PDA

View Full Version : Specter: White House Close to Deal on Codifying Wiretap Rules


mlyonsd
06-25-2006, 02:47 PM
Specter: White House Close to Deal on Codifying Wiretap Rules

Sunday , June 25, 2006
Associated Press



WASHINGTON — The White House is nearing an agreement with Congress on legislation that would write President Bush's warrantless surveillance program into law, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman said Sunday.

Bush and senior officials in his administration have said they did not think changes were needed to empower the National Security Agency to eavesdrop — without court approval — on communications between people in the U.S. and overseas when terrorism is suspected.

But Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and other critics contend the program skirted a 1978 law that required the government to get approval from a secretive federal court before Americans could be monitored.

"We're getting close with the discussions with the White House, I think, to having the wiretapping issue submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," Specter told "FOX New Sunday."

The administration has asserted that a post-Sept. 11, 2001, congressional resolution approving the use of military force covered the surveillance of some domestic communications.

Specter has said that the president "does not have a blank check" and he has sought to have administration ask the special court to review the program.

After the program was disclosed by The New York Times in December, the White House opposed changing the law. Over time, that position has shifted gradually.

When the president's nominee to head the CIA had confirmation hearings in the Senate in May, Michael Hayden told Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., that he would support a congressional debate on modifying the law.

"We're having a lot of conversations about that," Specter said Sunday. He added that he and Vice President Dick Cheney have exchanged letters and that Cheney has indicated that he was serious about discussing the issue.

"I've talked to ranking officials in the White House, and we're close," Specter said. "I'm not making any predictions until we have it all nailed down, but I think there is an inclination to have it submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and that would be a big step forward for the protection of constitutional rights and civil liberties."

Story... (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200882,00.html)

the Talking Can
06-25-2006, 02:53 PM
isn't that neat...you break the law, admit it, and then congress simply changes the law to legalize your crime...

thanks, republicans...once again accountability rules the day...

mlyonsd
06-25-2006, 02:54 PM
isn't that neat...you break the law, admit it, and then congress simply changes the law to legalize your crime...

thanks, republicans...once again accountability rules the day...

Yea, so much for your impeachment dreams.

WoodDraw
06-25-2006, 03:12 PM
isn't that neat...you break the law, admit it, and then congress simply changes the law to legalize your crime...

thanks, republicans...once again accountability rules the day...

A little disappointing, no? Bringing it under FISA is a positive, but I'm sure there are provisions saying the administration can wait days if not weeks to notify FISA. Kind of zaps the significance away.

jAZ
06-25-2006, 03:21 PM
Yea, so much for your impeachment dreams.
Please tell me this isn't reflective of your line of thinking. That's pretty repulsive. We have a rogue President doing whatever the **** he wants.. and instead of objecting to that... or recognizing the massive abuse of democracy described above... you focus in on a partisan "so much for impeachment" angle.

Baby Lee
06-25-2006, 03:31 PM
We have a rogue President doing whatever the **** he wants.
Please tell me this isn't reflective of your line of thinking. That's pretty repulsive. Instead of acknowledging that the president is doing everything he can to intercept intelligence about possible terrorist attacks, you characterize it as doing whatever the **** he wants.
It's interesting to see so many critics in video and print start out with the bombast of 'out of control Big Brother,' only to backtrack, usually seconds later to clarify "well of course I'm glad they're doing it . . . it's just. . . "

mlyonsd
06-25-2006, 03:46 PM
Please tell me this isn't reflective of your line of thinking. That's pretty repulsive. We have a rogue President doing whatever the **** he wants.. and instead of objecting to that... or recognizing the massive abuse of democracy described above... you focus in on a partisan "so much for impeachment" angle.

I was mainly reacting to TC's repulsive lies. Bush didn't break the law.

Now I'll react to your repulsive scolding.

My first thought was good, the program that has been praised from both sides of the aisle and shown to have merit will be applied in a way we can all agree on.

As to your "massive abuse of democracy" statement, it all goes to motive. Every president takes an oath to protect our citizens. Say what you want but the Bush administration has done everything they could to protect us after 911.

Bush doesn't need to apologize for that and you can piss up a rope if you think I'm going to feel guilty for thinking the NSA program has merit. Bush is doing everything he can to keep your family safe as well as mine.

banyon
06-25-2006, 03:53 PM
Say what you want but the Bush administration has done everything they could to protect us after 911.


I'd like to say that inspecting more than 5% of our cargo would be a good start.

HC_Chief
06-25-2006, 03:59 PM
I'd like to say that inspecting more than 5% of our cargo would be a good start.

I can actually hear Hillary's screaching as I read that post! ROFL

You cannot inspect 100% of all cargo that comes into the United States and not expect businesses to suffer greatly due to the added beuraucracy.

I also find it amusing that many leftists (NOT implicating banyon here as I've not read his takes on all issues) want to lock down imports yet want to leave the borders open. "Fences are evil!" Border security = racism! et al :hmmm:

banyon
06-25-2006, 04:08 PM
I can actually hear Hillary's screaching as I read that post! ROFL

You cannot inspect 100% of all cargo that comes into the United States and not expect businesses to suffer greatly due to the added beuraucracy.

I also find it amusing that many leftists (NOT implicating banyon here as I've not read his takes on all issues) want to lock down imports yet want to leave the borders open. "Fences are evil!" Border security = racism! et al :hmmm:

it was one of the primary recommedation of those liberal hacks from the 9-11 Commission. 5% is just not acceptable. Did you see where the morons from ABC News were able to sneak in radioactive materials through the ports?

And for my part, you can search my posts, but I've always been for pretty strong border security.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=140194&page=3&pp=15&highlight=banyon+immigration

HC_Chief
06-25-2006, 04:15 PM
it was one of the primary recommedation of those liberal hacks from the 9-11 Commission. 5% is just not acceptable. Did you see where the morons from ABC News were able to sneak in radioactive materials through the ports?

And for my part, you can search my posts, but I've always been for pretty strong border security.

All brevity aside I agree that 5% is too low. I also know that government has a way of f*cking things up and by adding restrictive policies businesses may suffer greatly. IMO 30-40% would be sufficient as a deterant and would not be so intrusive as to shut down (or significantly affect) shipping.

I am far more concerned about our border situation; both North and South. The bastards we're fighting now are very low-tech. I think it more likely they would infiltrate via an open border then construct means of desctruction here, rather than try to smuggle it in via a shipping container. The logistics of the latter are too great.

mlyonsd
06-25-2006, 04:23 PM
I'd like to say that inspecting more than 5% of our cargo would be a good start.

No argument there. I'm not saying the Bush administration gets a gold star for every item when it comes to protecting us. I stand corrected, "everything" was over reaching.

Adept Havelock
06-25-2006, 04:34 PM
Every president takes an oath to protect our citizens.


ummmm...no.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Defense of the citizens is one of his jobs, but his primary responsibility, like the military's, is to the Constitution.

It certainly doesn't give him carte blanche to undermine the doctrine of the separation of powers as enumerated in the constitution.

You believe he's doing "everything he can" to protect people. I think that is part of it. I also believe he's using that as a justification to undermine a base principle of the constitution, and when it comes to that, motive becomes largely irrelevant, IMO.

mlyonsd
06-25-2006, 06:07 PM
ummmm...no.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Defense of the citizens is one of his jobs, but his primary responsibility, like the military's, is to the Constitution.

It certainly doesn't give him carte blanche to undermine the doctrine of the separation of powers as enumerated in the constitution.

You believe he's doing "everything he can" to protect people. I think that is part of it. I also believe he's using that as a justification to undermine a base principle of the constitution, and when it comes to that, motive becomes largely irrelevant, IMO.

Semantics. While the actual oath is written as to protect and defend the constitution the obligation to protect the citizens is inherited.

If your case that he is undermining the constituion is so strong I'm surprised more members of Congress don't agree with you.

Like I say it goes to motive. I applaud Bush's motives.

BucEyedPea
06-25-2006, 06:12 PM
Semantics. While the actual oath is written as to protect and defend the constitution the obligation to protect the citizens is inherited.

If your case that he is undermining the constituion is so strong I'm surprised more members of Congress don't agree with you.

Like I say it goes to motive. I applaud Bush's motives.
Unfortunately most of them would probably fail a test on what it actually says. :(

banyon
06-25-2006, 06:35 PM
Semantics. While the actual oath is written as to protect and defend the constitution the obligation to protect the citizens is inherited.

If your case that he is undermining the constituion is so strong I'm surprised more members of Congress don't agree with you.

Like I say it goes to motive. I applaud Bush's motives.

Adept is right. If you can do whatever you want to "protect the citizens", then the Constitution is basically toilet paper. Kim Jong Il, probably says that he's doing what it takes to "defend" his citizens too. That's how most terrible governments have justified their actions throughout history. No one ever says that they are doing things to harm their citizens.

jAZ
06-25-2006, 06:46 PM
Please tell me this isn't reflective of your line of thinking. That's pretty repulsive. Instead of acknowledging that the president is doing everything he can to intercept intelligence about possible terrorist attacks, you characterize it as doing whatever the **** he wants.
It's interesting to see so many critics in video and print start out with the bombast of 'out of control Big Brother,' only to backtrack, usually seconds later to clarify "well of course I'm glad they're doing it . . . it's just. . . "
Everything about democracy, our legal system, and the like involves an important appreciation for HOW one conducts themselves. I might be with someone and we are both running late for a meeting, but if in my efforts to get us to the meeting on time, I kill 17 school children by driving 90 MPH through a school yard... then it might be fair to have mixed opinions of the outcome and the methods.

mlyonsd
06-25-2006, 06:47 PM
Adept is right. If you can do whatever you want to "protect the citizens", then the Constitution is basically toilet paper. Kim Jong Il, probably says that he's doing what it takes to "defend" his citizens too. That's how most terrible governments have justified their actions throughout history. No one ever says that they are doing things to harm their citizens.

Bleh.

Like I said Bush has nothing to apologize or feel guilty about.

jAZ
06-25-2006, 06:49 PM
I was mainly reacting to TC's repulsive lies. Bush didn't break the law.
Where do you get this? At best... the most favorable possible assessment... is that without a doubt, Bush broke the law, but *might* have had powers under another portion of the constitution that trumped the law.

But everyone agrees that the program violated the existing law.

mlyonsd
06-25-2006, 06:51 PM
Where do you get this? At best... the most favorable possible assessment... is that without a doubt, Bush broke the law, but *might* have had powers under another portion of the constitution that trumped the law.

But everyone agrees that the program violated the existing law.

Gheezus H. Christ I forgot what it was like to argue with a teenage daughter.

jAZ
06-25-2006, 06:51 PM
Bush doesn't need to apologize for that and you can piss up a rope if you think I'm going to feel guilty for thinking the NSA program has merit.
What does this have to do with your partisan pissing comment about impeachment?

jAZ
06-25-2006, 06:54 PM
Gheezus H. Christ I forgot what it was like to argue with a teenage daughter.
That's a rather empty retort to a completely accurate assessment on my part.

Logical
06-25-2006, 06:59 PM
I was mainly reacting to TC's repulsive lies. Bush didn't break the law.

Now I'll react to your repulsive scolding.

My first thought was good, the program that has been praised from both sides of the aisle and shown to have merit will be applied in a way we can all agree on.

As to your "massive abuse of democracy" statement, it all goes to motive. Every president takes an oath to protect our citizens. Say what you want but the Bush administration has done everything they could to protect us after 911.

Bush doesn't need to apologize for that and you can piss up a rope if you think I'm going to feel guilty for thinking the NSA program has merit. Bush is doing everything he can to keep your family safe as well as mine.

Funny I see it as doing everything in their power to take away the rights of the average citizen. I have no proof he has done a single thing that has protected us one iota more than doing nothing at all. Give us some proof, come forward with a bunch of direct evidence and indictments and then maybe I will believe.

Logical
06-25-2006, 07:04 PM
Adept is right. If you can do whatever you want to "protect the citizens", then the Constitution is basically toilet paper. Kim Jong Il, probably says that he's doing what it takes to "defend" his citizens too. That's how most terrible governments have justified their actions throughout history. No one ever says that they are doing things to harm their citizens.:thumb:

banyon
06-25-2006, 07:06 PM
Logical, did you see the "Planet War Poll" I bumped in the Lounge?

I'd be interested to see your thoughts.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=55385

Logical
06-25-2006, 07:10 PM
Logical, did you see the "Planet War Poll" I bumped in the Lounge?

I'd be interested to see your thoughts.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=55385


Not yet I will check it out.

banyon
06-25-2006, 07:12 PM
Not yet I will check it out.

BTW, I did not bump it to make any point about you. I just thought that it was interesting to look at with a few years hindsight.

Logical
06-25-2006, 07:16 PM
Logical, did you see the "Planet War Poll" I bumped in the Lounge?

I'd be interested to see your thoughts.

I definitely was wrong in the argument with jAZ which is why on a recent thread I owned up to it. I was definitely for the war and still think had we got out after we removed Saddam we would not be in the mess we are now in. I have been against the occupation pretty much from the point at which it became apparent we were doing so with no apparent plan or justification.

mlyonsd
06-26-2006, 08:47 AM
Funny I see it as doing everything in their power to take away the rights of the average citizen. I have no proof he has done a single thing that has protected us one iota more than doing nothing at all. Give us some proof, come forward with a bunch of direct evidence and indictments and then maybe I will believe.

Terrorist plots around the world have been foiled in part with the help of our government. Whether or not our government's secret programs played a role in that we might never know. But you knew that before you asked the question.

It's not my purpose in life to change your opinion. You're a big boy and can make up your own mind.

Now you show me proof where Bush has stepped on your rights. Be specific.

patteeu
06-26-2006, 11:18 AM
Where do you get this? At best... the most favorable possible assessment... is that without a doubt, Bush broke the law, but *might* have had powers under another portion of the constitution that trumped the law.

But everyone agrees that the program violated the existing law.

The vast majority of people don't have a basis for forming an opinion on this point at all since the vast majority of people don't know exactly what the surveillance program entails.

Besides, if you have powers that trump a law, you aren't "breaking" it in any normal sense of the word. Police officers and ambulence drivers are not generally thought of as breaking the speeding laws when they rush to the scene of an emergency.