Deal Reached, And Autonomous Authority Is Given Up
While I will agree that I do not mind the idea of oversight involving the NSA intercept program, I am reluctant to allow Congress that supposed right to oversee the executive in this manner. But, the New York Times has the piece up for the morning edition.
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 agreement, hashed out in weeks of negotiations between Vice President Dick Cheney and Republicans critical of the program, dashes Democratic hopes of starting a full committee investigation because the proposal won the support of Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine. The two, both Republicans, had threatened to support a fuller inquiry if the White House did not disclose more about the program to Congress.
"We are reasserting Congressional responsibility and oversight," Ms. Snowe said.
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.
Ms. Snowe said the panel would start work on Wednesday, and called it "the beginning, not the end of the process."
"We have to get the facts in order to weigh in," she said. "We will do more if we learn there is more to do."
The agreement would reinforce the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was created in 1978 to issue special warrants for spying but was sidestepped by the administration. 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.
Democrats called the deal an abdication of the special bipartisan committee's role as a watchdog, saying the Republicans had in effect blessed the program before learning how it worked or what it entailed.
"The committee is, to put it bluntly, basically under the control of the White House," said Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is vice chairman of the panel.
The House Intelligence Committee said last week that it would seek limited briefings for some panel members so that they could weigh changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but the Republican leaders of the House committee stopped far short of proposing the kind of continuing oversight and rules changes that the Senate committee has settled on. A spokeswoman for the White House, Dana Perino, called the Republican senators' proposal "a generally sound approach."
"We're eager to work with Congress on legislation that would further codify the president's authority," Ms. Perino said. "We remain committed to our principle, that we will not do anything that undermines the program's capabilities or the president's authority."
Republicans on the committee, however, emphasized the administration's resistance to the accord. Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the Intelligence Committee and helped broker the deal, called it "the agreement we insisted upon."
Ms. Snowe said the proposal had met "considerable reluctance" from the White House in negotiations.
The committee had scheduled a vote on a full investigation for Tuesday afternoon if there was no accord with the White House to disclose more about the program. As of midday, no resolution had been reached.
Mr. Hagel said the group worked out the last-minute deal in long telephone calls with Mr. Cheney; the White House counsel, Harriet E. Miers; and Stephen J. Hadley, the assistant to the president for national security.
The proposed bill would allow the president to authorize wiretapping without seeking a warrant for up to 45 days if the communication under surveillance involved someone suspected of being a member of or a collaborator with a specified list of terrorist groups and if at least one party to the conversation was outside the United States.
The administration has provided some information in confidential briefings to a "Gang of Eight" lawmakers made up of the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and the Senate, as well as their respective Intelligence Committees. Republican sponsors of the proposal said the new subcommittees would greatly improve lawmakers' ability to obtain digest information because the staffs for the first time would have access to it.
Senator Mike DeWine, the Ohio Republican who helped draft the proposal, said it would bring the program "into the normal oversight of the Senate intelligence committee."
But Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, compared the proposed bill to a doctor's diagnosis of an unexamined patient.
"Congress doesn't have that great a history in reforming programs it knows a lot about," Mr. Wyden said. "Here Congress is trying to legislate in the dark."
Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, the majority leader, issued a statement supporting the proposal.
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.
In a separate Senate committee hearing on Tuesday, Mr. Specter said, "We're having quite a time in getting responses to questions as to what has happened with the electronic surveillance program."
He 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.
Mr. Specter said in statement later that he hoped for a solution that would avoid resorting to such an extreme action.
This was not a smart move at all regarding this program. This program was a classified program until the New York Times blew it's cover back in Decmber of 2005. And by putting this in the hands of members of Congress, the risk of further exposure regarding the intricate measures used have further chance of being allowed out into the public. Honestly, only the Left could harp about something like this as an "invasion of privacy" when the privacy of ordinary Americans have not been violated.
This program already must undergo a 45 day review before it is renewed by the president. Three times in the past, this program was suspended due to concerns. On from Justice, another from the Pentagon, which was prompted by the FISC, and a direct questioning by the FISC made the third time. Are we ready to watch it shut down every 45 days until the jitters and worries of congressional grand-standers are met? We are at war, and this is a necessary tool in this war.
