Congressional Oversight Of The NSA Program

Heather Wilson, (R, NM) has a bold suggestion - how about Congressional oversight of the NSA program?

From the Times:

A House Republican whose subcommittee oversees the National Security Agency broke ranks with the White House on Tuesday and called for a full Congressional inquiry into the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program.

The lawmaker, Representative Heather A. Wilson of New Mexico, chairwoman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, said in an interview that she had "serious concerns" about the surveillance program. By withholding information about its operations from many lawmakers, she said, the administration has deepened her apprehension about whom the agency is monitoring and why.

Ms. Wilson, who was a National Security Council aide in the administration of President Bush's father, is the first Republican on either the House's Intelligence Committee or the Senate's to call for a full Congressional investigation into the program, in which the N.S.A. has been eavesdropping without warrants on the international communications of people inside the United States believed to have links with terrorists.

...Ms. Wilson said in the interview Tuesday that she considered the limited Congressional briefings to be "increasingly untenable" because they left most lawmakers knowing little about the program. She said the House Intelligence Committee needed to conduct a "painstaking" review, including not only classified briefings but also access to internal documents and staff interviews with N.S.A. aides and intelligence officials.

Dick Cheney calmly explained to Jim Lehrer that if Congress got too involved, people would die:

Members of Congress "have the right and the responsibility to suggest whatever they want to suggest" about changing wiretap law, Mr. Cheney said. But "we have all the legal authority we need" already, he said, and a public debate over changes in the law could alert Al Qaeda to tactics used by American intelligence officials.

"It's important for us, if we're going to proceed legislatively, to keep in mind there's a price to be paid for that, and it might well in fact do irreparable damage to our capacity to collect information," Mr. Cheney said.

The AP had coverage as well, but they overlook the hostage threat.

UPDATE:  Heather Wilson gets results (and says so!):

WASHINGTON - After weeks of insisting it would not reveal details of its eavesdropping without warrants, the White House reversed course Wednesday and provided a House committee with highly classified information about the operation.

...

"I think we've had a tremendous impact today," Wilson said at a news conference as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Gen. Michael Hayden, the nation's No. 2 intelligence official, briefed the full Intelligence Committee.

"I don't think the White House would have made the decision that it did had I not stood up and said, 'You must brief the Intelligence Committee,'" said Wilson, a U.S. Air Force veteran.

...

At least one Democrat left the four-hour House Intelligence Committee session saying he had a better understanding of legal and operational aspects of the anti-terrorist surveillance program, being conducted without warrants. But he said he still had a number of questions.

"It's a different program than I was beginning to let myself believe," said Alabama Rep. Bud Cramer, the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee's oversight subcommittee.

"This may be a valuable program," Cramer said, adding that he didn't know if it was legal. "My direction of thinking was changed tremendously."

Still, Cramer said, some members remain angry and frustrated, and he didn't know why the White House waited so long to inform Congress of its actions.

I'm delighted to be informed that the direction of Bud Cramer's thinking has changed.  Now I wish I could find some hint as to the old direction.

MORE:  Cheney's threat materializes:

Nerve agent alarm clears Senate office building

Comments

[kim]

The precedent for the President is the authority in the Constitution, CTD. We don't want this to stand as precedent for legislative laggardliness and judicial overreach.
==============================================

[CTD]

OK, boris, you're moving the goalposts now. A Marwan who is known to have associated with bin Laden? Sure, tap that sucker - but again, that's something you could get a warrant for.

Now let me re-ask you - should the government be allowed to spy on you if you're visiting Canada and calling your Mom? Because right now the Attorney General seems to be saying that's OK.

[larwyn]

Looking at it from an entirely different prospective, that of the "human nature of the Left":

What they are really po'd about - and I'm sure that Clinton once expressed a lament that he had no
event on his watch that gave an
opportunity for his greatness -
is that had they been doing what
GW initiated after 911, they would
have been heroes.

They would have uncovered the plots, and then could actually have ordered the bombing and killing of OBL and his buddies.

Thousands of books would have been
written, movies made and Gore would be president! THEY WOULD BE
IN POWER.

No wonder the new mayor of LA was
on TV immediately after GW told of
the plot on the "Liberty" (love our
misunderestimated) errrrr "Library"
Tower in LA. Of course, he was immediately proved to be a liar.

