NSA Legislation Advances

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted out the Specter compromise with the White House on legislation covering the NSA warrantless wiretap program.

The coverage of the Times and WaPo are strikingly different.  The Times leads with a description of an innocuous compromise under which the courts will review the program:

Democratic Effort to Limit Surveillance Bill Is Blocked

WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 — The Senate Judiciary Committee today endorsed a bill backed by the White House to have a secret court review the constitutionality of the Bush administration’s eavesdropping program.

By a party-line vote of 10 to 8, the committee sent the bill to the Senate floor, where a vote could come next week. The bill embodies an agreement reached by President Bush and the committee chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, under which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court would review the eavesdropping program.

The WaPo leads with a dimmer view of the court's role:

Senate Committee Approves Wiretap Legislation

By Bill Brubaker

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 13, 2006; 5:24 PM

A Senate committee today approved a bill supported by President Bush that would enable the administration to continue a warrantless wiretapping program that the White House launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The approval came after Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee blocked an amendment by Democrats that would have limited Bush's eavesdropping program and required the National Security Agency to report more often to Congress on its surveillance activities.

Democrats say the bill approved by the committee would expand -- as well as legalize -- Bush's authority to monitor terrorism suspects.

The NY Times (but not the WaPo) note that Republicans Specter and Graham switched sides to vote out a competing bill from Dianne Feinstein:

Senator Feinstein offered a competing measure that would reaffirm the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as the “exclusive” means by which wiretapping could be ordered in intelligence cases. Her measure, backed by all eight panel Democrats plus Mr. Specter and Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Republican of South Carolina, would seem incompatible with the Specter-White House agreement, even though Mr. Specter voted for Ms. Feinstein’s measure so it can be debated on the floor.

It's hard to guess at Specter's strategy here, but here is a quick, utterly uninformed hunch - Specter has worked out a compromise with Ms. Feinstein under which he has agreed to send her bill to the floor in exchange for a "no-filibuster" agreement.  I should note that I have no idea whether this is the type of bill which *can* be filibustered.

MORE:  The ACLU is outraged.

Comments

[AJStrata]

Seems like your trackbacks are not registering. I tried to tracback here and the Armitage post.

This is an interesting development! Wonder how many dems will vote against it.

[Cecil Turner]

Good. 'bout time these GOP Senators found some backbone. Let's see if the Dems are dumb enough to make it a campaign issue.

[Rick Ballard]

"I should note that I have no idea whether this is the type of bill which *can* be filibustered."

Any bill subject to debate can be stopped through defeat of a cloture motion.

"'bout time these GOP Senators found some backbone."

Let's hope that they rented by the week rather than the hour.

[Other Tom]

I confess that I have no idea what the excerpts from the two newspapers mean. What, exactly, is the Senate about to vote upon?

[Sue]

Democrats say the bill approved by the committee would expand -- as well as legalize -- Bush's authority to monitor terrorism suspects.

And therein lies the problems with democrats. Rational Americans want Bush monitoring terrorism suspects.

[Rick Ballard]

Other Tom,

If it's the Specter/Feinstein compromise it's S.3001. I always find it interesting that the media doesn't possess the competence to actually identify the legislation which they write about.

[Tom Maguire]

Any bill subject to debate...

IIRC, certain budget bills are not subject to unlimited debate. I would bet this bill stands alone and can be filibustered, but *maybe* it is going to be attached to some budget-related unstoppable bill.

[jpe]

Sue, I don't think you should viewing grown up sites without your mommy and daddy's permission.

[Rick Ballard]

Other Tom,

After looking over the Judiciary Committees Executive Schedule for today the bill[s] could also be S.2453 (Spector) and/or S.2445 DeWine/Graham.

[Sue]

Sue, I don't think you should viewing grown up sites without your mommy and daddy's permission.

Interesting....

[lurker]

Pat Leahy's Misinformation

"That's how excitable Pat Leahy described the legislation that passed from the Senate Judiciaary Committee to the Senate floor today, a proposal that will confirm the president's authority to order the NSA to conduct surveillance of al Qaeda contacting its operatives in the United States.

Most Senate Democrats oppose the legislation, and that opposition should be the centerpiece of the GOP campaign over the next eigth weeks. Democrats are simply not serious about the war or about preventing terrorism.

Every vote for any Congressional Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability."

[lurker]

OT:

New Blogging for Bolton

New Idea! Let's support Bolton and get him confirmed.