What truly offends me most is how this program is described. It is not, contrary to media reports, "domestic surveillance." The NSA does not care about mom-and-pop America. They are looking for specific people, and those people are the ones looking to hurt this nation, again. In addition, the US government has the approval to surveil foreign communication. Communication originating outside of the United States, whether it is directed here or not, is fair game. Likewise, the reverse is true, as well. Communications originating here, and heading to a foreign nation are subject to the same scrutiny. The NSA does not care about your grandmother in Schenectady, or your uncle in Kansas City. They're interested in the guy that's talking about bombing a building.
And handing any authority of oversight to Congress lends to the precise reason why the courts ruled in favor of this sort of clandestine operation rather than going through the normal hurdles to obtain a warrant by running such a request through the FISC:
For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], “unduly frustrate” the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations. United States v. Truong (1980)
Leaks are precisely what we should not be striving for, and that is what I fear will happen with this sort of oversight. The Senate Intelligence Committee has members who cannot seem to keep their yaps shut. Because of that I feel a great deal of information has been leaked about this war and the measures we have taken to win it. By including seven more people to the ring that are already aware of this program and it's intricacies, you are also including their staffs, as well, you are effectively letting the proverbial cat out of the bag. At this stage, this program is toast. The enemy is aware of it, and it's possible abilities. By now our enemy has changed it's modus operandi.
While it may be useful still to catch a few, those that have altered their techniques will have to be tracked down and located again. And should anyone on this committee let slip a vital piece of information, we run further risk of having the program scrapped altogether; it's use exhausted before it's time.
I do hope the MSM is patting itself on the back for this little victory. Furthermore, they would be lucky I were not commander-in-chief because I would have ordered the Justice Department to start with them first regarding the leaking of this program, and yes, heads would roll. There is a tiny part of me that recognizes the potential for abuse when it comes to a program like this, and how far it reaches. However I am confident that the government is not using it for ill purposes right now. I am not naive; I am a realist, and any threat to me is a threat to the nation, as a whole. The last thing this administration wants to do is watch another massive attack on their watch.
This was a foolish move by the administration to think they could compromise this sort of program to allow congressional oversight. The president should have stuck to his guns, and forced the Congress to either attempt to change it up, which would have likely prompted Supreme Court intervention, or allowed a lawsuit to go through until this issue reached the Supreme Court. With the precedent from the federal bench already backing up the president, the Democrats and RINOs like Snowe and DeWine would not have stood a chance.
The Bunny ;)
While I will agree that I do not mind the idea of oversight involving the NSA intercept program, I am reluctant to allow Congress that supposed right to oversee the executive in this manner. But, the New York Times has the piece up for the morning edition.
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 agreement, hashed out in weeks of negotiations between Vice President Dick Cheney and Republicans critical of the program, dashes Democratic hopes of starting a full committee investigation because the proposal won the support of Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine. The two, both Republicans, had threatened to support a fuller inquiry if the White House did not disclose more about the program to Congress.
"We are reasserting Congressional responsibility and oversight," Ms. Snowe said.
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.
Ms. Snowe said the panel would start work on Wednesday, and called it "the beginning, not the end of the process."
"We have to get the facts in order to weigh in," she said. "We will do more if we learn there is more to do."
The agreement would reinforce the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was created in 1978 to issue special warrants for spying but was sidestepped by the administration. 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.
Democrats called the deal an abdication of the special bipartisan committee's role as a watchdog, saying the Republicans had in effect blessed the program before learning how it worked or what it entailed.
"The committee is, to put it bluntly, basically under the control of the White House," said Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is vice chairman of the panel.
The House Intelligence Committee said last week that it would seek limited briefings for some panel members so that they could weigh changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but the Republican leaders of the House committee stopped far short of proposing the kind of continuing oversight and rules changes that the Senate committee has settled on. A spokeswoman for the White House, Dana Perino, called the Republican senators' proposal "a generally sound approach."
"We're eager to work with Congress on legislation that would further codify the president's authority," Ms. Perino said. "We remain committed to our principle, that we will not do anything that undermines the program's capabilities or the president's authority."
Republicans on the committee, however, emphasized the administration's resistance to the accord. Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the Intelligence Committee and helped broker the deal, called it "the agreement we insisted upon."
Ms. Snowe said the proposal had met "considerable reluctance" from the White House in negotiations.
The committee had scheduled a vote on a full investigation for Tuesday afternoon if there was no accord with the White House to disclose more about the program. As of midday, no resolution had been reached.
Mr. Hagel said the group worked out the last-minute deal in long telephone calls with Mr. Cheney; the White House counsel, Harriet E. Miers; and Stephen J. Hadley, the assistant to the president for national security.
