Sometimes I wish I was a powerful politician, because then, if I was doing something and found out it might be illegal, rather than stopping my behavior, Iwould just craft legislation making it legal:
The plan by Senate Republicans to step up oversight of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program would also give legislative sanction for the first time to long-term eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant, legal experts said on Wednesday.
Civil liberties advocates called the proposed oversight inadequate and the licensing of eavesdropping without warrants unnecessary and unwise. But the Republican senators who drafted the proposal said it represented a hard-wrung compromise with the White House, which strongly opposed any Congressional interference in the eavesdropping program.
The Republican proposal appeared likely to win approval from the full Senate, despite Democratic opposition and some remaining questions from Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas and chairman of the Intelligence Committee, emphasized in an interview on Wednesday the White House’s resistance to any limits on what President Bush considers his inherent power to order surveillance of potential terrorists on American soil.
“There was a lot of pushback,” Mr. Roberts said. “So we kept saying, I am sorry, that is not acceptable, and the reality is such that you will either do this or you will face bigger obstacles and we will get into confrontation.”
The negotiations that produced a deal on the eavesdropping program left Senate Democrats fuming on the sidelines, adding to the partisan squabbling on the Intelligence Committee that longtime observers of Congress say is unprecedented.
That is an interesting definition of compromise. The administration is going to keep on doing exactly what they were doing in the past- where exactly was the compromise?
Again- I am not commenting on whether or not the actions are a good thing or a bad thing- that is not the issue for me at the moment. What I find bothersome is that the ‘compromise’ appears to have been made without the debate.
*** Update ***
DOH! Should probably read my own damned website- Tim has already commented about this. When I looked at the last posts in the editor panel I thought they were his posts from yesterday.
Tim F.
Piffle. Everybody’s been waiting to hear what you think.
searp
This is a coverup, by definition. The issue is whether the program is legal. A determination of legality is made in a court. No defender of the program has ever, to my knowledge, suggested judicial review as a method of dealing with the controversy.
It is, of course, completely unclear what the administration was doing and what it will be doing. The program could have been changed at any point in its history and nobody would be the wiser.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if this were simply a tactic to neuter potential congressional opposition. Brief them in, then if something leaks, investigate them. No leaks, great, no info and everything goes away. I am surprised they don’t brief the entire Congress.
Darrell
When the NY Times characterizes an NSA program which targets FOREIGN enemies as a “domestic surveillance program”, shouldn’t that raise just an inkling of skepticism?
Steve
When Darrell characterizes an NSA program which listens to conversations of domestic persons as a “program which targets FOREIGN enemies,” shouldn’t that raise just an inkling of skepticism?
RobertL
This helps the Republicans in Congress and Bush avoid the overriding issue in this whole mess – our Dear Leader’s claim of unrestricted powers as commander in chief. Perhaps the so-called oversight implies limitation but it allows Bush to continue to claim unchallenged those powers.
Bob In Pacifica
Look, a month ago Gonzales refused to answer whether or not BushCo were doing black bag jobs. And then he sent a letter saying that he may not had told the truth about some things.
These are the people who brought you torture as an American value.
I lived through the Nixon Administration. Spying on the American public, through illegal wiretaps or break into people’s homes, is not an impossibility.
And, no, Darrell, even if you THINK you’re not doing anything that’ll upset the king, you still may be dragged out into the street as an example.
Time for the Demos to stop the business of the Senate again. And again.
slickdpdx
this comes up for in trials for one side or the other all the time. if a majority can agree on something, that means something – even if you are sure the outcome should have been different! i’m not saying that the mojority is always right. only that there is some wisdom you have to account for when you make your next argument.
don surber
“Sometimes I wish I was a powerful politician, because then, if I was doing something and found out it might be illegal, rather than stopping my behavior, Iwould just craft legislation making it legal”
It is called legislation, John. In a representative democracy if a minority says something is “illegal” but the majority thinks it should be legal, guess what? It is legalized!
Marijuana proponents have been trying to do this for years, even decades.
The new law clarifies an area muddied by piss-poor reporting by NYT and overkill by the usual suspects.
Yes I WANT demand that the NSA listens in on al-Qaeda phone calls, screens al-Qaeda’s email and otherwise makes life hell for al-Qaeda to communicate. And when Hillary is elected, I want her to get the NSA to do these things as well
don surber
Bob in Pacifica:
Big difference between political spying and what is going on here. We tried fighting terrorism as a crime. That led to embassy bombings in 1998, Cole in 2000 and 9/11/2001
Fighting it as a war has led to … Hmm. Either we have been extremely lucky or this works
BTW, try mentioning JFK’s bugging of MLK sometime. Costs you nothing (both men are dead) and makes you look less partisan. Kind of silly to talk about broad constitutional issues by pretending only the Democrats protect rights, especially for those of us who remember LBJ.
J. Edgar worked for a variety of presidents, my friend
searp
Don: the issue is not what you want. The issue is whether the program is legal under our laws or not. Why do you persist in treating this as a partisan issue? I asked you before: do you believe judicial (you know, where legal things are decided) review of this program is required?
zzyzx
The issue isn’t eavesdropping on Al Queda, it’s that if there’s no judicial oversight, how do we know who they’re really spying on?
don surber
The issue is settled, Searp, and I believe judiciously. The review by Congress makes sense to me. Not partisan. I apologize if I sounded partisan.
searp
I don’t think briefings constitute a review, nor do I think that briefing a political body is a legal review. The courts were created to decide legal questions, I say let them decide.
The Sanity Inspector
There’s an old Bill Mauldin cartoon from the early Sixties, showing Attorney General Bobby Kennedy in earphones and twirling a wire. “If we legalize wiretapping,” he says, “It will end illegal wiretapping.” It’s in the book I’ve Decided I Want My Seat Back.
The Disenfranchised Voter
You don’t sound partisan don, you just sound like an authoritarian asswipe.
Personally, I’d rather sound partisan.