NSA Eavesdropping - What Did Congress Know?

President Bush claims that Congressional leaders have been briefed roughly a dozen times since the secret NSA eavesdropping program was begun in late 2001.

However, in following up on that the WaPo finds a senior intelligence official, speaking with permission of the White House, practically calling former Sen. Bob Graham a liar:

A high-ranking intelligence official with firsthand knowledge said in an interview yesterday that Vice President Cheney, then-Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet and Michael V. Hayden, then a lieutenant general and director of the National Security Agency, briefed four key members of Congress about the NSA's new domestic surveillance on Oct. 25, 2001, and Nov. 14, 2001, shortly after Bush signed a highly classified directive that eliminated some restrictions on eavesdropping against U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

In describing the briefings, administration officials made clear that Cheney was announcing a decision, not asking permission from Congress. How much the legislators learned is in dispute.

Former senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who chaired the Senate intelligence committee and is the only participant thus far to describe the meetings extensively and on the record, said in interviews Friday night and yesterday that he remembers "no discussion about expanding [NSA eavesdropping] to include conversations of U.S. citizens or conversations that originated or ended in the United States" -- and no mention of the president's intent to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

"I came out of the room with the full sense that we were dealing with a change in technology but not policy," Graham said, with new opportunities to intercept overseas calls that passed through U.S. switches. He believed eavesdropping would continue to be limited to "calls that initiated outside the United States, had a destination outside the United States but that transferred through a U.S.-based communications system."

Graham said the latest disclosures suggest that the president decided to go "beyond foreign communications to using this as a pretext for listening to U.S. citizens' communications. There was no discussion of anything like that in the meeting with Cheney."

The high-ranking intelligence official, who spoke with White House permission but said he was not authorized to be identified by name, said Graham is "misremembering the briefings," which in fact were "very, very comprehensive." The official declined to describe any of the substance of the meetings, but said they were intended "to make sure the Hill knows this program in its entirety, in order to never, ever be faced with the circumstance that someone says, 'I was briefed on this but I had no idea that -- ' and you can fill in the rest."

By Graham's account, the official said, "it appears that we held a briefing to say that nothing is different . . . . Why would we have a meeting in the vice president's office to talk about a change and then tell the members of Congress there is no change?"

Nancy Pelosi released a baffling statement:

"I was advised of President Bush's decision to provide authority to the National Security Agency to conduct unspecified activities shortly after he made it and have been provided with updates on several occasions.

"The Bush Administration considered these briefings to be notification, not a request for approval. As is my practice whenever I am notified about such intelligence activities, I expressed my strong concerns during these briefings."

She is apparently unwilling to divulge a hint as to just what strong concerns she raised.

Sen. Harry Reid was Senate Minority leader - can we hear from him?  After ducking the question the first time on Fox News Sunday, Harry Reid finally says this:

REID: Listen, the program has been in effect. It's been in effect for four years, according to the New York Times. I was briefed a couple of months ago. The program had been in existence a long time prior to that time.

WALLACE: But I want to ask you directly, Senator, because, you know, you're raising an issue about consultation. Were you ever briefed on it? Did you ever object?      

"A couple of months ago".  Well, I got a haircut a couple of days ago, but that is not the complete history of my hair styling experience.  I wonder if Sen. Reid had received earlier briefings, and whether he pulled a fast one on Chris Wallace.

Sen. Rockefeller, currently the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intel Committee, has not been heard from, although the Times said this:

After a 2003 briefing, Senator Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who became vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee that year, wrote a letter to Mr. Cheney expressing concerns about the program, officials knowledgeable about the letter said. It could not be determined if he received a reply.

And elsewhere in the story, we see this:

...reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said.

Either he made some lucky guesses, or Mr. Rockefeller knew enough about this program to raise some cogent objections.

And Tom Daschle, who was Senate Majority leader when this program was initiated in late 2001, has not been heard from [And now he has!:

Between 2002 and 2004, the White House notified me in classified briefings about NSA programs related to the war on terrorism. The briefers made clear they were not seeking my advice or consent, but were simply informing me about new actions. If subsequent public accounts are accurate, it now also appears the briefers omitted key details, including important information about the scope of the program.

