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.
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??
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.
I'm already starting to hear the crickets chirping.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think it is going away as long as the media has its way.
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?
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.
Can you tell me under what authority a President is required to tell Congress anything about the program?
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.
War is Hell.
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.
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.
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!
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..."
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.