[Anonymous Liberal]

For the record, the WaPo account is much more accurate. Specter's bill doesn't require anything of the White House. It renders FISA meaningless (by removing the exclusivity clause) and does not require any judicial review of anything. Specter supposedly has the White House's word that it will submit the program for a program-wide constitutional review. Even if the administration follows through with this non-binding agreement, however, it's important to keep in mind that the judicial review being contemplated is only Fourth Amendment review. Because the bill would eliminate all of FISA's prohibitions, the program would no longer be illegal. The only remaining question for the court would be whether it violates the Fourth Amendment (and on that issue, the Administration's position is stronger).

Long story short, the "deal" Specter brokered is essentially an agreement by the Administration to submit the NSA program to (non-mandated) judicial review, but only after the program has been officially legalized.

[Anonymous Liberal]

And therein lies the problems with democrats. Rational Americans want Bush monitoring terrorism suspects.

Sue, do you actually believe that crap? Name one single Democrat who is against monitoring terrorism suspects. That is such a ridiculous straw man. The debate is about whether terrorists suspects should be monitored with or without judicial oversight, not whether they should be monitored. Get a clue.

[lurker]

AJStrata will tell you that this NSA program is already legal. So why legalize an already legal program? From this perspective, if passed, it's an attempt for Congress to merely accept the fact that it is legal, anyway.

Read the link about Pat Leahy's misinformation game regarding this bill. Yes, I believe that crap.

[lurker]

If you follow the "Pat Leahy" link, the title of that post (and commented by this same man):

""This bill is all about authorizing the President to invade the homes, e-mails and telephone conversations of American citizens in ways that are expressly forbidden by law."

Yes, of course, this is what the democrats are telling us and they are flat out wrong.

[lurker]

"The debate is about whether terrorists suspects should be monitored with or without judicial oversight, not whether they should be monitored."

NSA terrorist surveillance program is simply a military operation. Well, I'll let AJStrata explain it again but I'm sure you won't listen or agree with it.

[lurker]

And why to terrorist suspects require judicial oversight????

[Sue]

The debate is about whether terrorists suspects should be monitored with or without judicial oversight, not whether they should be monitored. Get a clue.

Let's have the debate. And see who wins it.

[lurker]

ACLU confirms the problems with democrats while the majority of Americans want Bush to monitor terrorists. Link is provided by Tom McGuire if you want to go read it.

Is there a bill that will stop federal funds from being allocated to ACLU? If so, what's the status?

[lurker]

"The debate is about whether terrorists suspects should be monitored with or without judicial oversight, not whether they should be monitored. Get a clue."

If they require judicial oversight, then those ten+ planes departing from UK, heading towards USA would blow up BIG time; instead of being thwarted like they were a few weeks ago.

[Anonymous Liberal]

"This bill is all about authorizing the President to invade the homes, e-mails and telephone conversations of American citizens in ways that are expressly forbidden by law."

Yes, of course, this is what the democrats are telling us and they are flat out wrong.

You're totally ignoring my point, Lurker, but since your wrong about this too, I'll address it. Leahy's point is that the Specter bill would remove any judicial oversight over how the executive branch conducts surveillance. It would return us to the pre-FISA days when J.Edgar Hoover was free to spy on whoever he wanted without being held accountable.

Under the current law, the executive branch can conduct surveillance on anyone suspected of being a terrorist. All they have to do is get a rubber-stamped warrant, which they can apply for retroactively and in an ex parte proceeding. By doing away with FISA's exclusivity provision, however, you are giving the executive branch carte blanche to spy on anyone. And having zero individualized oversight is an invitation for abuse. If it doesn't happen under Bush's administration, I guarantee you it will happen eventually, under some future administration, perhaps even a Democrat. At which point all the conservatives who are now clammering for doing away with any warrant requirement will realize what kind of pandora's box they've opened.

[lurker]

"It would return us to the pre-FISA days when J.Edgar Hoover was free to spy on whoever he wanted without being held accountable."

I disagree on this point. Why? Because there should be checks and balances. And there already is a mechanism for checks and balances by way of repetitive reviews. Congress should ensure that this "pandora's box" would never happen again. It is their responsibility to make sure this does not happen and that this power will never be abused again. Yes, we have to accept this risk to preserve National Security.

FISA Requires Warrant To Spy?

[Anonymous Liberal]

If they require judicial oversight, then those ten+ planes departing from UK, heading towards USA would blow up BIG time; instead of being thwarted like they were a few weeks ago.

Lurker, do you even read the news? There was no illegal surveillance involved in that bust. The brits used warrants. Moreover, that plot was nowhere near actually happening. The bombers didn't have passports, didn't have tickets, and didn't yet know how to mix the liquid explosives (which it turns out is really quite hard to do).