Even with some of the more troublesome - and potentially illegal - details omitted, I still raised significant concern about these actions. As such, I am surprised and disappointed that the White House would now suggest that none of us informed of the program objected.

As a result of the significant legal and security concerns raised by the President's actions, I believe it is incumbent on the President to explain the specific legal justification for his actions, for the Congress to fully investigate these actions, and for the Administration to fully cooperate with that investigation.

"Omitted key details"?  Did they or did they not say they were engaging in warrantless eavesdropping?  Could that possibly be just a "detail"? ]

In related news - Eric Umansky, hardly a reliable running dog for the Right, opines that this program is in a Constitutional gray area.

DefenseTech wants to think outside the box, and wonders if we are not talking about some new technology that is not quite covered by current law and procedures.

And for a trip down memory lane - what was Echelon, and where is it now?

From the WaPo, Nov 13, 1999:

Members of Congress, the European Parliament and civil liberties groups have begun to ask tough questions about the National Security Agency's interception of foreign telephone calls, faxes and electronic mail, the most intense scrutiny of NSA operations since the so-called Church committee probed the spy agency 24 years ago. Beginning with a report written for the 15-nation European Parliament last year, public concern has been building in many countries around Echelon, the code name for a worldwide surveillance network run by the NSA and its partners in Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Bobby Inman mentioned it briefly in Slate; here is a 60 Minutes transcript.

MORE:  David Sanger of the NY Times wrote this on Sunday in paragraph eight:

Mr. Bush's public confirmation on Saturday of the existence of one of the country's most secret intelligence programs, which had been known to only a select number of his aides...

On Friday, the Times story included a much wider circle, including Congressional leaders and the judges who oversaw the FISA program.  Now we are down to Bush and a few of his select aides.  By Wednesday, I bet it will be George wearing the headphones while Laura transcribes the tapes.

Let me give you the email addresses for the Stone Wall:

News coverage:  nytnews@nytimes.com
Public Editor:   public@nytimes.com

Yeah, they will be thrilled to hear from you.

UPDATE:  The Times could not find space to cover this, but Byron York of NRO did - here he is on problems with the cumbersome FISA process that Bush was sidestepping.

And here are some articles on a FISA breakdown in 2002:

Secret Court Rebuffs Ashcroft.
Justice Dept. Chided On Misinformation

Statement of Sen. Grassley; FISA court memorandum.

STILL MORE:  Very interesting legal analysis of the situation by Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy, and even more interesting comments.  The gist of the comments - there may be technical aspects to this that keep it legal.  For example, where the calls are intercepted, who is being targetted at the moment of interception, and who does the intercepting (the US or one of our allies) may all effect the application of FISA.

And here is Sen. Rockefeller's hand-written CYA memo from June 2003.

Comments

[TexasToast]

I don't see what "briefing" certain congressmen changes - except as a divirc lawyer trick of "muddying up" everybody. We still have the overriding of a statute by executive order - and that is a no-no - despite what Eric U says.

There is a procedure in the law - it was designed to facilitate the need to be"quick on one's feet" - it was not followed - and now our President says "so what"?

[Go Metro]

This makes the whole Valerie Plame fiasco look really silly in comparison.

[dorf]

Echelon goes back to Clinton.

[kim]

This is Joe Wilson kaka again. I told you so when they didn't tell us so. It's the Boy Who Cried Wolf in reverse. Fine, as long as it's not our herd and our polity they are responsible for. Let 'em go run something else with that kind of ethic. Like the Democratic Party.
=============================================

[kim]

I imagine echelon has antique origins; it has improved as datamining has.
================================

[Specter]

TexasToast,

Just for your edification:

50 USC 1802
1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—

(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or

(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;

Now, I know that you will jump on section B - but read further:

Mark Levin Wrote:
The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
The reason the President probably had to sign an executive order is that the Justice Department office that processes FISA requests, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR), can take over 6 months to get a standard FISA request approved. It can become extremely bureaucratic, depending on who is handling the request. His executive order is not contrary to FISA if he believed, as he clearly did, that he needed to act quickly. The president has constitutional powers, too.

