Eyes Wide Shut

Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, led the Senate Republicans closer to a compromise with the White House on the NSA warrantless surveillance program: 

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence voted along party lines yesterday to reject a Democratic proposal to investigate the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program and instead approved establishing, with White House approval, a seven-member panel to oversee the effort.

Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) told reporters after the closed session that he had asked the committee "to reject confrontation in favor of accommodation" and that the new subcommittee, which he described as "an accommodation with the White House," would "conduct oversight of the terrorist surveillance program." The program, which became public in December, has allowed the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and e-mails between U.S. residents and suspected terrorists abroad without first obtaining warrants from a secret court that handles such matters.

Senate Democrats grumbled from the back of the bus:

Emerging from a closed-door session in which Democrats lost two party-line votes, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the vice chairman of the committee, said the outcome pushed the panel "further into irrelevancy" and reflected the influence of the Bush administration.

Rockefeller did not comment on whether his own attempt to politicize the SSCI a few years ago also contributed to its current status.

Olympia Snowe, a Republican moderate who provided a key swing vote, defended the deal:

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.

Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, may not be on board yet - but he wants to be:

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.

Comments

[Wonderland]

I'd just like to take a moment to point out the patent absurdity of the Committee pushing legislation that would legalize "the program" (and call for increased oversight) when they don't even know the details -- scope, targets, etc. -- of the very thing they're authorizing.

Moreover, the move is risky from a legal standpoint, because it seems as though the "Terrorist Surveillance Subcommittee" is arrogating the Constitutional role of the FISA court, which is to play Fourth Amendment gatekeeper -- at least insofar as American citizens in the U.S. are targeted by this program. Should a court review this legislation, I have a feeling it would be very skeptical of Congress' usurpation of the judiciary's Constitutional role.

Also, from a political standpoint, I can't imagine what good siding with the White House is at this stage in the game, especially for a vulnerable incumbent like DeWine, unless it's been made clear that a full investigation would be severely problematic for the Administration and, hence, Republicans in general.

And please don't say, "Maybe they're just concerned that an investigation would harm national security, dude!!!!" -- because this the goddam Intelligence Committee, and if they can't investigate this because of security concerns, then they shouldn't be able to investigate anything, because virtually everything they oversee involves sensitive security issues. But that can't be right -- they are a Senate Committee, after all, and isn't that their job?

As Rockefeller said, "Irrelevancy."

[davod]

What constitutional role for the FISA court. The FISA has nothing to do with a President's powers during war.

[Cecil Turner]

As Rockefeller said, "Irrelevancy."

Was that before or after he leaked details of the program to the press?

[jerry]

"led the Senate Republicans closer to a compromise with the White House"

Bwahahahaha! How much closer do they have to be if they're doing whatever it takes to protect the WH and shirking any responsibility for independent investigative oversight?

[clarice]

Well, if rumors around town are correct, this shouldn't matter to Rockefeller who may soon lose the security clearance he needs to continue to sit on the Committee.

[Harry Arthur]

I'm still wondering why, if this NSA monitoring program was as illegal and extra-constitutional as has been asserted, no one in Congress has yet called for it to cease immediately. That includes those who know most about it. On the contrary, every comment I've heard is that it's so terribly important that it has to continue.

Why is it that rather than ending this illegal, extra-constitutional monitoring program immediately, congress, including all the critics of the program, simply wants to pass a few laws or resolutions to make it "legal?" Even, apparently retroactively?

The critics' response doesn't pass the common sense test for me, unless of course the reaction of "feigned outrage" might be politically motivated? Nah.

[Sue]

is arrogating the Constitutional role of the FISA court

It was my understanding that FISA was created by statute, not the constitution.

[Gary Maxwell]

Sucks to be a Demcrat. Vote, lose, whine repeat ( ad nauseum).

[richard mcenroe]

Given the chance, I think Specter could rival Leahy and Rockefeller as a leaker, and that's going some. What say we not give the opportunistic old wretch the chance?

