| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Democrats acknowledge spying necessary |
| 2006-02-13 |
| Two key Democrats yesterday called the NSA domestic surveillance program necessary for fighting terrorism but questioned whether President Bush had the legal authority to order it done without getting congressional approval. Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) said Republicans are trying to create a political issue over Democrats' concern on the constitutional questions raised by the spying program. At the same time, the Republican chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees -- Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), who attended secret National Security Agency briefings -- said they supported Bush's right to undertake the program without new congressional authorization. They added that Democrats briefed on the program, who included Harman and Daschle, could have taken steps if they believed the program was illegal. All four appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press." Roberts said he could not remember Democrats raising questions about the program during briefings that, beginning in 2002, were given to the "Gang of Eight." That group was made up of the House speaker and minority leader, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and the chairmen and ranking Democrats of the House and Senate intelligence committees. At the briefings, Roberts said, "Those that did the briefing would say, 'Do you have questions? Do you have concerns?' " Hoekstra said if Democrats thought Bush was violating the law, "it was their responsibility to use every tool possible to get the president to stop it." Harman countered that John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the Senate intelligence panel, had voiced his concerns to Vice President Cheney in a classified letter in July 2003, but "if he had shared that letter publicly, I think he would have been in violation of the Espionage Act, the disclosure of classified information." Harman said the briefings she received concerned "the operational details of the program," which she supported. "However," she added, "the briefings were not about the legal underpinnings of the program." She said it was not until Bush publicly spoke about the program, after it was revealed in the New York Times in December, that she was free to discuss it with House staff and constitutional lawyers. Daschle said he wants the program to continue but maintained that the warrantless wiretapping of calls that came into the United States or calls made overseas, even those involving suspected terrorist sources, violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). He recalled that after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks Bush asked Congress to revise FISA -- to initiate wiretaps and get warrants after 72 hours -- to make it easier to use against terrorists. Those changes were made. But in the authorization to fight al Qaeda, Bush was denied language that would have covered activities on U.S. soil. Harman noted that the House and Senate intelligence committees were briefed last week on domestic wiretapping. "We're only 36 members total that we're talking about, and those members should decide whether this program fits within the law, and if it does, which I think it does, we should all declare victory. If it does not, then we should be changing the law or changing the program." The three current intelligence committee members talked about the article in Foreign Affairs by Paul R. Pillar, the former senior CIA intelligence analyst on Iraq. He criticized the Bush administration for "cherry-picking" intelligence to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, while ignoring assessments that problems would emerge after Saddam Hussein was removed. Roberts said Pillar did not give his committee that kind of assessment. Hoekstra questioned why Pillar was speaking out now. Harman said: "He was trying to get everyone's attention. Intelligence was ignored. Yes, everyone agreed there was WMD in Iraq, but the weight of the [intelligence community's] recommendation was Saddam was contained and he wasn't going to use it. And that's the part that the administration never let us hear about." |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #10 liberalhawks, you and yours continue to ignor - One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'. SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. Speaker of the House of Representatives. Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate. |
| Posted by: Ebboth Hupuper2982 2006-02-13 23:01 |
| #9 political asshole or stupid - you choose You forgot option "C" -- "all of the above/Democrat". |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-02-13 22:17 |
| #8 Harman knew for years yet never voiced her disagreement - political asshole or stupid - you choose |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-02-13 22:14 |
| #7 The unanswered question however is, are democrats "necessary?" |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-02-13 21:53 |
| #6 "It was the Dems and their fawning agents in the MSM running around like a chicken with its head cut off, that this was a serious breach of the Constitution, that it was illegal, that it was grounds for impeachment. Now that the polls have increased in supporting the program, they now do an about face and claim its the Republicans that are trying to create the storm. No shame. No honor. Just a plain base lust for power by any means possible. " It may be illegal. It may be a breach of the Constitution. Its almost certainly not impeachable, given that the admin almost certainly thought that it was legal and constitutional. And opposing the failure to A. use the FISA courts and B. To change the law, if the existing FISA law was a problem is NOT the same as opposing the spying itself. It may be wrong, if the admin is correct that the law couldnt be changed without giving away key aspects of the program, but its not the same. All of which needs to be investigated by Spectors commitee. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-02-13 14:59 |
| #5 Harman said: "... Yes, everyone agreed there was WMD in Iraq, but the weight of the [intelligence community's] recommendation was Saddam was contained and he wasn't going to use it. Except that he wasn't exactly contained, he was able to spend his money and buy a lot of what he wanted. And the containment was destined to fail as the sanctions were going to go away. The French and Russians had been suitably bribed, and they were just waiting to wear the US/UK down. Remember, the only thing the Left got correct was that the only people harmed by the sanctions was the innocent people of Iraq. Mr. Pillar never quite got that. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-02-13 12:41 |
| #4 The WSJ editorial last Friday covered this well. Consider that the head judge at FISA "refused" to accept any data collected from (in her mind) tainted sources. Since when is an unelected (unaccountable) judge get to decide on what is "permissable" in the protection of American citizens? Dems are merely trying to slice the baloney, per their leader Howie the Duck |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-02-13 12:13 |
| #3 Spot-on, AG. Plot another data point on the timeline, then back off and look at the trend of where this behavior eventually leads, whether intentionally or not. I think I know. I hope I'm wrong, but if I actually thought I was, obviously, I'd think something else, lol. Something (very) ugly this way comes. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-13 09:46 |
| #2 Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) said Republicans are trying to create a political issue over Democrats' concern on the constitutional questions raised by the spying program. Talk about Orwellian Newspeak. It was the Dems and their fawning agents in the MSM running around like a chicken with its head cut off, that this was a serious breach of the Constitution, that it was illegal, that it was grounds for impeachment. Now that the polls have increased in supporting the program, they now do an about face and claim its the Republicans that are trying to create the storm. No shame. No honor. Just a plain base lust for power by any means possible. |
| Posted by: Angogum Glaith2605 2006-02-13 09:37 |
| #1 What ever happened to the rat that let out the big secret anyway? |
| Posted by: Spairong Elmoluque3235 2006-02-13 08:24 |