I did a little more research into this and found:

FISCR Opinion wrote:

United States Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court of Review

…Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980). That case, however, involved an electronic surveillance carried out prior to the passage of FISA and predicated on the President’s executive power. In approving the district court’s exclusion of evidence obtained through a warrantless surveillance subsequent to the point in time when the government’s investigation became “primarily” driven by law enforcement objectives, the court held that the Executive Branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when “the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators,” and “the surveillance is conducted ‘primarily’ for foreign intelligence reasons.” Tongue Tiedtate>Stick out tonguelace>Id.Stick out tonguelace>Tongue Tiedtate> at 915. Targets must “receive the protection of the warrant requirement if the government is primarily attempting to put together a criminal prosecution.” Tongue Tiedtate>Stick out tonguelace>Id.Stick out tonguelace>Tongue Tiedtate> at 916…

…Even without taking into account the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable….

The key in the above law is the definitions of "foreign power" and "foreign intelligence". Read §1801(b)(2): someone engaged in terrorism or the support of terrorism is an "agent of a foreign power" and that makes it "foreign intelligence." The opinion in "USA v. Usama bin Laden" from the US District Court (Southern District of New York) in 2000 upheld exactly that interpretation under Janet Reno and Bill Clinton.

[boris]

was designed to facilitate the need to be"quick on one's feet"

Maybe not ...

People familiar with the process say the problem is not so much with the court itself as with the process required to bring a case before the court. "It takes days, sometimes weeks, to get the application for FISA together," says one source. "It's not so much that the court doesn't grant them quickly, it's that it takes a long time to get to the court. Even after the Patriot Act, it's still a very cumbersome process. It is not built for speed, it is not built to be efficient. It is built with an eye to keeping [investigators] in check

[Tom Maguire]

I don't see what "briefing" certain congressmen changes

It certainly changes their credibility when they clutch their hearts and proclaim this to be the most shocking thing they ever heard.

Why didn't Dschle and Reid die of heart attacks if this was so shocking?

Why is Rockefeller still on his feat (and not commenting)?

[Eric]

Doesn't Bob Graham take meticulous notes on everything he does?

Maybe those would be helpful in clearing up his memory, and I get the sense he wouldn't toss them. It really looks like an OCD.

[maryrose]

Funny when someone like Bob Graham forgets something he is disremembering it. When Libby can't recall he is indicted. Double standard at work here. I agree with Eric, I'm sure old Bob G. has it written down somewhere.

[Attila (Pillage Idiot)]

On Friday, the Times story included a much wider circle, including Congressional leaders and the judges who oversaw the FISA program. Now we are down to Bush and a few of his select aides. By Wednesday, I bet it will be George wearing the headphones while Laura transcribes the tapes.

The news changes to fit the changing political situation. I think Lanny Davis is editing the NY Times these days.

[Attila (Pillage Idiot)]

By the way, Tom, you might have transposed a couple of letters in the email addresses for the NY Times. Are you sure it isn't "nytnews" and not "ntynews"?

[Neo]

The Bush Administration considered these briefings to be notification, not a request for approval.

It would seem obvious that these briefings could be considered, at the very least, a minimalist view of "advise and consent" of Congress.

Even under this minimalist stricture, a Congressman or Senator should be quite free to express concern as to their legality, lest their manhood (or sisterhood) be placed in a hermetically sealed jar on the porch of Funk and Wagnalls till their term expires.

So has anyone checked the porch of Funk and Wagnalls ?

[noah]

Knickers in a twist all over aided by relentless MSM misrepresentation of what the President is doing.

The potential Big Brother implications are disturbing. But then those implications have been present for decades. After all the director of the NSA could spy on Americans on his own but probably could not get away with it...there are plenty of whistleblowers just itching for the chance to demolish their bosses. Same goes for the FBI, CIA, INR, etc.

And then there is the Bennett(Barnett?) report that alledgedly contains disclosures about abuse of the IRS for political purposes. Very disturbing. Yet some Democrat Senators have (may?) succeeded in blocking its release.

Where power exists there is always potential for its abuse. Problem is that no system has been devised that will guarantee that power will not be abused.

