Senators Wary of Bush's Wiretap Proposal

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

Citing FBI abuses and the attorney general's troubles, senators peppered top Justice and intelligence officials Tuesday with skeptical questions about their proposal to revise the rules for spying on Americans.

Senate Intelligence Committee members said the Bush administration must provide more information about its earlier domestic spying before it can hope to gain additional powers for the future.

"Is the administration's proposal necessary, or does it take a step further down a path that we will regret as a nation?" asked Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-V.Wa., as he convened a rare public hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee he chairs.

--
But Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., responded, "We look through the lens of the past to judge how much we can trust you." Like other senators, he said that trust was undermined by recent disclosure that the FBI had abused so-called National Security Letters to obtain information about Americans.


Read more: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/01/national/w163706D68.DTL

[rodeodance]

1. I watched some of it. Article II kept coming up----some saying the Pres will

just invoke art II no matter how much they change FISA

[Lasher]

7. What channel was it on?

The only broadcast of the hearing I could find was on CSPAN radio.

[deacon]

2. Wary? Haven't two federal judges already ruled that the previous

wiretapping was illegal? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh

[sam sarrha]

3. havent we learned that ANYTHING that fool does is the kiss of death..??

[maddezmom]

4. WP: Intelligence Chief Decries Constraints

Intelligence Chief Decries Constraints
Update of Surveillance Law Urged

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 2, 2007; Page A07

Court orders in January that brought President Bush's warrantless terrorist surveillance program under existing law have limited the intelligence that agencies can collect, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell told a Senate committee yesterday.

"We are actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting," McConnell said during an unusual public session of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the administration's proposal to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).

The intelligence collection program was secretly instituted under presidential authority shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and was disclosed by the news media in December 2005. It permitted warrantless intercepts of telephone calls and e-mails between the United States and locations overseas if one participant was believed to be a member of al-Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization.

more:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/01/AR2007050101357.html

[salin]

5. the reporting says "if one participant was believed to be a member of al-qeada

or an associated terrorist organization", but if I recall the wording is much more vague. It seems to allow a distant association that may be nonexistent. Also note the story a few years back as to what organizations the state department declares as domestic terrorism and what groups it does not (hint left leaning animal and environmental groups were terrorist; militia and racist orgs were not). Finally the provision to one participant being overseas was also fuzzy. IIRC, even Gonzales wouldn't answer a question before a Senate committee as to whether it was possible to intercept purely domestic calls and Gonzo hedged and wouldn't answer.

[Rose Siding]

6. McConnell spins with abandon

"There is nothing in this bill that confines the president to work within" the surveillance act in the future, said Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif. The same issue was raised by Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and Bill Nelson, D-Fla.

McConnell said the administration wants to work under the surveillance law now, but acknowledged "that does not mean the president would not use ... (constitutional powers) in a crisis."

[IChing]

8. Administration Pulls Back on Surveillance Agreement (Warrentless is OK)

Source: NY times

WASHINGTON, May 1 — Senior Bush administration officials told Congress on Tuesday that they could not pledge that the administration would continue to seek warrants from a secret court for a domestic wiretapping program, as it agreed to do in January.

Rather, they argued that the president had the constitutional authority to decide for himself whether to conduct surveillance without warrants.

As a result of the January agreement, the administration said that the National Security Agency’s domestic spying program has been brought under the legal structure laid out in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court-approved warrants for the wiretapping of American citizens and others inside the United States.

But on Tuesday, the senior officials, including Michael McConnell, the new director of national intelligence, said they believed that the president still had the authority under Article II of the Constitution to once again order the N.S.A. to conduct surveillance inside the country without warrants.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/washington/02intel.html?ex=1335844800&en=44b707500140d166&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

9. Now where the HELL does it say that???

Someone please show me...

http://www.law.emory.edu/cms/site/index.php?id=3080

[LynnTheDem]

10. Gee...Nixon didn't have "constitutional authority" to spy on Americans w/out warrants

Funny how suddenly bUsh has such authority.

But then HILARY CLINTON will be able to spy on US citizens without warrants when she's US president and OF COURSE the rightwingnuts won't say boo.

:rofl:

[Lasher]

15. FISA was develped intentionally to prevent abuses such as those Nixon perpetrated

And the ones Junior has been guilty of are clearly in violation of FISA. This is a legal stunt to try to make it look like Junior did nothing wrong when he committed those felonies.

[Ms. Clio]

11. this is stunning and horrifying

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html

[donkeyotay]

12. This is why impeachment can't be off the table

Bush is a tyrant. He calls HIS attorney general "Fredo". Between Abu Gonzo and the rest of the neocon braintrust, the incompetent, unelected "president" has been convinced that he has the right to do anything if he thinks its in the best interests of the country - even though he has never been seen to act in the best interests of the country.

Ignore the evil little man hiding behind the national security curtain.

Impeach all of them.

[EFerrari]

13. K&R

[truthisfreedom]

14. "I can do anything I want!" And he stamped his widdo foot.

Meanwhile, sex and corruption scandals generated an endless parade of news headlines, subpoenas, and resignations all around him.

[Robbien]

16. The scary part is that Bush's term is over in two years

These guys are setting this shit up to enable every president from now to do the same as Bush is now. It is as if they don't care that a future president may not be one who answers to them.

Perhaps they know something we do not.

[progressoid]

17. Easiest way to stop a bushie in his tracks....

Ask him if he thinks President Hillary Clinton should be able to do any wiretaps she wants without a warrant.

[MsMagnificent]

18. K, R & Bookmark

[Sapere aude]

19. Why are we losing our freedoms to the party that tells us our troops are fighting to protect our

freedoms?:shrug:

[Doctor_J]

20. Translation: It will become law within a few weeks

Has Smirk been denied anything he's wanted for 6 years? I didn't think so