[Davebo]

The FISA has nothing to do with a President's powers during war.

Perhaps you should actually read the law.

[Cecil Turner]

If he's arguing the position that the President has the authority under the Constitution, reading the law is unnecessary.

[JM Hanes]

With Orin Hatch set to be empanelled, I expect we won't be hearing too much more from Specter on this subject. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure he was as concerned with legality as with the committee turf in re the FISA Court.

Mike DeWine's high profile here is interesting too. Anybody else suspect that Republicans are trying to help him gain a little traction in the upcoming Ohio elections?

If Rockefeller were smarter, he'd be claiming a Democratic victory right about now -- we brought Dick Cheney to his knees! etc. He's an accident just waiting to happen. Dems can't afford not to sit on the fact finding/oversight panel, and neither can Rockefeller, unless he's prepared to accept irreversible personal irrelevancy on the spot. OTOH, if the leak investigation ultimately exposes him to legal jeopardy, he will be personally responsible for handing national security back to Republicans on a silver platter. Dem leadership must be seriously nervous about this -- at least they ought to be.

[SPQR]

Davebo, perhaps you should quit ignoring the long discussion of the constitutional issues that has occurred.

[Davebo]

Davebo, perhaps you should quit ignoring the long discussion of the constitutional issues that has occurred.

I referenced the post I was replying to if you'll recall. It claimed FISA has nothing to do with presidential powers during wartime.

Having actually read the statute, I knew that was blatantly false.

So what exactly does your long discussion of constitutional issues have to do with my comment, or the comment I replied to?

Nothing, right?

So who here is "ignoring" substance?

[topsecretk9]

That report on Gibson show struck a cord on the left, Media Matters, no likey. You know there must be some exposed nerves when a "report" by a journalist covering it is called "baseless" --It's baseless if a conservative reports it?

[Larry]

Don't forget it's a turf war between the three branches. Congress, Reps and Dems, wants its say, constitutional or not.

[topsecretk9]

Notice Media Matters ignores the fact that Jed Babbin is the one who has been reporting this. There needs to be a watchdog for the watchdog (sort of like Stop the ACLU)

[maryrose]

Rocky at the microphone was a sight to see. His days on this committee are so numbered. Olympia Snowe and Hagel represented the issue well and added the necessary gravitas to the occasion. Rocky just looked like a whiny partisan hack.

[Larry]

Rocky to staff: "Help meeeeeee!!"

Staff to Rocky: "Inhale. Exhale. Inhale. Exhale. Repeat."

[AB]

Why bother passing any laws when the administration has stated repeatedly it feels no obligation to respect them?

I'm wondering what will happen when we conclude our inevitable ignominious retreat from Iraq (certain to be timed for maximum political benefit to the morally bankrupt pubbies), will we still be in this Constitution trumping "war"? Is the war "in" Iraq, or is it just a metaphorical and interminable war, like the "War" on Drugs or the Battle of the Belly Bulge? It's such a convenient prop. How will these cynical pubs ever function without their lawbreaking crutch?

BTW, be sure to check out Abramoff's Vanity Fair interview, kiddies. Lots of pub goodness...Ho-ly. Crap.

[Sue]

Top,

From your link in the comments section...

It is indeed a sad state for the condition of the American media today that Faux News continues to be a shill for the Bush crime family and junta. They reported last night that Air America is about to go under as well.

But MMFA isn't alone in their quest to bring us the truth so I am not disheartened. We also have The World Socialist Website, Conspiracy.net, commondreams.org and paranoia.com. They will make sure the truth is told.

All you need to know...The World Socialist Website. ::grin:: You can't make this stuff up. Including the moniker for the poster.

[JM Hanes]

tops

It may be the exception that proves the rule, but Media Matters is right on this one. Babbin appears to be the singular source for the Durbin/Rock/Wyden polygraph story.

