Scott Shane, Call Your Office (Come Back, Shane!)

The headline writer at the NY Times evidently has it in for reporter Scott Shane - two days in a row now, the headline has been at odds with the story.  Yesterday's flop triggered a correction, and we Boldly Predict that today's effort will as well.

Let's just post what we currently see at the Times website [Now fixed, circa Friday, 10:30 AM  ET!]:

Republican Senator Defends Briefings on Domestic Spying

By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, Jan. 5 - In a sign of growing partisan division over domestic eavesdropping, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday defended the Bush administration's limited briefings for Congress on the secret program and accused the committee's top Democrat of changing her position on the issue.

Also Thursday, 27 House Democrats sent a letter to President Bush asking for information about the National Security Agency eavesdropping program, including whether communications from or to members of Congress and journalists were intercepted.

The Intelligence Committee chairman, Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, was responding to a statement Wednesday by Representative Jane Harman, Democrat of California, that the law requires that the full House and Senate Intelligence Committees be informed of the N.S.A. program. By briefing only the Republican and Democratic leaders of both houses and of the committees, the administration violated the law, Ms. Harman wrote in a letter to the president.

In a letter to Ms. Harman, Mr. Hoekstra said the briefings were in compliance with the National Security Act of 1947, which says the committees should be informed of intelligence activities, though "with due regard for" the need to protect secrets.

Senator?  Mr. Hoekstra is in the House, as the story makes clear. 

Well, here is yesterday's correction:

The headline with an article yesterday about a letter from Representative Jane Harman, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, to President Bush about a National Security Agency eavesdropping program misstated her complaint in some copies. She complained that the limited briefings for Congress about the program violated the law, not that the program itself violated the law.  (Go to Article).

And here is the article, by Mr. Shane, with a brief comment by Mr. Hoekstra at the bottom.

I don't know who at the Times has it in for Mr. Shane, but I hope he can get his issue with the headliners resolved soon.

Bonus question - the website says that the "Republican Senator" article was published Jan 6; I also see the headline in the "All Headlines, Print edition" section.  However, I can't find it in my Paper of Record, Dead Tree Version (Late Edition).  Dare I ask, published where?

I am going to defy Mr. Hiltzik of the LA Times and offer a constructive, non-partisan suggestion here - maybe the Times could emulate the WaPo and include a page number on the stories it runs on both its website and in the print edition.

Not only would that help the easily confounded (current membership includes me), but it would aid in discussions about just how prominently a story was featured.

And this is not asking for much - by the time a story gets to the archives, it does pick up its page number (example), so why not tip us off a bit sooner?

OK, dare I address the content here?

As the Times noted yesterday, Ms. Harman originally defended the NSA program.  One might presume that she is under some party pressure to find something nasty to say about it; the Pelosi subway is leaving the Democratic Underground, and Ms. Harman is running to get on board.

Here are some links to the National Security Act of 1947; Under 413b (c) (2), we see this:

(2) If the President determines that it is essential to limit access to the finding to meet extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States, the finding may be reported to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the congressional intelligence committees, the Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and such other member or members of the congressional leadership as may be included by the President.

Well.  The program was being run under constantly renewed findings, so who knows?  But I know this - our founding fathers built a system with checks and balances, anticipating that the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches would constantly encroach on each others turf and jealously defend their own.

However, they may have failed to anticipate a system where Democrats charged with oversight quietly decide that the number of follow-up questions which they may ask is an inverse function of the President's approval rating.

Well, Bush's numbers are picking up again, so perhaps these Dem "leaders" will resume their Silence of the Lambs.

No, it's no way to run a government, and I don't know the answer - Kerry votes for a war out of political expediency, then turns against it out of political expediency, and his party rewards him with a Presidential nomination.

Sen. Rockefeller is so troubled by the NSA program that he hand-writes a note to Dick Cheney; only much later do he and Minority Leader Reid figure out how to bring the entire Senate into a secret closed session with one motion and a second.

