The Wrong Wiretap Debate(liberal interest groups are refusing to compromis

[papau]

liberal interest groups are refusing to compromise on the wiretap debate.

"I'm told they were urging Democratic members of Congress this week not to amend FISA. They would rather wait until next year, figuring they will have more congressional support after the 2006 elections. They also want to pursue their lawsuit charging that the President's actions are illegal."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701262.html

The Wrong Wiretap Debate
By David Ignatius

Wednesday, February 8, 2006; Page A19
As quickly as you can say the words "Karl Rove," the debate over the National Security Agency's anti-terrorist surveillance program is degenerating into a partisan squabble. Rather than seeking a compromise that would anchor the program in law, both the administration and its critics are pursuing absolutist agendas -- insisting on the primacy of security or liberty, rather than some reasonable balance of the two. This way lies disaster.

The NSA surveillance debate truly deserves the overworked moniker "historic." This is a fundamental test of the authority of Congress and the executive in wartime. It pits the president's power as commander in chief under Article II of the Constitution against specific legislative rules mandated by Congress in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. A stable, legal foundation for the NSA program can come by placing it under FISA jurisdiction, or by amending FISA, or perhaps by a judicial review that might support the administration's argument that Article II trumps FISA. Instead, we have none of the above.

The administration is trying to ramrod the program through, shamelessly summoning families of Sept. 11 victims to intimidate political opposition. Rove evidently has defined anti-terrorist surveillance as a new "wedge" issue -- you're either with the administration or you're for Osama bin Laden. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales mouthed the no-compromise rhetoric before the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday, but policy decisions on this issue are made in the bunker occupied by Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, David Addington. There is a lawyers' revolt brewing at Justice, State and the CIA against Addington's diktats, as outlined in the Feb. 6 edition of Newsweek, but so far the rule-of-law advocates haven't swayed President Bush.

Liberal interest groups are also refusing to compromise. I'm told they were urging Democratic members of Congress this week not to amend FISA. They would rather wait until next year, figuring they will have more congressional support after the 2006 elections. They also want to pursue their lawsuit charging that the president's actions are illegal. In the meantime, the NSA's program to "connect the dots" and track potential terrorists remains in legal limbo.
<snip>

[papau]

1. Limiting NSA Spying Is Inconsistent With Rationale, Critics Say

Bush Administration's foreign-domestic distinction "makes little sense legally, because the Administration has concluded that President Bush has the constitutional authority to order wiretaps on US citizens and residents without court approval."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701745.html
Analysis

Limiting NSA Spying Is Inconsistent With Rationale, Critics Say

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 8, 2006; Page A05
Ever since media reports revealed the existence of a warrantless government eavesdropping program targeting U.S. citizens and residents, Bush administration officials have taken great pains to emphasize that the effort involves only international telephone calls and e-mails.
The question from both Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee at a hearing Monday was: Why stop there? Why not intercept domestic calls, as well?<snip>

[fasttense]

2. Why change a law they are not paying any attention to anyway?

According to bush he has the authority to spy on American citizens without oversight or a warrant because he is king. If they change the law, why do they expect the king to follow that one? Seems to me he will do whatever he wants anyway. Why bother with laws at all? Let the king rule.

Congress has become totally useless. Their laws are not followed by anyone, not the Fed who have exceeded the borrowing limit without Congressional approval, not the Immigration Department who have exceeded the number of Visas authorized and ignore requirements in the law to enforce border security, and not the executive branch which is spying on American citizens without warrants in violation of FISA Laws. What's the use of Congress doing anything? They are a useless expenditure of Taxpayer's money. The neocrazies need to reduce government by doing away with congress.