The proposed bill would allow the president to authorize wiretapping without seeking a warrant for up to 45 days if the communication under surveillance involved someone suspected of being a member of or a collaborator with a specified list of terrorist groups and if at least one party to the conversation was outside the United States.
The administration has provided some information in confidential briefings to a "Gang of Eight" lawmakers made up of the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and the Senate, as well as their respective Intelligence Committees. Republican sponsors of the proposal said the new subcommittees would greatly improve lawmakers' ability to obtain digest information because the staffs for the first time would have access to it.
Senator Mike DeWine, the Ohio Republican who helped draft the proposal, said it would bring the program "into the normal oversight of the Senate intelligence committee."
But Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, compared the proposed bill to a doctor's diagnosis of an unexamined patient.
"Congress doesn't have that great a history in reforming programs it knows a lot about," Mr. Wyden said. "Here Congress is trying to legislate in the dark."
Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, the majority leader, issued a statement supporting the proposal.
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.
In a separate Senate committee hearing on Tuesday, Mr. Specter said, "We're having quite a time in getting responses to questions as to what has happened with the electronic surveillance program."
He 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.
Mr. Specter said in statement later that he hoped for a solution that would avoid resorting to such an extreme action.
This was not a smart move at all regarding this program. This program was a classified program until the New York Times blew it's cover back in Decmber of 2005. And by putting this in the hands of members of Congress, the risk of further exposure regarding the intricate measures used have further chance of being allowed out into the public. Honestly, only the Left could harp about something like this as an "invasion of privacy" when the privacy of ordinary Americans have not been violated.
This program already must undergo a 45 day review before it is renewed by the president. Three times in the past, this program was suspended due to concerns. On from Justice, another from the Pentagon, which was prompted by the FISC, and a direct questioning by the FISC made the third time. Are we ready to watch it shut down every 45 days until the jitters and worries of congressional grand-standers are met? We are at war, and this is a necessary tool in this war.
What truly offends me most is how this program is described. It is not, contrary to media reports, "domestic surveillance." The NSA does not care about mom-and-pop America. They are looking for specific people, and those people are the ones looking to hurt this nation, again. In addition, the US government has the approval to surveil foreign communication. Communication originating outside of the United States, whether it is directed here or not, is fair game. Likewise, the reverse is true, as well. Communications originating here, and heading to a foreign nation are subject to the same scrutiny. The NSA does not care about your grandmother in Schenectady, or your uncle in Kansas City. They're interested in the guy that's talking about bombing a building.
And handing any authority of oversight to Congress lends to the precise reason why the courts ruled in favor of this sort of clandestine operation rather than going through the normal hurdles to obtain a warrant by running such a request through the FISC:
For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], “unduly frustrate” the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations. United States v. Truong (1980)
Leaks are precisely what we should not be striving for, and that is what I fear will happen with this sort of oversight. The Senate Intelligence Committee has members who cannot seem to keep their yaps shut. Because of that I feel a great deal of information has been leaked about this war and the measures we have taken to win it. By including seven more people to the ring that are already aware of this program and it's intricacies, you are also including their staffs, as well, you are effectively letting the proverbial cat out of the bag. At this stage, this program is toast. The enemy is aware of it, and it's possible abilities. By now our enemy has changed it's modus operandi.
While it may be useful still to catch a few, those that have altered their techniques will have to be tracked down and located again. And should anyone on this committee let slip a vital piece of information, we run further risk of having the program scrapped altogether; it's use exhausted before it's time.
I do hope the MSM is patting itself on the back for this little victory. Furthermore, they would be lucky I were not commander-in-chief because I would have ordered the Justice Department to start with them first regarding the leaking of this program, and yes, heads would roll. There is a tiny part of me that recognizes the potential for abuse when it comes to a program like this, and how far it reaches. However I am confident that the government is not using it for ill purposes right now. I am not naive; I am a realist, and any threat to me is a threat to the nation, as a whole. The last thing this administration wants to do is watch another massive attack on their watch.
This was a foolish move by the administration to think they could compromise this sort of program to allow congressional oversight. The president should have stuck to his guns, and forced the Congress to either attempt to change it up, which would have likely prompted Supreme Court intervention, or allowed a lawsuit to go through until this issue reached the Supreme Court. With the precedent from the federal bench already backing up the president, the Democrats and RINOs like Snowe and DeWine would not have stood a chance.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home