See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Democrats Will Seek Republican Backing to Set Limits on Bush Surveillance
Source:
Bloomberg
URL Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/regions/us.html
Published: Nov 29, 2006
Author: James Rowley
Post Date: 2006-11-29 10:32:40 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 83
Comments: 4
Nov. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Democrats, about to take control of Congress, say they will forge a bipartisan compromise to put limits on President George W. Bush's program of domestic eavesdropping of suspected terrorists. Democrats say they already have a starting point for a compromise, noting that bipartisan proposals this year require court warrants for eavesdropping. At the same time, party leaders will be treading carefully in an effort to assure Americans that they can protect privacy without sacrificing vigilance, and to discredit Republican charges they are weak on national security. ``How will the Democrats proceed? I think gingerly,'' said Steven Aftergood, who directs a government secrecy project for the Federation of American Scientists in Washington. ``They can no longer function as a protest group.'' After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without getting court warrants on communications between suspected al-Qaeda operatives in the U.S. and overseas. While disclosure of the program triggered criticism from both parties, there is practically no chance the Republican- controlled Congress that returns to Washington next week will act on the issue, leaving it for the next Congress that convenes in January. Rockefeller's Timetable West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller, who will head the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in an interview Congress may be able to pass bipartisan legislation in six months. Rockefeller said he supports ``collection of conversations where that is necessary for national security'' but is disturbed by ``blanket'' eavesdropping. Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, the next Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, said the administration needs to provide more information to lawmakers about the program; Congress has been asked to ``legalize secret, unlawful actions that the administration has refused to fully divulge.'' To pass legislation next year, Democrats will have to bridge a gap between lawmakers who favor requiring a search warrant in each case of surveillance, and those who would permit broad court authorization. Democrats such as California Senator Dianne Feinstein have made individual warrants a prerequisite. Republicans say that would hobble the NSA's ability to move quickly. Special Court Bush agreed in negotiations with Republican Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter to authorize a special court that oversees intelligence and operates in secret to decide whether the eavesdropping was legal. The court was created under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to review, behind closed doors, requests for eavesdropping on suspected spies, terrorists and other foreign agents. Specter's measure stalled this year, as did a House-passed bill to permit surveillance on condition that the president brief leaders of Congress. Most Democrats opposed both measures, arguing that they failed to protect privacy and insisting that the 1978 law remain the exclusive means for authorizing surveillance. At the same time, no one in Congress has called for Bush to halt the program. Democrats risk a political backlash ``if they tie the president's hands and if there are more attacks,'' said Robert Turner, who directs the center for national security law at the University of Virginia law school in Charlottesville. Any legislation must not ``require unplugging the headphones for a period of hours, days or weeks while some judge finds time to look at the paperwork,'' said Turner, who supports the president's program. Specter's Support Feinstein, a member of the Intelligence and Judiciary committees, would require the NSA to submit requests to the special court created under the 1978 law. Her legislation would permit emergency eavesdropping for seven days while a warrant is sought. Specter supports her proposal as an alternative to his own. A separate House measure proposed by California Democrat Adam Schiff and Arizona Republican Jeff Flake would also require specific warrants and force Bush to tell congressional committees who is being wiretapped and why. The measure ``has broad bipartisan support and would probably be a starting point'' for debate next year, said Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi of California. Bush's allies say it is impractical to force the NSA to seek warrants because it must act quickly to sift through a large volume of messages. ``Something like that simply would not work,'' Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, said in an interview. Civil Libertarians Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington office, urged congressional hearings to ``grapple with this immediately.'' A U.S. appeals court is reviewing a ruling by a federal judge in Detroit declaring that the NSA program is illegal. Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine told Congress this week he will investigate the agency's ``compliance with legal requirements governing the program.'' Civil libertarians say that, with the midterm congressional elections over, they may pick up support from such Republicans as Senators Larry Craig of Idaho, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Sununu of New Hampshire, who have voiced concern about the surveillance. ``The limited-government types and the strong-executive types'' are split, increasing chances some Republicans will support constraints on the spying program, said Richard Epstein, a University of Chicago law school professor who favors court supervision of the surveillance. The longer Congress waits, he said, ``the longer becomes the implied ratification that the president is within his rights.''
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#1. To: Brian S, lodwick, bluedogtxn (#0)
The CongressWhores will not do jack. This is all political ramblings and makes for nice press bytes. The 2PartyFraud attempting to throw bones to the masses to pacify them from action, not that its really necessary, but these cowards don't take chances. ThePeople will be the ones to derail this train and return Freedom to this PoliceState, not the politicowhores who have helped in its contruction.
The only thing that is "bi-partisan" about the criminal politicos of both parties is their membership in the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR are the ones dismantling this nation; not the R's and D's...they are only tools.
They are tools...and members. Yes the CFR/Banksters [Jews mostly]/Illuminati etc are behind the dismemberment of the Constitution, along with some outright Communists I might add, and yes the politicowhores who work for them. You're right. However, none will escape their fate when ThePeople rise up. The pawns will be taken to get to the major pieces.. They are just as guilty, as are we for allowing it to get this far gone. There is a special place in Hell for traitors to the Constitution. [Notice I didn't say "traitors to their country" since "the country" is no longer recognizable as Free America.] The Government is NOT America. We are. And the Constitution, the Declaration..these are our "governors," not the minor demons who have debauched their offices and their oaths.
There are no replies to Comment # 3. End Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestDemocrats, about to take control of Congress, say they will forge a bipartisan compromise to put limits on President George W. Bush's program of domestic eavesdropping of suspected terrorists.
#2. To: IndieTX (#1)
#3. To: who knows what evil (#2)
The only thing that is "bi-partisan" about the criminal politicos of both parties is their membership in the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR are the ones dismantling this nation; not the R's and D's...they are only tools.
Replies to Comment # 3.