S-P-U-D

As negotiations between the White House and the Congress over what to do with the NSA program heat up, so has the Congressional game of SPUD.

The WaPo has the better story, but the Times has the (common) misuse of "quantum", so they are both fine.  From the Times:

After two months of insisting that President Bush did not need court approval to authorize the wiretapping of calls between the United States and suspected terrorists abroad, the administration is trying to resist pressure for judicial review while pushing for retroactive Congressional approval of the program.

The administration opened negotiations with Congress last week, but it is far from clear whether Mr. Bush will be able to fend off calls from Democrats and some Republicans for increased oversight of the eavesdropping program, which is run by the National Security Agency.

The White House prefers Congressional oversight to judicial oversight; Mark wonders why.

As to why Congress prefers judicial oversight, that is easy - since, Heaven forbid, we may be attacked again, no politician wants to be responsible for derailing this program.  But if it gets bogged down in the courts... waddya gonna do?

The heroes in Congress, after a few weeks of Voguing, passed the Patriot Act.  At crunch time, they will endorse the NSA program in a way that lets them deny any responsibility for killing it.

However, right now we have to pass through a wishful thinking phase.  Here is Sen. Lindsay Graham, from the Times:

"I do believe we can provide oversight in a meaningful way without compromising the program," he said, "and I am adamant that the courts have some role when it comes to warrants. If you're going to follow an American citizen around for an extended period of time believing they're collaborating with the enemy, at some point in time, you need to get some judicial review, because mistakes can be made."

Emphasis added.  When Gen. Hayden persuades him that he cannot have his cake and eat it too, and that choices must be made, what will Sen. Graham do?  The right thing, I have no doubt.

Or here is Rep. Jane Harman, from Meet The Press last week, trying to keep one foot on each island like a mighty Colossus:

REP. JANE HARMAN, (D-Calif.):  My briefings started in 2003 and have been in existence for about a year and a half, and I didn’t join this group until I was ranking member on Intelligence. The briefings were about the operational details of the program. I support the program, I’ve never flinched from that. However, the briefings were not about the legal underpinnings of the program, nor were they about the appropriateness of the Gang of Eight process. I talked to absolutely no one, because I would have violated three different federal criminal statutes had I talked to anybody.

[Emphasis added, and Big Skip]

REP. HARMAN:  Well, I wish I’d been a lot smarter in those briefings about the legal underpinnings of the program. That was not discussed in the briefings. The briefings were about the operational details of the program and only in the last briefing because I requested it ahead—this was after the president had disclosed the existence of the program—did we spend an hour on the process, which was a very valuable discussion. The vice president and others were there. But remember, we go into those briefings alone, we have no ability to consult staff, we have no ability to consult constitutional experts or legal experts on the history of FISA. Since the program has been disclosed, I—and I think all of us, at least I have become a lot smarter about all that, and now that I have read the legislative history of FISA, which was enacted in 1978 on a bipartisan basis to cure the abuses of the Nixon era that had preceded it, I understand that it is the exclusive way that we can eavesdrop on Americans in America.

Let’s—let’s understand that our Constitution really is the issue here. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to listen and seize property of Americans. Every one of us wants to catch al-Qaeda and its affiliates. All of us want the president to have the tools. I just voted again for the Patriot Act. I believe we need modern tools. And, oh, by the way, FISA was modernized eight times in the Patriot Act after 2001. It is not a quaint little old thing that doesn’t work here, it can work here, and I think the entire program should fit under FISA as currently drafted. We don’t even need to amend FISA.

And here is some more "what's it gonna be, girl?" from Jane Harman with Wolf Blitzer:

HARMAN: I think it should be brought under FISA. I think that this is a capability we need. But it must strictly comply with the law and with the Fourth Amendment.

The president is not above the law. His legal arguments just don't wash here. FISA contemplated a 15-day period after the declaration of war when one would not need warrants.

It's been four years after the declaration of war on Afghanistan and the president is still claiming this inherent authority.

I believe that FISA has been modernized by Congress in eight respects and fully covers any activity that the president should want to accomplish under this program.

And I also believe that he's violating the National Security Act of 1947 by failing to brief Congress completely and fully.

So Jane Harman's position as ranking House Dem on Intelligence is what?  She supports the program, we need the program, and she thinks it can fit under FISA without amendments.

Well, no one else seems to think so.  What's going to give?

My guess - in a triumph of wishful thinking, the Harman view will prevail - everything is fine!  Congress will get more and better briefings, the White House will promise not to blame them if things go wrong, and Congress will resume ducking this.

MORE:  Glenn Greenwald thinks the White House is trying to sweep this under the rug because they are running scared:

Ever since the NSA scandal began, Bush followers, led by Karl Rove, and even some frightened Democrats, have loudly insisted that this scandal is actually beneficial for Republicans, because they can use it to depict Democrats as weak on national security. Democrats want to hang up when Osama calls, while Bush is being aggressive in protecting our children from being blown up. As a result, they claimed, Republicans want this scandal to last as long as possible because it will only benefit Republicans politically and damage Democrats by highlighting their vulnerabilities.

While spouting that bravado, the Administration's actions reveal that they fear this scandal and want more than anything for it to disappear. At every turn, they have tried to prevent a meaningful investigation into the legality of their actions. If the NSA scandal is really the political weapon which the GOP can use to bash Democrats as being weak on national security, wouldn't the White House be doing the opposite - that is, encouraging every hearing and investigation possible?

Emphasis added, and let's just say, Uh huh.  The White House has said from Day One that talking about this program harms national security and alerts the enemy.  Fine, I have no doubt that many of Greenwald's followers assume the President is lying.  But let's admit that, at a minimum, by acting to move this "scandal" off the front pages the White House is behaving in a manner consistent with its lies.

Meanwhile, I miss the impeachment talk - perhaps Mr. Greenwald can predict for us when the Dems will restart that?  Or easier - when will he?

Comments

[kim]

What does Glenn want 'more than anything'? Surcease.
=======================================

[richard mcenroe]

So under Jane Harmon's logic, the Government would have needed court orders to wiretap suspected Nazi spies after December 23rd, 1941?

[Cecil Turner]

Harman:

Let’s—let’s understand that our Constitution really is the issue here. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to listen and seize property of Americans.

Oh nonsense. Why do people keep saying this? Even a casual reading of the Amendment ought to disabuse them of the notion. Conversely, a very thorough reading of the Constitution is needed to find the section on Judicial oversight of warfighting.

[Beto Ochoa]

Could any house or senate members have communicated with AlQaeda in some shape, form or fashion?

[BurbankErnie]

"Meanwhile, I miss the impeachment talk - perhaps Mr. Greenwald can predict for us when the Dems will restart that? Or easier - when will he?"

Silly Tom. The Dems will start the IMPEACHMENT Talks when their mouthpiece, the MSM, starts tilting the Polls to the Left come September. This is just the runnup to the Propaganda; you know, throw it against the wall and see what sticks. So far, it is a teflon wall.

Must suck to be a Dem.

[maryrose]

Burbank Ernie:
" Tilting the polls to the left come September"
So true- I always say-no one has polled me and when some dems say "the american people need to know or want to know-no I don't and you dems don'T speak for me.
Also what new pseudo-scandal can they dream up by October or what dirty trick[like the depots with missing weapons; an out and out slur on our military] for 2 weeks before the election.

[Lou Grunt]

"The heroes in Congress, after a few weeks of Voguing..."

Now that's funny...and fitting! For whatever reason, I vividly remember that Madonna video. Congresspeeps: 'Don't just stand there, let's get to it...Strike a pose, there's nothing to it.'

[Jimmy's Attack Rabbit]

Maybe the Kos Kids will fire up another one of their circle jerk letter campaigns to get the Impeachment talk going again since it worked so well against Justice Alito.

[lyle]

If Greenwald is right, Democrats should seize the NSA surveillance issue and pound away at it for the next nine months. If he's right, they'll reap major gains on election day. If he's right.

[Jim in Chicago]

Greenwald wakes up in a sweat screaming for his mommy every night as a result of the rhetorical bitchslapping Jeff Goldstein has given him on the NSA issue.

[rob]

Meanwhile, I miss the impeachment talk - perhaps Mr. Greenwald can predict for us when the Dems will restart that? Or easier - when will he?

Maybe you should read the New Yorker. The Mora piece indicates that GW is war criminal.

[Dwilkers]

The outrage sure died suddenly didn't it? Right after the first closed hearing.

I'm just guessing here, but I suspect that what the administration is doing is allowing congress a face saving gesture towards legislation to 'save' us from potential abuse. They aren't going to pass a real law or have a real debate about it because of the potential consequences of doing so.

And Harmon said the program is nothing like what has been described in the press.

So. False outrage. No abuse. No crime. In reality, apparently an important program.

Sold a lot of newspapers and books though, didn't it?

[Nash]

Meanwhile, I miss the impeachment talk

I do wish you guys would pick a position and stick with it. In the previous thread, comments pop up over and over decrying the impeachment talk and willing it not to start anew. And here you are getting things all stirred up again. Agitator!

The biggest problem with your statement is that the VLWMSM is, as you so often point out, too stupid to recognize that you are invoking sarcasm. They are quite likely to take your suggestion and run with it and then where will we all be?

Contrast that with the fact that, knowing the intellectual prowess of the denizens of this site, I do not need to turn on and off the sarcasm html tags. It is good to be with the truly gifted.

[kim]

Gawd, talk about writing for your audience.
============================================

[kim]

Hey, Nash, sarcasm and irony are much more difficult to pull off without confusion on the internet than in person, but we're learning.
============================================

[kim]

I find the dead pan more effective in print, though.
========================================

[kim]

No impeachment, and I'll bet Pinch still isn't letting Calame in on the reasons behind the decision to publish so defiantly.
===============================================

[noah]

Nash you remind me of an unpleasant character in a forgettable movie. All hotted up in fashionable clothes and sucking up to the clique. Like DougJ of old you probably hang elsewhere.