[lurker]

"By doing away with FISA's exclusivity provision, however, you are giving the executive branch carte blanche to spy on anyone."

I disagree on this point. This does not give the executive branch carte blanche to spy on anyone. This is still limited to terrorist suspects.

[Sue]

But they had martyr tapes. Just in case.

[Rick Ballard]

AL,

You mean an administration could use the DoJ in a manner similiar to that which the Clinton's used the IRS for eight years?

How will the Republic survive?

[Anonymous Liberal]

Let's have the debate. And see who wins it.

Okay, Sue, I'm waiting. Explain to me why it is essential that the surveillance of terrorists be conducted without judicial oversight of any kind?

[lurker]

Yes, I've been reading the news. The Brits used a combination of intelligence and police work to thwart these attacks.

[lurker]

From my readings, the Brit laws allow them to surveil these terrorists with or without warrants. BTW, the NSA terrorist surveillance program was never illegal.

[lurker]

stopaclu's position, which, of course, you wouldn't agree.

"She goes on to say,

“Congress has a right and obligation to conduct meaningful oversight on the unlawful actions of the president. But instead of investigating lawbreaking, the Senate Judiciary Committee wants to make it legal. We urge the full Senate to reject any attempts to ratify this illegal program.”What makes this illegal? Because they say so? And because you say so?

First off, the idea that this is wiretapping is ignorance. The NSA program is a data mining program. They are capturing electronic signals being transmitted from inside the United States to foreign lands or from foreign soil to the United States.

Next, the data being collected is that of who is being called, the length of the call, which other numbers that party is calling and so forth. This is called data mining. It is nothing more than what is being done each and every time you search for an item over then internet. Information is being collected which is then used to send you offers via email.

So what’s the ACLU’s beef? They are against the war on terrorism. To them, the 2,996 lives lost on September 11, 2001 mean nothing. They have obstructed and denounced every effort this government has taken in order to secure the people of this nation from additional attacks.

They opposed random searches of the New York Subways. They opposed the renewal of the Patriot Act. They opposed the detention of foreign terrorists at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. They claim the detainees are being abused if they aren’t given their nightly ice cream bars.

Like most Americans, I don’t give a flying fig about terrorists’ human rights. They think nothing of killing their own women and children if there is a possibility of killing just one American. They have been known to behead Americans working to restore infrastructure and amenities to the people of Iraq. So, as far as I’m concerned, if Ahmed doesn’t get his Eskimo Pie tonight I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.

What they also fail to realize is that the NSA is a military intelligence operation. That the information that they gather is used to prosecute the war on global terrorism and to secure the people of the United States. We don’t intend on prosecuting these people. We intend on killing them. That’s what you do in war.

Using their own rules of engagement, why should we give any terrorist quarter? Information that’s why. And our Military Intelligence officers know how to extract that info without causing bodily harm.

The problem with the ACLU is that they think too much like lawyers instead of soldiers. A soldier doesn’t go seeking a warrant to intercept radio communications of the enemy. That goes also for phone communications as well.

So Caroline Fredrickson as far as I am concerned is a prime candidate for a frontal lobotomy. Perhaps it will cure her of her need to tilt at windmills.

Two other proposals were voted out to the floor today as well. One actually proposes actually requiring the administration to wait until a terrorist attack to open an electronic surveillance program. Of course the ACLU supports the proposal that would be the most cumbersome in listening to our enemies proposed by Ms. Dianne Feinstein."

[Anonymous Liberal]

You mean an administration could use the DoJ in a manner similiar to that which the Clinton's used the IRS for eight years?

How will the Republic survive?

Wow, that's a compelling argument Rick. Let me see if I get this straight. Because Bill Clinton supposedly misused to the IRS, we should pass a law that removes the only effective oversight mechanism on the government's use of its massive surveillance powers on its own citizens. Gee, I never thought of that way. Now I'm convinced.

[Sue]

Okay, Sue, I'm waiting.

Okay, but the winner won't be declared until November.

[lurker]

Not what stopaclu says, AL. You were already convinced, anyway. I don't agree that passing a law to remove the only effective oversight mechanism on the govt's use of its massive surveillance limited to terrorist suspects.

I do agree that there shouldn't be any surveillance on its own citizens unless they are terrorist suspects and there are already laws over this.

[boris]

All they have to do is get a rubber-stamped warrant, which they can apply for retroactively

But only if they have probable cause.

