You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Congressional probe of NSA spying in doubt
2006-02-15
Congress appeared ready to launch an investigation into the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program last week, but an all-out White House lobbying campaign has dramatically slowed the effort and may kill it, key Republican and Democratic sources said yesterday.

The Senate intelligence committee is scheduled to vote tomorrow on a Democratic-sponsored motion to start an inquiry into the recently revealed program in which the National Security Agency eavesdrops on an undisclosed number of phone calls and e-mails involving U.S. residents without obtaining warrants from a secret court. Two committee Democrats said the panel -- made up of eight Republicans and seven Democrats -- was clearly leaning in favor of the motion last week but now is closely divided and possibly inclined against it.

They attributed the shift to last week's closed briefings given by top administration officials to the full House and Senate intelligence committees, and to private appeals to wavering GOP senators by officials, including Vice President Cheney. "It's been a full-court press," said a top Senate Republican aide who asked to speak only on background -- as did several others for this story -- because of the classified nature of the intelligence committees' work.

Lawmakers cite senators such as Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) to illustrate the administration's success in cooling congressional zeal for an investigation. On Dec. 20, she was among two Republicans and two Democrats who signed a letter expressing "our profound concern about recent revelations that the United States Government may have engaged in domestic electronic surveillance without appropriate legal authority." The letter urged the Senate's intelligence and judiciary committees to "jointly undertake an inquiry into the facts and law surrounding these allegations."

In an interview yesterday, Snowe said, "I'm not sure it's going to be essential or necessary" to conduct an inquiry "if we can address the legislative standpoint" that would provide oversight of the surveillance program. "We're learning a lot and we're going to learn more," she said.

She cited last week's briefings before the full House and Senate intelligence committees by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and former NSA director Michael V. Hayden.

"The administration has obviously gotten the message that they need to be more forthcoming," Snowe said.

Before the New York Times disclosed the NSA program in mid-December, administration briefings regarding it were highly secret and limited to eight lawmakers: the top Republican and Democratic leader of the House and Senate, respectively, and the top Republican and Democrat on the House and Senate intelligence committees.

The White House characterized last week's closed-door briefings to the full committees as a significant concession and a sign of the administration's respect for Congress and its oversight responsibilities. Many Democrats dismissed the briefings as virtually useless, but senators said yesterday they appear to have played a big role in slowing momentum for an inquiry.

John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the Senate intelligence committee's vice chairman, has drafted a motion calling for a wide-ranging inquiry into the surveillance program, according to congressional sources who have seen it. Rockefeller declined to be interviewed yesterday.

Sources close to Rockefeller say he is frustrated by what he sees as heavy-handed White House efforts to dissuade Republicans from supporting his measure. They noted that Cheney conducted a Republicans-only meeting on intelligence matters in the Capitol yesterday.

Senate intelligence committee member Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) said in an interview that he supports the NSA program and would oppose a congressional investigation. He said he is drafting legislation that would "specifically authorize this program" by excluding it from the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which established a secret court to consider government requests for wiretap warrants in anti-terrorist investigations.

The administration would be required to brief regularly a small, bipartisan panel drawn from the House and Senate intelligence committees, DeWine said, and the surveillance program would require congressional reauthorization after five years to remain in place.

Snowe said she is inclined to support DeWine's plan. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who also signed the Dec. 20 letter seeking an inquiry, said yesterday that the FISA law should be amended to include the NSA program and to provide for congressional oversight.

As for Rockefeller's bid, Hagel said: "If some kind of inquiry would be beneficial to getting a resolution to this issue, then sure, we should look at it. But if the inquiry is just some kind of a punitive inquiry that really is not focused on finding a way out of this, then I'm not so sure that I would support that."
Posted by:Dan Darling

#9  Two comments in this article leave me shaking my head at the sheer gall of Rockefeller.
Comment one,
administration briefings regarding it were highly secret and limited to eight lawmakers: the top Republican and Democratic leader of the House and Senate, respectively, and the top Republican and Democrat on the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Comment two
John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the Senate intelligence committee's vice chairman, has drafted a motion calling for a wide-ranging inquiry into the surveillance program,

So since he's the inteligence vice-Chairman he was briefed, and is now pretending he knew nothing about it?

Bastard.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2006-02-15 20:04  

#8  DM? Oh, yeah. Data Mining.

Jeepers, Karl Rove is good! (4)
Posted by: Bobby   2006-02-15 17:42  

#7  Graham needs a challenger in the 2006 primary.
Posted by: SR-71   2006-02-15 11:24  

#6  Should read: “After careful consideration (and many polls) Senators decide not to piss into the wind.” ItÂ’s only coincidence that the right thing happens to also be the political thing to do. Notice that the Donks are no longer talking about “stopping the patriot act” but are beaming about the bi-partisan support. If they donÂ’t improve their numbers on national security soon most of their congressional/senate campaigns will be over by June.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2006-02-15 10:29  

#5  This has less to do with terrorist spying and more to do with Congressional power, RINO weenies included.

Snowe, Specter, Graham, et al want to "deliberate" the war on terror. That why you get the laughable line "If the President needs more power, he should ask Congress."

Anyone who has watched the Senate or the House debate and legislate on C-SPAN knows that the terrorists would like nothing better than to have these bodies cuff the President's war fighting hands.

The AG read the Constitution to them (something they should have been already familar with), as well as excerpts from the Authorization to Use Military Force and reinforcing judicial statements.

Specter and the other dinosaurs are like the White House press corps, whining because they were not informed.
Posted by: Captain America   2006-02-15 08:39  

#4  Full court press my left nut.

The reason they are backing down is because its about to blow up in their faces. The public has become more informed about the 'dosmestic spying' (in spite of the MSM's attempt to cast it in a negative light) and decided that, yes its ok to spy on people who are trying to kill us.

Besides it was a dead issue to begin with. Carter and Clinton did it.

The 'Polls' (which is how they govern anymore - they dont have any brains or balls themselves) have spoken and they have failed miserably.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2006-02-15 08:21  

#3  "specifically authorize this program" by excluding it from the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

This is the blinding obvious answer, when laws were framed with no concept DM was possible. Any interpretation that prohibits DM must be an unintended consequence.

Otherwise what .com said.

Disclaimer; I'm not an American, although I would note Oz (the Howard government) has today proposed legislation that specifically allows DM. The media was of course completely clueless on the issue.
Posted by: phil_b   2006-02-15 07:49  

#2  Follow the money. We know where it leads. We know the political affiliations of these TRANZI fools. The Democrats in the House want no part of theuir dirty laundry aired.

When it comes out that Clinton may have actually broken real laws and regs that apply to all branches of government, not just ones the left have made up that don't even exist. They want to have no part of it.
Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom   2006-02-15 05:13  

#1  Still spinning, still peddling the "White House Power Play", still circling the drain. Fuck off, WaPo. Investigate my ass, tools.

This has already been decided, numerous times, in favor of Constitutional Presidential power and cannot be limited or curtailed by legislation. They can try to amend the Constitution, but that's it. Otherwise, game over. All of the laws in this arena crafted by the congress are wank-jobs. Pointless "pretty please" little lumps of congressional hubris and pretense.

The President has been civil and patient and shown much goodwill to these morons. Sadly, in this craven partisan atmosphere, it has all been a wasted effort and not reciprocated. Every asstard MSM story, such as this tripe, implying wrong-doing, power-plays - what-the-fuck-ever - are disingenuous smear efforts. The endless parade continues.

Bite me, WaPo. Curl up and die.
Posted by: .com   2006-02-15 05:08  

00:00