions, no answers just now.

Likewise. This and the enemy combatant detention cases are new ground for all of us.

16 posted on 03/12/2006 6:40:41 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth
I wonder if Feingold had a nudge from Rockefeller on his plan??

I think it's a distinct possibility. It seems to me that the Administration ought to have the means to play some serious hardball with people like Rockefeller, but it just doesn't seem to happen. I find that perplexing because Rockefeller and his ilk aren't just doing damage to the President, they are harming this country. Nobody stands up to this stuff and I just can't understand why.

17 posted on 03/12/2006 6:40:49 PM PST by Bahbah (An admitted Snow Flake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
spies at the National Security Agency


Like Sandy Berger?!


Berger pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material.


Who knows what else he did as National Security Advisor?!!! As if the MSM would ever ask the question about who he spied on!


Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger (born October 28, 1945) served as United States National Security Advisor to President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001.


I am sick of the double standard!

18 posted on 03/12/2006 6:42:15 PM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
No one is paying attention to this nonsense except the leftists and the media.


For some reason, people just don't seem to care if Bush is not crossing all T's and getting all I's dotted by spying on suspected domestic terrorists. People are funny that way, I guess. Or maybe they read the 911 Commission Report and what it had to say about wiretapping.
19 posted on 03/12/2006 6:45:28 PM PST by P-40 (http://www.590klbj.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=1854)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Speaking of the enemy combatent detention...

I have heard a couple of times today...stories about the US closing Gitmo...what is up with that??

Capitulation of Bush's part?? Fear of what could be exposed if they don't shut down? ( I doubt that, but you never know)? We know it isn't because the "war" is over.

In the same report...it said that Britain would want assurances that if the detainees were sent to the their "home countries" that they wouldn't be tortured.

I guess that is Britain's way of saying we AREN'T torturing them...which is good...but President Bush cannot make that assurance..which leads us to that ever faithful quote for people complaining about the conditions at Gitmo...and want it closed..

"Be careful what you wish for..."


20 posted on 03/12/2006 6:46:50 PM PST by Txsleuth (Bush-Bot;WaterBucket Brigader;and fan of defconw)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson