Senate Gives New Life To Warrantless Surveillance Debate

[JABBS]

The Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee plans to hold a hearing this week on a call by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) to censure President Bush for authorizing a warrantless surveillance program.

Committee chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) has opposed censure -- as has the vast majority of the Senate. But although approval of the March 13 censure resolution is highly unlikely, the hearing will most likely serve the purpose of providing a forum for debate of warrantless surveillance.

Democrats have been unhappy with the perceived effort by Senate Republicans to sweep the debate over warrantless surveillance under the rug, culminating with the Senate Intelligence Committee voting along party lines three weeks ago against an investigation of the program. Instead, Congressional Republicans cut a deal with the White House to provide Congressional oversight for warrantless surveillance.

"We have a responsibility to ask the hard questions, to find out what the nature of the program is and whether the president violated the law," Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said last week.

***

As JABBS has noted, the White House claimed it had "inherent authority" to conduct such surveillance, then undercut that argument by supporting legislation from Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) to "further codify" (read: legalize) the surveillance program. While legislation would legalize the program going forward, it doesn't address that the program was illegal for four-plus years.

Republicans have in the past clearly come out against further investigation of the program. As DeWine said, "We don’t want to have any kind of debate about whether it’s constitutional or not constitutional."

Americans deserve better, and should hope that the Republicans on the judiciary committee agree to a fair investigation of warrantless surveillance, even if it means determining Bush was wrong.

***

This item first appeared at JABBS.

[stop the bleeding]

1. So is this good, bad or just the same???

:shrug:

[JABBS]

2. It's good ...

If the Republicans allow an honest debate of the issues.

If the MSM covers this, without using Republican code words like "terrorist surveillance."

If the Democrats make their point clear: "We are in favor of terrorist surveillance, but we are not in favor of President Bush inventing laws. Warrantless surveillance is not currently legal, and the administration and its party leadership in Congress can't simply decree it so."

[stop the bleeding]

3. I hope so

K&R!!!

[gratuitous]

4. "An honest debate"???

Hoo boy, but that's the last thing the Republicans are interested in. If there's a hearing, it will be to hammer the Democrats for being soft on terrorism, praise the Bush administration for its perspicacity in chasing down terrorists, and give the Repubicans another chance to line up behind the White House. "Honest debate"? No such thing with the Republicans running the show. If it starts to look like there might be an honest debate breaking out, Stupidhead will decide he suddenly needs to call a press conference, and every available camera and microphone in DC will get in front of his simian little face.

If that doesn't work, or if Chimpy's too in the bag to come out and face a bank of microphones, Crash Cart, Rummy, and Condi will all similarly announce surprise press availabilities. Once the nasty hearings are over, or the honest debate has been stifled, they'll all go back to the West Wing and congratulate each other on another successful raid on democracy.

Mark my words.

[JABBS]

5. agreed

but Republicans went against the president on the ports deal after constituents demanded that they hold the administration accountable. if the same thing happens here, then there will be an honest debate.

Otherwise, this should be issue one in November. Democrats must make it clear that they support fighting an honest, legal war on terror, and that there is no room for flinching if we are to claim that we are spreading freedom and democracy to Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

[DLnyc]

7. Simple reply to 'soft on terror' charge: If * is really spying on

terrorists, why did he feel FISA wouldn't give him a warrant? I believe FISA almost never refuses to grant a warrant. They might though, if the list of targets consisted only of *'s political opposition, with no hint of evidence of connection to terrorism.

[DLnyc]

6. Who are they spying on, that they couldn't get a warrant from FISA?

This is a question I would like to see the Democrats asking. Public opinion supports spying on terrorists. What most of the public doesn't get, though, is that * already has very wide latitude to go to the FISA court either before or within 72 hours of any arguably legitimate surveilance. So it seems clear to me that they are spying on people that they couldn't possibly show are even POSSIBLY connected to terrorism. It sure would be nice to hear Democrats pointing this out, instead of just bickering about legality. The point is WHY did they feel it necessary to blatantly violate the law. The obvious answer, to me, is that the program is aimed at political control, not at fighting terrorism.