[owl]

Watched Graham on tv(FOX?) and I think someone can nail this guy. I have seen him too many times and this time, talking about the briefings, he was a too weak. This is not his normal mode.

[kim]

Yes, noah, the free press was supposed to prevent abuse of power; now we'll have to depend upon a free blogosphere; ultimately, we'll get by with a free imagination.

And Shysters, Gats, and Loot, of course.
==================================================

[r flanagan]

Why would Graham lie? He's retired.

[owl]

TM...I saw Reid....he almost whispered when he said 'a couple of months ago'. Okay, he must have had an official briefing then. But the way he whispered it....he has known about this thing a long time.

[Specter]

You know that it was theoretically such a small circle it should be pretty easy to pin down the leakers. I sense indictments.....in best Mr. Rogers voice, "Can you say 'democrat prison time?'"

[owl]

rflanagan....I have watched Graham a lot of times on tv. I didn't say he lied. I say he dodged when I saw him.

[kim]

rf: Why would retirement change him?

Owl: They can all see another Rovian mind beam circling in on them. It's pitiful when they cringe as they deliver the latest talking point.
=============================================

[owl]

After watching all these clowns on tv for a couple of days, this must have been another Plamegame and not a soul knew she even exited.

[topsecretk9]

TM
Ask and you shall receive! Looks like he has a Pelosi problem.

[Byron York]

DASCHLE SAYS HE OBJECTED TO NSA SPYING ON AL QAEDA
Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who is now a fellow at the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress, has just released a statement accusing the Bush administration of withholding "key details" about the NSA surveillance program when it told him of the program beginning in 2002. But Daschle, who says he "raised significant concern" about the program, is vague about what "key details" the administration omitted:

Between 2002 and 2004, the White House notified me in classified briefings about NSA programs related to the war on terrorism. The briefers made clear they were not seeking my advice or consent, but were simply informing me about new actions. If subsequent public accounts are accurate, it now also appears the briefers omitted key details, including important information about the scope of the program.
Even with some of the more troublesome - and potentially illegal - details omitted, I still raised significant concern about these actions. As such, I am surprised and disappointed that the White House would now suggest that none of us informed of the program objected.

As a result of the significant legal and security concerns raised by the President's actions, I believe it is incumbent on the President to explain the specific legal justification for his actions, for the Congress to fully investigate these actions, and for the Administration to fully cooperate with that investigation.

[drjohn]

These reporters are complete idiots. It's now impossible to watch Sanger without thinking about what a liar he is. Roberts has been a buffoon for a long time.

[noah]

I am listening to a replay of Pres. Bush's press conference on C-SPAN. In case you missed I heard him for the first time pronounce 'nuclear' correctly!!

[Jim E.]

owl wrote: "he almost whispered . . . But the way he whispered it"

Aren't you the same guy who told us all about the height of Andrea Mitchell's eyebrows regarding a Hardball appearance of hers?

Do you fashion yourself as a human lie-detector or something?

And what about Reid's eyebrows? That's the necessary information we are all waiting for! Tell us about the eyebrows, dammit!

[topsecretk9]

You know...with all this backtracking CYA the Dems are doing, this story has really done a tail spin and slammed them up against the wall...I'm thinking they never expected the Pres. to come out and "own" this thing and so the officials briefed dozens of times just f'ed them up.

[drjohn]

And nicely done once more, Tom.

[Jim E.]

So everyone's gonna be cool if President Hillary Clinton, sometime around 2010, is still personally authorizing warrentless wiretaps in order to protect the safety of America? Will everyone trust her, without oversight, to strike a reasonable balance between security and civil liberties?

I know I won't.

[topsecretk9]

Jim E
Apparently that was the case pre-2000. Unless of course you are bothered by Echelon too.

[Appalled Moderate]

All right, gang. What were the Dems supposed to do? Hold hearings? Leak? Courageously reveal a secret operation on the floor of the Senate?

I see a theme of folks claiming that they did not get a full briefing on what happened. I'm not sure the White House has made its escape, yet. If the WH waited until they had the majority in Congress before the full and frank briefing...well, hmmmm.

On the other hand, I do expect the folks outraged, outraged by Ms. Plame's outing to muster a similar sense of outrage here. Or explain why they can't.

[Marcel]

If any one of Congressional leaders who were briefed had revealed what they had been told, they could have been prosecuted for revealing secrets. That's what Powerline, Rush and Hannity would have demanded (as they have before). Unable to speak publicly, here was nothing the leaders of Congress could have done except to privately express their reservations. This is what Pelosi did. We don't yet now how the Republican leaders reacted.

[topsecretk9]

Our very own Cecil Turner back by popular demand....

If they spoke out they would be savaged for revealing secrets the way you are savaging the New York Times for its war on America. So what were they supposed to do?

Why not have one of those closed sessions of Congress? Or, if it's truly a constitutional abomination and needs to be abolished, why not speak out in open session? Surely the electorate will see the need, no?

Posted by: Cecil Turner | December 18, 2005 at 09:17 AM

Cecil Turner 2

Um, wrong. "Sitting on it" does make sense if you are truly alarmed, but don't want to reveal classified information.

Oh, hogwash. In this case, the only classified information is of a program you apparently believe is illegal and outrageous. If lawmakers are alarmed by such actions of the Executive, they have a duty to debate it. And a constitutional immunity for things they say in the process: "for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

[kim]

There is a reason we watch faces, Jim E. Watching Richard Clarke was enough for me. I don't even remember his words.

Nucular is regionally correct pronunciation and in the dictionary. How do you think Carter, a nuclear physicist, pronounced it? The implicit sneer, by otherlanders, is a mark of ignorance, not superior pronunciation.
===========================================

[noah]

No, I would not trust Hillary Clinton to limit domestic surveillance to American residents with terrorist links. I believe that she is dangerous. But she, like Bush, could never get away with broad surveillance by the NSA of the American people for political puposes. Just ain't gonna happen...there are too many whistleblowers...very few of the employees in the intel community are political appointees.

[JM Hanes]

Appalled

"On the other hand, I do expect the folks outraged, outraged by Ms. Plame's outing to muster a similar sense of outrage here. Or explain why they can't."

Huh?

[Tom Maguire]

What were the Dems supposed to do? Hold hearings? Leak? Courageously reveal a secret operation on the floor of the Senate?

If this operation is that shocking and so clearly unconstitutional, a Senator who denounced it on the Senate floor would be a hero.

OF course, the leadership doesn't seem to have been shocked until the program was made public, so I assume this is all posturing.

And setting aside from a floor speech, they had plenty of other option - the appropriate Dem (Reid or Rokcefeller) could have quietly informed Frist that the Patriot Act is DOA until this NSA program is regularized, and then engaged in the usual parliamentary stalling.

So everyone's gonna be cool if President Hillary Clinton, sometime around 2010, is still personally authorizing warrentless wiretaps in order to protect the safety of America? Will everyone trust her, without oversight, to strike a reasonable balance between security and civil liberties?

There seems to be some oversight now.

That said, I am not particularly cool with this as an ongoing emergency program. I would rather see the adults in Washington figure out the problems with the FISA system ands fix it.

However, Congressional Dem adults seem to be a bit thin on the ground - all of them feel obliged to pretend that this is the most abusive thing they have ever heard of, presumably to placate Michael Moore.

[JM Hanes]

Appalled
Oops. Nevermind, I'm afraid I misread your comment.

[JM Hanes]

Rockefeller's silence on this so far is particularly telling. If, as it appears quite possible, some of his (and/or others') express concerns actually resulted in changes to the program, it may take him longer than usual to figure out how to spin this story to political advantage.

[j.foster]

Those that think that unlawful deeds are under way , must file legislation outlawing this stuff. Or maybe a SC challenge. Or they can get out the tall ladders and mount up. Stand up or stop blubbering. IT should be routine.

[topsecretk9]

This just in...[Byron York] again

DNC: BUSH IS LYING ABOUT BRIEFING CONGRESS
The Democratic National Committee has just released a statement which appears to claim that the president is lying when he says the administration briefed members of Congress on the NSA spying program:

With his credibility in tatters, President Bush may have fielded questions, but he failed to explain why he may have ignored both federal law and the Constitution in ordering the NSA to spy on Americans. This disturbing abuse of power has become a disturbing hallmark of the Bush administration over the past five years. The President now seems to be hiding behind a false claim that he briefed members of Congress.

In the spirit of the President's newfound candor, we call upon him to correct the record, explain why members of Congress were left in the dark and support an investigation into this secret spying program..."

[JAZ]

Currently, we have the senate handwringing over the protections negotiated and re-negotiated under the Patriot Act. The Hypocrats and Sununu can't even get behind the Patriot Act legislation which has been in place for four years. Can anyone seriously imagine the senate enacting legislation which would give the president real time authority to wiretap conversations in the interests of national security?

[noah]

And so it begins...Bush lied redux. Hopefully, Bush has records of the briefings and the contents. Or will his hands be tied by the desire not to reveal even more??

[Lew Clark]

Well, if the DNC says he lied, HE LIED!!!!!!!!!
I think we should forget impeachment and have him shot right now!

[Bob Loblaw]

Reid has also issued a statement:

“The President asserted in his December 17th radio address that “leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it.” This statement gives the American public a very misleading impression that the President fully consulted with Congress.

“First, it is quite likely that 96 Senators of 100 Senators, including 13 of 15 on the Senate Intelligence Committee first learned about this program in the New York Times, not from any Administration briefing.

“I personally received a single very short briefing on this program earlier this year prior to its public disclosure. That briefing occurred more than three years after the President said this program began.

“The Administration briefers did not seek my advice or consent about the program, and based on what I have heard publicly since, key details about the program apparently were not provided to me.

“Under current Administration briefing guidelines, members of Congress are informed after decisions are made, have virtually no ability to either approve or reject a program, and are prohibited from discussing these types of programs with nearly all of their fellow members and all of their staff.

“We need to investigate this program and the President’s legal authority to carry it out. We also need to review this flawed congressional consultation system. I will be asking the President to cooperate in both reviews.”

Since the Republican definition of "democracy" seems to be that Ignorance is Bliss, I doubt it will impact anyone's opinion here. The absolute faith you all place in your Lord Bush above our timeworn Constitution is very touching...kind of like how my kiddies feel about Santy Claus.

[topsecretk9]

I smell "out of our league" on the horizon...the DNC presser is just predicable meme stuff, but I just don't think Bush would be coming out so forceful on this one if they weren't prepared...remember the NYT's were sitting on this for a year...

[Cecil Turner]

That said, I am not particularly cool with this as an ongoing emergency program. I would rather see the adults in Washington figure out the problems with the FISA system ands fix it.

If we're using the term "emergency" to mean an unexpected serious situation, then I agree wholeheartedly. But if we're talking about a "national emergency," for which Congress subsequently passed a Joint Resolution on use of force, then it's really just a euphemism for "war." (And this is just another example that a forthright declaration of war is generally preferable to the alternatives.) That said, FISA clearly is meant to apply in wartime, and those parts don't make a lot of sense (e.g., would we really have wanted a court order prior to intercepting communications with Nazi spies in WWII?). And if we accept the interpretation liberals and the media apparently desire, it also looks to me to be an unconstitutional limit to the Executive's commander-in-chief powers (though the limited court precedents give a much looser interpretation). Regardless, I agree the wartime sections ought probably to be rewritten (among other things, to rephrase the "declaration of war" bit, if Joint Resolutions are going to be the wave of the future).

[owl]

JimE..Aren't you the same guy who told us all about the height of Andrea Mitchell's eyebrows regarding a Hardball appearance of hers? Do you fashion yourself as a human lie-detector or something?"

LOL..no and probably yes. Think you got it wrong. Andrea 'muttered and shook her head' as Matthews was doing one of his talk-overs. Yes, I will put my ESP up against Corn's ESP.

FYI....Reid almost 'whispered'.

[owl]

ts....I am not surprised. I heard Boxer in an interview today say that John Dean thinks this is impeachable.

[boris]

Joint Resolution = Declaration of War

I don't think the words matter really. Granting the president war fighting power is all that really matters.