It is really no different than the
baseball record holders who have their records for a season "broken" by players who now play more games in a season.
(Wonder if Fitz will like that?)

"Yeah, he saved you! Yeah, he's keeping you safe! But he's not playing FAIR!"

[clarice]

And--they think they should be in power. They were for in power so long. So they nurture lies to delegitimize this President--Stolen elections, Bush lied, etc..

He will go down in history as a great leader and will be remembered for his leadership for as long as FDR held that place in the pantheon..And this makes them bilious.

[kim]

Bushitler spying on you: only he isn't.

Chimpy McHalliburton, brainless stooge; only he isn't.

Raging theocrat; only he isn't.

Recovering alcoholic; don't theirs recover?
=======================================

[kim]

CTD: Read up a little about Truong and Humphrey. The precedent I worry about is the one for hypocrisy that Jimmy Carter is setting.
==============================================

[boris]

you're moving the goalposts now. A Marwan who is known to have associated with bin Laden?

Clearly not. It's just one example vs. another. The point is that probable cause is not based on "association". The standard contained in Sec. 1805(a)(3)(A):

on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant there is probable cause to believe that— (A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power

...

the fact that a particular phone called a terrorist's (or suspected terrorist's) phone does not provide probable cause to believe that the owner of that phone is the agent of a foreign power. It could be the terrorist's mother; it could be his tentmaker or his landlord, dunning him for rent.

So unless you got something more persuasive than your "gut feeling" about what should constitute probable cause I suggest you still you need to know more about the program, the law and the constitution for an informed opinion or coherent discussion.

[boris]

Having addressed "concerns" of CTD and others I note they have yet to address the point of the example ...

If CTD is on the phone to M.Atta in Florida and there's a legal NSA wiretap on Atta, the NSA spies on the converstaion.

If CTD is on the phone with Marwan in Pakistan and there's a legal NSA wiretap on Marwan, the NSA spies on the converstaion.

In both cases if the conversation contains probable cause, they'll use it to get a FISA warrant to wiretap CTD.

Could the NSA get a FISA warrant on CTD in the first instance without using the content of the intercept? Who knows? They don't need to, NSA can monitor and decide based on the content because they have a legal wiretap on Atta and can monitor all conversations no matter who is on the other end. For Marwan in the second instance FISA says no, the NSA program says yes.

So why is the second instance more "abusive" than the first? Why should CTD's conversation with Marwan in Pakistan require a warrant on CTD when CTD's conversation with M.Atta in Florida does not?

[kim]

Suivant, CTD, which party, since Nixon, has produced national leaders less interested in using the executive power of surveillance domestically, and which has produced leaders more interested? You are absolutely correct that this is a power about which we must remain suspicious. All the more reason to have a political movement capable of recognizing and promoting those with the requisite ethical character.
=======================================

[Extraneus]

Who would be left standing if all candidates were measured exclusively in terms of ethics and competence?

[kim]

To market, to market, to buy a fat fren'.
Home again, home again, trust 'em again.
========================================

[CTD]

kim, I stand with Extraneus[sic] here. No one is 100% virtuous. This is why I want a systematic legal solution, rather than a political solution. If we leave it up to trust in the individual office holders, eventually someone WILL be abusing the power.

boris, please continue dodging my question about Canada, using deceptive indentation (6:20 post), thinking we can't tap all calls to al-Qaeda, and asking, "how is it abusive to tap all calls outside of the US?".

[boris]

dodging my question about Canada

You're serious ???

but again, that's something you could get a warrant for.

Now let me re-ask you - should the government be allowed to spy on you if you're visiting Canada and calling your Mom? Because right now the Attorney General seems to be saying that's OK.

No that's not something I can get a warrant for.

Does the NSA have a legal wiretap on you or your Mom ???

No the Attorney General says nothing of the sort.

Politely ignoring rank stupidity is not the same as dodging.

[CTD]

^there's my argument - restrict immigration.

[kim]

Douane, you be ignoring my load of baggage.

The exeacutive has, and it is necessary that it have, the authority to do what Bush has done. The legislature and the judiciary have remedies to address abuse of that authority, and they failed to invoke those remedies. Might it be because the authority was NOT abused?

But it might have been. So what is your remedy? Clearly, FISA was inadequate.
=================================================

[kim]

By the way, I'm fairly happy with a political solution rather than a purely legal one. Isn't politics the extension of law by other means?
======================================