Deal on spy program in works (Bill would let court approve wiretaps)

[sabra]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/28/deal_on_spy_program_in_works/

Deal on spy program in works
Bill would let court approve wiretaps

WASHINGTON -- Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a leading Republican critic of President Bush's domestic spying program, has drafted a bill that would exempt the once-secret surveillance program from a 1978 statute that requires warrants.

The draft bill, which will be aired today at a Judiciary Committee hearing, would require Bush to submit the classified details of the spying program to a special national security court for review. The court would decide whether the program violates the constitutional prohibitions on unreasonable searches.

The Pennsylvania lawmaker has not yet released his bill to the public, but the Globe obtained a draft copy that has been circulating among legal specialists who are set to testify about the spying program at today's hearing.

Specter's proposal appears to offer a face-saving solution to both sides, some specialists said. It avoids declaring whether the program until now has been illegal, but reasserts congressional authority over domestic surveillance going forward.

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. Damn, Bush escapes making it to the hoodlum vote.

THIS is why minority groups are so pissed. White males in this country keep covering for each other's criminal behavior.

[necso]

2. Visual:

http://my.opera.com.nyud.net:8090/Inquisitor/homes/files/old_forum_import/surrender.jpg

[Just Me]

3. How is a bill authorizing warrantless surveillance constitutional?

Who will be sitting on this so-called "special national security court"? The pResident's cronies? Why isn't the FISA court good enough? This is bullshit!!!

Looks like a legislative pardon of criminal activities, too me.

Bullshit!!!

[mmonk]

4. Dictatorships have always worked this way.

Do something illegal, cover yourself with "exemptions" and new laws and committees.

[wordpix2]

5. write a bill to cover Bush's ass when he breaks law---how Repiglican

[Inland]

6. Spector punts issue to secret "court" that will do HIS JOB

of looking at the program. More congressional refusal of oversight. It's not a court, it's doing the job that Congress should be doing.

A few questions makes it clear. Who is on the court? What info will they be given? Who will take up the brief of the spyed upon? Who can appeal? In other words, there's no "case" with people on both sides. There's just a group being spoonfed info by the Admin (which will lie like hell) and give an "approval", and we will be asking....approaval of what? To which the answer will be approval of what the admin is doing, and we will ask, and what was that, generally? To which the answer will be, don't worry, whatever we are doing has been approved!

And spector walks away blameless.

[rodeodance]

7. "appears to offer a face-saving solution to both sides,"---So, this is

about 'face saving"?------It has been reduced to that!!!!

[EFerrari]

10. Political face 1, Civil Liberties 0

:(

[rodeodance]

8. and the 18 Dems concern got dismissed (via Scotty)

....The debate over changing the wiretapping law comes as 18 Democrats in the House of Representatives sent Bush a letter yesterday demanding that he appoint a special counsel empowered to independently investigate whether the program is illegal.

Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, dismissed the request in his daily briefing yesterday, saying there is ''no basis" for a special counsel, repeating the administration's assertion that the program is legal.

[rodeodance]

9. Specter is 'accomodating Bush without making it clear he broke the law-

...''This is a good-faith effort on the part of Senator Specter to reach a reasonable compromise," said Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec, a former Reagan administration lawyer who will testify today. ''We could endlessly debate who is right under the existing law. . . . The wisdom of Specter's approach is to say 'OK, this is an interesting debate, but we've got a real problem to solve and here is my attempt at solving the problem.' "

But Specter's proposal drew fire from critics of the president's assertion that his wartime powers allow him to circumvent the 1978 law and spy on Americans without a warrant. The critics said Specter is proposing changing the law to accommodate Bush without making it clear that a president must obey the law.

Harold Koh, the dean of Yale Law School and another specialist who will testify today, said Specter's bill would ''make matters far worse by giving the Congress's blanket preauthorization to a large number of unreasonable searches and seizures," without offering a full review of a program that until now he contended has been ''blatantly illegal."

''To enact the draft legislation . . . would provide neither the congressional oversight nor the judicial review that this program needs to restore our confidence in our constitutional checks and balances," Koh said.

[seafan]

11. "It avoids declaring whether the program until now has been illegal"

Specter's draft bill: "It avoids declaring whether the program until now has been illegal.."

This dovetails what Sen. Pat Roberts did in stonewalling the release of the 9-11 Committee Phase 2 Report that investigated the manipulation of intelligence by the administration. We don't want to examine whether what they did was illegal, no sirree!


And why is Specter touting this "new legislation" for a new "special national security court" for deciding whether the spying "violates constitutional law"?

WE ALREADY HAVE THE FISA COURT TO DO THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Why, oh why won't some brave media person ask this question?


When will we exorcise our country of these thieves, enablers and medieval thinkers?