Look, judges should not be directly involved with national security issues. Period. Let them do their job sorting out legislation and constitutinality. Putting them in the position of making decisions that weigh security against principle is out of their job description. That's exactly what politicians are for.

[Anonymous Liberal]

From Lurker:

First off, the idea that this is wiretapping is ignorance. The NSA program is a data mining program. They are capturing electronic signals being transmitted from inside the United States to foreign lands or from foreign soil to the United States.

From the NSA.

The Program is not "data-mining"; It targets only international communications closely connected to Al Qa'ida or an affiliated group.

You'd be wise not to take anything you read at StoptheACLU seriously. They are utterly clueless.

[lurker]

The Path to 9/11 showed how FISA turned down a warrant on the surveilling of the 9/11 terrorists. This same movie showed how the female police officer in Phillipines was able to look into Ramzi's laptop and discovered the Bojinka plot.

FISA prevented USA from tapping into Zacharias M.'s laptop, which had the details about the 9/11 plans.

Anon Lib, you have the 9/10 mentality arguing against the 9/11 mentality.

[Rick Ballard]

AL,

I just have this tiny bias towards trusting elected officals accountable to voters rather than faceless bureaucrats or appointed "guardians" who have proven as apt to play politics as anyone else.

Those tremendous watchdogs snored through Clinton's usurpation of power and I have absolutely no reason that they will snore through others doing the same.

Now is the time to shout from the roof tops that you have more faith in the feckless FISA court than in elected officials. Good luck.

[Sue]

It targets only international communications closely connected to Al Qa'ida or an affiliated group.

I thought it was domestic communications you were worried about.

[lurker]

"The Program is not "data-mining"; It targets only international communications closely connected to Al Qa'ida or an affiliated group."

StopACLU is providing a simplistic explanation. Sorry, I don't see that they are clueless. This program does not limit targets to AQ but any foreigners with the intent of sabotaging our country and our assets. By legal definition, anyone inside this country that have clear intent of working with foreigners having the intent of sabotaging our country should be placed under surveillance.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Look, judges should not be directly involved with national security issues. Period. Let them do their job sorting out legislation and constitutinality. Putting them in the position of making decisions that weigh security against principle is out of their job description. That's exactly what politicians are for.

This is so silly. Judges sign off on millions of warrants a day in criminal matters. And the Supreme Court also requires warrants for any domestic national security threats (think Timothy McVeigh). Put simply, this is exactly what judges do, all the time. They're good at it. And they're not particularly demanding either. As any law enforcent or FBI agent will tell you, it's pretty damn easy to get a warrant if you have any good reason to do so.

And FISA judges have granted all but a handful of warrants they've been presented with over the last three decades.

[Rick Ballard]

OT,

The Tradesport contract on Republicans holding the House is now at 52 with the Senate at 84.

[boris]

in criminal matters

Who was the last criminal who killed 3000 innocent Americans?

You do have a 910 mentality.

[Sue]

Judges sign off on millions of warrants a day in criminal matters.

I think this is where we mainly part ways. I don't consider this a criminal matter.

[boris]

it's pretty damn easy to get a warrant if you have any good reason to do so.

Why couldn't the FBI examine the terrorist's laptop? Not enough probable cause.

[Anonymous Liberal]

I thought it was domestic communications you were worried about.

I am. First, I was quoting the NSA, and they are using the term "international" to mean communications where one party is in the U.S.

Second, and more importantly, the concern is that Specter's bill legalizes way more than just this program. By completely gutting FISA, it removes all judicial oversight. With no oversight, what's to stop the government from spying on purely domestic communcations?

[lurker]

AL, right, FISA still turned down warrants on surveilling the 9/11 terrorists that tore down both World Trade Centers, damaged the Pentagon, downed one other plane, and killed 3000 innocent civilians.

No, it wasn't easy to get a warrant.

Your 9/10 mentality will provide us greater assurance of another 9/11 or worse attacks against our country...and sooner.

[lurker]

"what's to stop the government from spying on purely domestic communcations?"

Because we already have laws to prevent our government from spying on purely domestic communications unless they are intent in sabotage, which, in this case, warrants are applied. Oversight is already in place.

[boris]

With no oversight, what's to stop the government from spying on purely domestic communcations?

You're the one who brought up Timothy McVeigh.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Why couldn't the FBI examine the terrorist's laptop? Not enough probable cause.

The decision not to search Moussaoui's laptop was made by the FBI, not the FISA court. The 9/11 commission later found that there was probable cause and that they should have applied for a warrant.