[JG]

Congress is mostly a pathetic bunch of cliquish high schoolers. The program is needed – get it right and move on. The biggest reason for the failure of government prior to 9/11, the Katrina fiasco, and most everything else, can be laid at the feet of Congress. No blame here – nothing to see – it was ___________ fault! And I include the years that the Dems controlled as well.

[Cecil Turner]

Having actually read the statute, I knew that was blatantly false.

Better tell that to the FIS Court of Review, because they appear to be confused:

We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.

Looks quite a bit like "FISA has nothing to do with presidential powers during wartime" to me.

[Larry]

AB, radical Islam wants us all converted, enslaved or dead. That includes you. Iraq is a theater in a generational war. Try to connect the dots, please.

[JM Hanes]

Larry

Good luck! You're talking to someone who doesn't even see the dots.

[topsecretk9]

JM

That is my point, because it is just Babbin it's not worthy to report? Geez, the set of rules are very stacked. Joe Wilson was supposedly single sourced and that wasn't a concern.

[AB]

Ah, the war is on "radical Islam"...OK, now help me with these dots. Is radical Islam on the decline in the Middle East? Of the new democratically elected governments in the region, including Iraq, have the chosen parties been more or less radical Islamists than controlled those countries previously?

And how are we fighting this amorphous "concept"? Indeed, how does one fight a concept at all? Are we going to seek out every "radical Islamist" and kill, convert or imprison them? What's the action plan on that? And what's the success rate so far?

You guys are so good at congratulating yourself for swallowing jingo that you can't even see there was never, and can never be, the kind of "war" you think is being fought. But, hell, let's use it to suspend our Constitution anyway, because like most winger jingoists, it isn't the truth you care about, but how it makes you feel. You'd be better off with a few hits of Viagra.

[Larry]

We didn't choose this war, AB. They did. If you don't know who they are or what their goals are, I feel very sorry for you.

[larwyn]

Absolutely Banal:
"You'd be better off with a few hits of Viagra."

Certainly likes to call people names and make fun of disabilities.

I think it was a PEW survey about two weeks ago that proved Conservatives were happier than the Lefties. And that was including their sexlives.

PEW is certainly no Republican or Conservative mouthpiece - so wonder what figures a truly balanced survey would have shown.

[AB]

I know who they are, larry, in theory. And I understand what their purported goals are.

My question to you geniuses is, those of you so willing to do the terrorists' bidding and sell our Constitution down the river - What's the plan, Sam? Keep stumbling around pouring trillions into Iraq so that our soldiers can enjoy stewing like lobsters in a pot of Civil War? It's all worked out so well so far, so successfully, so competently, so replete with gains by radical Islam, I'm sure you "patriots" can explain the endgame and how it's going to turn the whole thing around. And make it worth our while that we bankrupted ourselves, maimed thousands of our youth, exhausted our Army, destroyed our national honor and crapped all over our own Constitution.

Please, larry, you have the brilliance of absolute unquestioning faith. Explain.

[Cecil Turner]

It may be the exception that proves the rule, but Media Matters is right on this one.

Those guys are hilarious. I particularly liked the bit where they used news reports to discredit Gen Pace's claim news reports were biased. Nice work. I was also a bit surprised to find every single bit of news bias on their page was conservative. Who'da thunkit?

But, hell, let's use it to suspend our Constitution anyway . . .

Oho, so now you've suddenly discovered the Constitution.

[Larry]

AB: "My question to you geniuses is, those of you so willing to do the terrorists' bidding and sell our Constitution down the river - What's the plan, Sam? Keep stumbling around pouring trillions into Iraq so that our soldiers can enjoy stewing like lobsters in a pot of Civil War? It's all worked out so well so far, so successfully, so competently, so replete with gains by radical Islam, I'm sure you "patriots" can explain the endgame and how it's going to turn the whole thing around. And make it worth our while that we bankrupted ourselves, maimed thousands of our youth, exhausted our Army, destroyed our national honor and crapped all over our own Constitution."

Care to back up ANY of those points? Or are you just throwing a bunch of crap against the wall hoping some of it will stick? Pick any one of the above. Waiting.......

[AB]

Cecil, for some reason it's necessary to remind you wingers from time to time that you don't OWN the Constitution. You pull it out when it's convenient to justify some act of corporate rape and pillage or to get some "Christian" crazies riled up about something, but aside from that, in all honesty, isn't all that Enlightenment gibberish about "the people" and balanced powers and checks on the executive a pain in your collective Authoritarian Worshipping Ass?

[AB]

No, larry, I'm asking YOU to justify your point. You're the one who has the absolute certainty that we're in a true WAR, one with an identifiable enemy, with an attainable defined goal, and with a coherent strategy.

I don't blame you for being clueless. You're following a leadership that has demonstrated absolutely NOTHING in their five years of absolute power except secrecy, deception and pure, unfettered incompetence. Not your fault, buddy, but lay off that jingo. It's killing your country.

[Cecil Turner]

you don't OWN the Constitution

Au contraire, AB, we all do. Further, the selective citing you claim is frankly hilarious in this thread. (And as much as I appreciate the comic relief, I wonder where the smarter lefties got off to.)

[Rick Ballard]

I don't know why the lefties are so snippy this morning. You would think they would be celebrating the first successful implementation of the Kos "elect a vet" strategy in TX-17. It appears that this fellow has a decent chance of booting an incumbent in November. That's what they were hoping for, wasn't it?

[Larry]

Okay, AB. Do you deny that radical Islamists want to kill, enslave or convert us? Seems like they've been loud and clear about their goals and willingness to act. (USS Cole, Khobar, Embassies, Trade Towers, Pentagon). Maybe if we ignore them, they'll go away?

You, on the other hand, have made a lot of claims that are not only egregiously incorrect, but reek of appeasenikitis. Like, "...pouring trillions into Iraq..." Cite please?

[Sue]

Rick,

LOL. Wrong party woes?

[AB]

What's the plan, Larry? I know it's that "hard werk" thing, but you're so confident. Why can't you explain?

We've poured money and blood into Iraq and all we have to show for it is an Islamic Fundamentalist government and a Civil War. Oh, and over 2,300 dead Americans, 40+ thousand maimed Americans, uncounted Iraqi civilians dead and ruined, 60% unemployment in Iraq, less oil production than pre-war and less water & electricity than pre-war. It's been a bangup job. The only question remaining is how will the Bushies blame their complete failure on the media and the libruls (since as we know, Republicans never take responsibility for any of their own actions) as they try desperately to extricate themselves in time to get reelected. So far, whatever threat we are facing remains as strong as ever, in fact with Islamic fundamentalists making good headway in the region. So - What's the plan now?

And yes, Taylor looks good in TX. By a 17-1 margin, all returning Iraq vets running for office are running as Dems. And Webb just declared in VA against Allen, running Dem.

[ajacksonian]

Oh! Maybe they will want to examine the program to see how they should use their OWN warmaking powers?

No, upon closer examination, they are cowards doing what cowards do in power, which is to envy the power of others and not use their own.

Still, they could be doing something useful and reform the IC as a whole.

But that would take patience, understanding, backbone and some small amount of courage to do so. All of which seems to rule out the entire current Congress.

And exactly *why* should I vote for any of them again? Because they are better than *the other side*? Congress, take mirror, look deeply. That *is* the other side, just the same as you but mirrored... as the light dims. So very hard to tell apart. When coward sees coward, neither side willing to use what We have given them. Until nose touches mirror and they are one in the same... no side at all to be discerned.

[maryrose]

AB
Wake up and smell the coffee. Allen has a lock on re-election Webb is a Hackett-lite.

[Rick Ballard]

MaryRose,

Webb is a fine man and should do well as a candidate. That said, yes, Allen has a lock on it - plus a pile of cash on hand sufficient for the task.

Webb OTOH, has Schumer as dispenser of campaign largesse. My sympathies, Mr. Webb.

[Larry]

All we see from you are unsubstantiated claims, AB. Not. One. Cite.

BTW, what is YOUR plan?

You avoided answering this simple question: Do you deny that radical Islamists want to kill, enslave or convert us?

[Sue]

Plan? They don't need no stinkin' plan...

[Davebo]

Looks quite a bit like "FISA has nothing to do with presidential powers during wartime" to me.

Well, it's easy to reach that opinion I suppose if you're willing to cherry pick various quotes and rulings.

But again, if you'd just bother to read the FISA law. Or even just bring it up and do a keyword search on the word "war" I think you'll see where you are wrong.

[The Unbeliever]

And how are we fighting this amorphous "concept"? Indeed, how does one fight a concept at all?

What the heck, I'm bored enough to summarize the blindingly obvious, common sense answer to an inane question. (If you want a full answer, read this post and every link in it, especially den Beste's original strategic overview and Wretchard's 3 Conjectures) In an ideological war, there are three routes to "winning":

1) Launch an all-out "change their minds" effort, with the most persuasive speakers and ideas you have.

2) Assume that the opposing ideology will die out by itself without major action on your part, and simply tweak a few environmental variables you feel will help the "natural" process along.

3) Kill, imprison, or otherwise silence everyone with the opposing viewpoint.

What's Bush's plan? A combination of (1) and (2). Bush has made an appeal to the Muslim world to self-contain and condemn their radical elements, claiming that Zarqawi and bin Laden have hijacked the religion and are actually enemies of true Islam. He has also promised that dire consequences will follow if radical Islamism continues to flourish. Two different forms of persuasion, true, but both are aimed at changing Muslims' minds about radical Islamism.

Bush firmly believes that people in general yearn to be free, and that radical Islamism is antithesis to freedom and democracy. To that end, he theorizes that Islamism cannot thrive in a free society, and therefore seeks to replace oppressive societies (where the radical ideology flourished) with free societies. This is "tweaking" environmental variables to hasten what Bush sees as the inevitable collapse of an ideology, and it is a long-term solution, not a short-term one.

Of course, we are not fighting a purely ideological war, it is also a life-and-death struggle in the physical sense. Americans find it unacceptable to sit and suffer physical consequences--i.e. deadly terrorist attacks--while waiting for a philosophical struggle to resolve. So short-term steps are necessary to prevent unacceptable losses, which means we aggressively pursue those who buy into Islamism's view of the world, and embrace its method of attack. Hence OIF, the war in Afghanistan, the showdown with Iran, etc.

And finally, it should be noted that we are fighting those short-term wars, and reshaping the Middle East as a long term solution (per tactic #2), in the sincere hope that we can avoid tactic #3. Because when you get right down to it, there are a group of bastards out there want us dead, and we're not going to sit quietly and accept that, given our general dislike for being murdered. Radical Islamism has already adopted #3 as their game plan, they just don't have the power to pull it off yet; America has that power, and we desperately don't want to use it. (This is just a rephrasing of Wretchard's Three Conjectures, but always worth repeating.)

[Cecil Turner]

But again, if you'd just bother to read the FISA law.

Or, you could bother to read the Constitution. (I'd cherry-pick Article VI and Article II.) I think I prefer my reference to yours.

[JM Hanes]

Davebo

Congress could pass a law requiring the President to submit Executive Orders to them for approval first. That doesn't mean it would be constitutional though, and the Prez most certainly wouldn't just comply pending some possible future ruling from the court.

[Cecil Turner]

What's Bush's plan? A combination of (1) and (2).

Probably ought to mention this little gem also, even if it had a few too many laundry lists for my taste.