And I am not even going to guess why Bob Graham, as Chairman of the Senate Intel Committee when the Dems controlled the Senate before the 2002 election, sat on his hands.

We need two parties and Congressmen who take their jobs seriously.

As to Mr. Hoekstra, he made similar comments in defense of this NSA program in a radio chat with Mark Levin, but it is nice to see the Times give him some ink.  Even if, in my Late Edition anyway, it is invisible ink.

The Captain has more.

UPDATE:  Doesn't that beat all?  On Saturday, the Times runs a weasel correction:

A headline with an article in some copies yesterday about a congressional debate over the National Security Agency eavesdropping program misstated the title of Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, who said that intelligence briefings given to select members of Congress complied with the law. He is a representative, not a senator.

Look at the opening clause: "A headline with an article in some copies...".

Does that make it clear that the article itself only appeared in some copies, and was killed in others?

Or might the unsuspecting reader take for granted that it was only the erroneous headline that appeared in some copies?

Well.  The normal Times procedure would be for the phrase "Correction Appended" to appear at the start of the corrected story (as here), and that has not happened as of 1:30 PM ET on Monday afternoon either.

This is the Times Cadillac story that hope to ride to the Pulitzers; one might hope they could keep it together.

Comments

[kim]

That billet foux Rocky wrote confessed his idiocy or his knavishness, or, more likely, both.
==============================================

[clarice]

I love Capt Ed. For one thing you can count on his factual presentations. He is meticulous. For another he is fair and he writes clearly.

This remark of his today is not only accurate but a short and vivid description of what is going on:"Like so much of what the Democrats say on national security, they want to complain about the sausage-making process while gorging on the bratwurst that results."

It's so good someone should make it into a needlepoint pillow.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Tom,
I tend to agree with you regarding Congressional Democrats. They were all incredibly intimidated by Bush back in 2002 and I doubt they would have significantly challenged the NSA program even if they could have.

But here's my question, and I honestly have no idea what the answer is: What means did Pelosi and Rockfeller have available to them? Other than writing letters, what could they have done legally to object to the program when they first learned about it? As you point out, they could have done what Harry Reid did a few months ago and called a secret session. But could they have disclosed what they learned in the briefing to the entire Senate or House, even in a closed session? Would that violate the law? I'm guessing it would, but I don't know.

Other than that, did they have any other options? I suppose they could have gone public, but that would certainly have been illegal.

I guess what I'm saying is this: your critique of Congressional Dems would be aided significantly if you could lay out what other legal avenues of protest were available to them.

And, in terms of the bigger picture, it's worth noting that just because certain Democrats are politically cowardly, doesn't mean Bush's actions are or were legally justifiable.

[Cecil Turner]

Dang, TM, you are on a serious roll. So much so that I hate to carp about typos, but they probably ought to be fixed, so . . . Above: "Boldly Prdeict"; "not aksing for much; "anticipate a sytem"; "Bob Grahm"; "Congressman. You've also got "usefual" and "blogggers" on the LATimes thread, if you care.

[clarice]

Well, I hate to say it but it is HarmAn, not HarmOn..Welcome to the wide wonderful world of fat fingered typing.

[Cecil Turner]

But could they have disclosed what they learned in the briefing to the entire Senate or House, even in a closed session? Would that violate the law? I'm guessing it would, but I don't know.

The way I read the Constitution, they have an absolute immunity for bringing things up for debate:

"for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

And I hope we're not seriously going to suggest that whistleblowers to the New York Times ought to be forgiven for leaking something, but Congressmen can't debate the same issue in closed session. Are we?

[maryrose]

Is the NYT so desperate to sell newspapers that they need to resort to false headlines to sell one. What a senator said in some quarters carries more weight than a representative{ though msm has given Murtha more than his alloted 15 minutes.} Please NYT, keep the hype and the falsehoods to a minimum if you please.

[r flanagan]

1." We need two parties and Congressman who take their jobs seriously."

SO YOU WANT AN EFFECTIVE OPPOSITION

2."The founding fathers may have failed to anticipate a sytem where Democrats charged with oversight quietly decide that the number of follow-up question which they may ask is an inverse function of the President's approval rating ."

SO YOU WANT A BERNIE SANDERS TYPE OPPOSITION THAT STICKS TO ITS GUNS NO MATTER HOW UNPOPULAR .i.e. IS UNELECTABLE.

Which is it?

[Anonymous Liberal]

Cecil,
Thanks for the link. That's interesting. I'm not sure it's dispositive of the issue, though. If you take that passage of the Constitution to mean that members of Congress have an absolute privilege regarding anything they say on the House or Senate floor, then presumably it would be legal for Pelosi and Rockfeller to reveal any and all classified information they're privy to in open session as well, on C-Span.

That can't be right, can it? And what's the point of limiting such briefings to only a few select members of the House and Senate if they are then free to share that information with everyone else in closed session?

[kim]

C, the pillow should have a nice cross stitching of Butcher Daley making sausage.

and, of course, holding his thumb on the scales selling it.
=======================================

[BlaBlaBla]

Anon Lib

I believe Senator Pat Roberts listed in a press release a few things that Rockefeller could have done if we was so concerned about the program. First and foremost, he could have discussed his concernes with the leader of the Senate Intelligence committee, which according to Roberts, he did not do.

You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. These "concerned" Senate democrats who were in the know went along lock, stock and barrell becuase they thought it was the right thing to do. All of this nonsense about grave constitutional concern is pure poltical theater to appease the Kos kids and raise a few bucks from the tinfoilers.

[TM]

My Spell Check collapsed,as did my time management, but I am battling back.

As to Anon Lib's question -

Pretty clearly, at a minimum the Gang of Eight could have squawked that the full committees needed to be briefed, as Ms. Harman finally notes in her letter.

That sort of thing becomes a two branch tussle the courts would prefer to avoid - any Chairman with backbone (incl. Graham) would just stall funding, appointments, confirmations, etc until they got their way.

Now, if the full committee thought the law was being violated, I am not sure of the specific steps - presumably, closed hearings where DoJ official are grilled until folks like the answers.

But none of it happens unless Congress asserts itself - it would be a rare Exec Branch official who said, hmm, this is a gray area but I want to proceed, let me ask Congress for permission.

Final thought - my argument is partly reduction ad absurdum, weakend by the problem that the absurd conclusion is not so absurd - EITHER the Dems are spineless wimps, or the program just didn't bother them until they saw a political opportunity.

So their seeming acquiescence *might* be evidence that the program is not illegal (or certainly, gray).

Or it might be evidence that they are useless wimps (or Useful Idiots).

Tough call.

[TM]

SO YOU WANT A BERNIE SANDERS TYPE OPPOSITION THAT STICKS TO ITS GUNS NO MATTER HOW UNPOPULAR .i.e. IS UNELECTABLE.

Which is it?

Well, Bernie Sanders gets re-elected, I think; so does Barney Frank, or ted Kennedy, or Pelosi, or plenty of safe-seat Dems.

And on this specific issue, I really don't think a responsible Congressmen loses his seat for asking questions - if Bush was notifying the head of the FISA court and briefing Congress, he was not exactly in cover-up mode.

I would guess that is Congress had said, look, let's work out some appropriate legislation", soemthing could have been done. Stick it in the back of some omnibus bill, blow it through, no worries.

Or, if the program really is that offensive, try to shut it down. But most folks seem to object to the form (skipping the judges) and not the content (tapping al Qaeda). So figuring out what in the current law was a problem that needed to be fixed should have been doable, if Congress ahd been inclined to try.

My guess - they figured, hey, not my problem, and if it blows up I'll just act all horrified. That irks me from both parties - Roberts, Hoekstra and Goss should have gotten blood oaths from their Dem counterparts that they were on board, with no whining later.

Oh, well - I remain convinced that sorting this out on the front pages of the Times is a poor alternative to effective representastive government.

[The Unbeliever]

r flanagan, the "effective opposition" TM is looking for should be able to effectively raise serious issues even in the face of temporary unpopularity. If they were truly worthy of their constituents' votes, they would be able to bring a coherent objection against the policies of the party in power, rather than just rail on about the story of the day until the polls punish them for it. They should actively encourage a vigorous national debate, and present their best case in that discussion.

In short, they should do everything different from what the current Democractic party is doing.

[cathyf]

C, the pillow should have a nice cross stitching of Butcher Daley making sausage.

Well the Daley family is quite famously from the Back of the Yards neighborhood, so it does seem appropriate!

cathy :-)

[clarice]

AL, It's my recollection that not so long ago the Dems were able to force the entire Senate into secret session with a couple of votes on something completely fraudulent. Certainly, they could have employed the same tactic to force a debate on something of high impoer to them.

Ed Morrisey is right--they are bitching about the sausage making process while stuffing themselves with bratwurst.

[clarice]

AL the point of limiting briefings is to limit the possibility of leaks. That doesn't mean that those who get the secret briefings cannot call a secret session of the entire chamber. Obviously, the process should be reserved for critical questions of major import. Since they never attempted this, I'm laughing at the bratwurst dangling from their mouths.

[Cecil Turner]

SO YOU WANT A BERNIE SANDERS TYPE OPPOSITION THAT STICKS TO ITS GUNS NO MATTER HOW UNPOPULAR .i.e. IS UNELECTABLE.

Or perhaps it could change its positions to something a bit more popular? And I happen to be of the opinion that the Democrats sticking to their convictions (i.e., showing a little backbone) would make them more electable, not less. The same could be said of the Republicans, particularly when it comes to fiscal issues.

And what's the point of limiting such briefings to only a few select members of the House and Senate if they are then free to share that information with everyone else in closed session?

Well, I'm not sure "free" is a correct term. At the least, the Congressman who brings it up will have to answer for it there, and if the members deem it inappropriate, they could censure or strip the offender of membership in the subject committee. But I doubt the one who disclosed a truly outrageous breach would face any significant consequences . . . and protestations to the contrary are unpersuasive. The more logical explanation is that their outrage was recently discovered.

[kim]

CT, yes, recently discovered, and Rocky's little note just accentuates the political cynicism driving this year's model off the cliff.
======================================

[Gabriel Sutherland]

But here's my question, and I honestly have no idea what the answer is: What means did Pelosi and Rockfeller have available to them? Other than writing letters, what could they have done legally to object to the program when they first learned about it?

The Democrats were in control of the Senate up until Jan 2003. Chairman Graham could have called the SSCI to a hearing and requested the executive branch dispatch personnel to answer questions from the full committee.

The reason why the Democrats may have snoozed on the issue was due to the fact that they were in control of the Senate with an assist from jumping Jeffords. It certainly would not have been a politically wise move to call a hearing to object to spying on Al Qaida during this time period. In fact, the Democrats were lining up to get behind programs they could champion at the polls as examples of their stance on National Security.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Tom, I think you put your finger on the problem. The Democratic response to the NSA program can be explained by either 1) their lack of political courage, or 2) that this really isn't a big deal. The stronger you argue # 1, the less convincing #2 becomes.

Remember that right after 9/11, Bush's popularity was upwards of 90%. And in the 2002 elections, Republicans were able to gain seats by painting Democrats as being weak on security because they opposed some of the labor-related clauses in the Homeland Security Act (remember Max Cleland?). So Democrats had good reason to be scared that any objections they raised to anything remotely related to the war on terror could be twisted to damage them politically. I'm not saying this justifies their lack of opposition, but it does explain it.

In light of that, the argument that "if this NSA thing was really questionable, Dems would have made a ruckus earlier" is pretty weak. The questions being raised about that program, though inexcusably late, are serious and substantial, and they have little to do with the spying itself. It's the rule of law issue that is the most troubling. I'm pretty sure that if you interviewed every major constitutional law professor in the country, they would all say that the legal justification being invoked by the Bush administration to justify the NSA spying program is questionable. A few might ultimately agree with the administration's position, but they would quickly concede that it's a difficult question.

I think it would behoove conservatives to start taking these questions seriously, regardless of what you think about some of the people raising them. Many Democratic politicians may be cowardly, shrill, and opportunistic, but in this case, their concerns are important and legitimate and should have been raised a long time ago.

The legal theories on which the administration is relying are novel and extreme, and it's not just Democrats who are troubled by them. So, as hard as it is to do, let's try to remove the issue from it's political context and try to examine the merits of the legal issue itself.

[clarice]

AL a party without central principles to guide it--a party which pegs its votes solely on how the wind is blowing --deserves to get blown flat on its ass. And to my mind that's where the Dems are now on this issue.

[kim]

Well said, AL. What would you have done instead?

And how do we now remove it from its political context?
=================================================

[Specter]

Isn't there a woman judge, now in charge of a law school, who is considered a major constitutional law authority, that has already said from her review of the laws Bush was well within his constitutional authority? I wish I could remember her name - from what I remember she was quite liberal on the bench....

[R FLANAGAN]

As discussed in the last few days there are
responsible liberals and conservatives
switching sides on the NSA , CIC issue
epitomized by the Sunstein / Levy discussion
which I recommended last week. Someone even
took the suggestion and listened .

As to the lack of firm Democratic opposition
to this popular but questionable program , reminds me of the Beyond the Fringe routine "The war's going badly , hop in your crate , pop over to Hamburg...... don't come back. It's time for a futile gesture."

[clarice]

Yes, Specter there was. I can't remember her name either but I seem to recall she was from Stanford. Yesterday,BTW, Taranto demolished one law professor who claims the program was illegal and then confessed total ignorance of the relevant case law.

Speaking of leaks, I asked Gonzales to investigate the FISA judges' leaks to the press today. Judicial Error

[R FLANAGAN]

Specter. Well Cass Sunstein's a man
but he's an example of a respected
liberal law professor who backs Bush.
I've accepted his reasoning on other
issues so I'll be consistent in accept
it here. An additional reason why I
don't think my party should nail its
colors to the mast of that sinking ship.

As to what would have been RIGHT
rather than popoular, I agree with
David Brooks that Bush should have
called in Daschle and the dem leader
of the house (name forgotten,too bad
a good guy)in Oct 01 - and said "WE'VE got a problem you've got to help me handle it."

[Specter]

Clarice,

I found it. But, unlike the great Hiltzik, I can admit when I made a mistake. It really was a he and his name is Cass Sunstein. He was interviewed by Hugh Hewitt. Radio Blogger has the transcript here.

[boris]

in this case, their concerns are important and legitimate

Not if the game is "fake it" now and "gotcha" later. After CFR invocations of constitutional purity ring hollow. What it comes down to is the question ...

Does the 4th amendment apply to international calls between terrorist contacts and parties in country.

If the answer is 911 then it clearly does not.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Clarice, you missed my point entirely. This isn't about what the Democratic party "deserves." Whatever you think about the Democratic party, it's irrelevant to the question of whether or not Bush's legal position is teneble. Democratic haplessness is not a legal justification.

As for the law professors who think Bush's position is justifiable, again, that doesn't undercut anything I said. For every law professor who says the Bush's position is legally sound, there are at least as many who believe otherwise. And even the ones who are on Bush's side agree that it's a difficult issue. So let's stop pretending like this is a no-brainer and that Bush is "clearly" right. If the Bush administration was so sure they were on legally solid footing, they wouldn't be trying so hard to avoid having the Supreme Court hear cases like the Jose Padilla case.

[Specter]

Thanks RF...I knew I had something wrong so I went and looked it up....

[Specter]

Awww...AL...but you said "every" in your post. It was simple to find one that didn't follow your storyline....

[clarice]

Everytime you have new technology and an issue as difficult as this, you will find debates on the legality of it. (Actually, I doubt you can find unanimity among lawyers on anything.)

This really is despite all the blah blah about law, a power struggle between the executive and legislative branches. The courts if they are wise, and have been for the most part, cede substantial authority to the executive in wartime, consistent with the Constitution and pragmatic consdierations. (The necessary decisions must be made by the branch responsible for national defense, on facts ordinarily best known to him and under circumstances where extensive deliberations with a cast of hundreds is not feasible.)

As this is largely a political, not a legal issue, the Dems had to fight this out in a timely way politically. They cannot accede when they think it is the politically wise thing to do, reap the benefits of the program and conduct (none of the many attacks here everyone believed would occur have) and then go whining they weren't properly informed (they were,BTW) or that there was something wrong with the program. There are no take backs in advise and consent.

[Specter]

OOPs...twice in a day. I hope I can survive all these mistakes. 'Course I'm not a journalist....At any rate...AL...you said:

they would all say that the legal justification being invoked by the Bush administration to justify the NSA spying program is questionable

you did not say "every"

[Anonymous Liberal]

What it comes down to is the question ...
Does the 4th amendment apply to international calls between terrorist contacts and parties in country

No! That's not the issue at all. The question is whether the President's decision to bypass FISA was legally/constitutionally justifiable. Everything else is of, at best, tangential importance. This isn't about the 4th amendment. It's about FISA and about article II.

[r flanagan]

AL . All the legal heavy hitters on both
sides refer to the issue (as Judge Posner did
on Hardball) as "arguable".

One could argue that that's a reason to
ask the Supremes. Or you could argue as
I do that for the sake of our system
of checks and balances the CIC should
not needlessly push the issue to the Court
but should observe the spirit rather than
the letter of the law. The object of the
exercise was to do some needed eaves dropping
rather than to demonstrate that the Executive
has the inherent power to do it without
discussion.

[boris]

Bush should have called in Daschle

Daschle refused W's request to explicitly cover the US in the AUMF even though 911 was an attack from inside country. That says it all right there. BTW any obligation to anti-voters and non-voters is limited to protecting the country and upholding the constitution. IMHO their advice should go unheeded and their complaints should fall on deaf ears because right to complain obliges nobody to listen.

[Specter]

Great letter Clarice.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Legal? Political? Can't it be both?

It doesn't really matter at this point. It's already been decided. It's both.

On top of that, is this entire hoopla a Rovian ploy to get the Congress to reconsider if it went too far with the Church reforms leading to the creation of the FISA court? Paging Wayne Slater. Please pick up the white phone.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Clarice,

I'm sorry, but you could not possibly be more wrong. Constitutional issues don't become moot because a few Democrats failed to raise timely objections. That's beyond silly. That's not how constitutional and legal issues are settled in this country or in any sane system anywhere in the universe. Violations of the law (if that's what happened) are not rendered unimportant because some of the people complaining about them have been slow to raise the issue. That may not be "fair" in some myopically political sense of the word, but so what.

Specter, I've read Cass Sunstein's posts on this issue, and they in no way contradict what I said. Sustein is one of the people who ultimately comes out on Bush's side (though with many caveats based on his assumptions about key facts), but Sunstein would be the first to admit that it's a difficult issue and that reasonable minds can come out the other way.

[Cecil Turner]

I'm not saying this justifies their lack of opposition, but it does explain it.

So they had to be gutless in order to avoid charges of gutlessness? I wonder if it's too late for spine implant surgery.

I think it would behoove conservatives to start taking these questions seriously, regardless of what you think about some of the people raising them.

I'd suggest the legal issue is between the Executive and Legislative branches over the conduct of the war; and thus, ultimately, a political one. The question you refer to has been asked and answered. It might behoove liberals in this country to remember who the ultimate authority is, and to start listening.

[Gary Maxwell]

Or you could argue (as I do) that if there is some problem with the (current) law that you could act in a bipartisan manner to help protect us all and pass legislation that covers the situation. That would be acting positively and responsibly instead of the converse.

[clarice]

Thanks. I don't know why McCarthy didn't do it, but I picked up the ball and ran with it.

[boris]

It's about FISA and about article II

If the 4th doesn't apply then article II trumps FISA. Regardless of what you think the real question is, if the answer is 911 then article II wins.

Bottom line isn't the purity of the constitutional argument, it's that FISA is unworkable. From that fact the back annotation will proceed.

[clarice]

AL, for some reason I have to sign in each time I post on this thread but not the others, and it is a pain in the rear.

Cecil, answered your last comment to me as I would have myself.

It is an inter-branch power fight in an area where the courts regularly defer to the executive and one where the Dems failure to timely act makes the issue moot. Except on the far reaches of sanity.

[kim]

AL, had you attempted to answer the questions I posed, you were supposed to get visions of academic constitutional scholars All Along the Watchtower and busy little congresspeople buckling down to writing laws instead of polishing pejorative and perjurytive polemics.

You have missed the point that FISA is unwieldy. The Administration chose a legal option. That's it. Now why these leakers chose an illegal option is another question.
======================================

[Anonymous Liberal]

Or you could argue (as I do) that if there is some problem with the (current) law that you could act in a bipartisan manner to help protect us all and pass legislation that covers the situation. That would be acting positively and responsibly instead of the converse.

Unfortunately, Gary, the White House has refused to go this route. They bypassed Congress and have shown no willingness to seek Congressional authorization. Moreover, under their legal theory, such authorization is both unnecessary and, to the extent it tries to regulate an area within their definition of Article II, unconstitutional.

Moreover, bipartisan legislation requires both parties. Republicans in the House and Senate (with a few notable exceptions) have shown little inclination to proceed down this route, and they control the docket.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Kim,
The answer to your question is simple. All we have to do to avoid the political trappings of this issue is to do what Clarice is apparently not capable of doing: focus our debate on the substance of the legal arguments, and not the behavior of the various political mouthpieces advocating them. As a matter of law, the President either exceeded his authority or he didn't. The answer to that question in no way depends on how and when Democrats first raised objections.

You write:
You have missed the point that FISA is unwieldy. The Administration chose a legal option.

I don't think I missed that point, I just don't see how it's relevant. Let's assume that FISA is unwieldy (though the Bush administration has not explained why). When a statute is unwieldy, you seek to have it amended. You don't just stop following it. Unless you think FISA itself is unconstitutional (like Boris apparently does), this really isn't much of an argument.

[noah]

Geez AL you are exceeding all previous bounds of your absurdity. The Dims shut down the Senate in a stunt to highlight their supposed concerns about pre-war intelligence a month ago and we have heard nothing about it since.

They are NOT serious about anything but their agenda to damage Bush.

[noah]

I liken Dim position on foreign policy similar to their position on national security...if its important then its a shameful portent of fascism.

Intervene in Bosnia without UN imprimatur or national interest...because it is the right thing to do.

Bush has shamefully declined to commit US forces in Darfur. But does any situation more truly define quagmire than Darfur?

Bush has shamefully committed US forces in Iraq even though on human rights grounds it was the right thing to do. George Will pontificates that the American public would never have agreed to intervention on such grounds.

Intercept communications between our avowed enemies and persons in the US? Is that not the height of what a reasonable search should be? Give me a break and kiss my ass to boot.