Warrantless wiretaps unlikely to be OK'd
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

Legislation aimed at President Bush's once-secret program for wiretapping U.S.-foreign phone calls and computer traffic of suspected terrorists without warrants shows all the signs of not moving ahead, notwithstanding President Bush's request this week that a lame-duck Congress give it to him.

Senate Democrats, emboldened by Election Day wins that put them in control of Congress as of January, say they would rather wait until next year to look at the issue. "I can't say that we won't do it, but there's no guarantee that we're going spend a lot of time on controversial measures," Democratic Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois said Thursday.

In Senate parlance, that means no.

Republicans for months have known that no bill accomplishing Bush's goal could get filibuster-proof support from 60 senators. Sealing off any hope was what Democratic leader Harry Reid put on his lame-duck to-do list. The warrantless domestic surveillance bill was conspicuous in its absence.

As for next year, Bush should not expect Democrats to allow such legislation to pass without language establishing considerable congressional oversight of any expansion of warrantless wiretaps.

"We have been asked to make sweeping and fundamental changes in law for reasons that we do not know and in order to legalize secret, unlawful actions that the administration has refused to fully divulge," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, the next Judiciary Committee chairman. "If legislation is needed for judicial review, then we should write that legislation together, in a bipartisan and thoughtful way."

The Bush administration has a backup plan. In speeches over the next few weeks, the Justice Department will launch a new campaign for the legislation by casting the choice as one between supporting the program or dropping it altogether — and appearing soft on al-Qaida.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will make the eavesdropping program the focus of a Nov. 18 speech at the U.S. Air Force Academy. Kenneth L. Wainstein, assistant attorney general for the national security, will make a similar pitch Wednesday to the American Bar Association.

Leahy said that monitoring communications of suspected terrorists is essential but that "it needs to be done lawfully and with adequate checks and balances to prevent abuses of Americans' rights and Americans' privacy."

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Bush ordered the National Security Agency to monitor communications potentially related to al-Qaida between people in the U.S. and those overseas. He bypassed normal requirements for court approval of such eavesdropping, and the program came under harsh criticism after it was disclosed last December by The New York Times.

Democrats and Republicans on the intelligence and judiciary committees spent much of the year trying to find out details from the administration, to little avail. Much of the information is classified, and the White House has insisted that revealing it would mean compromising the war on terrorism.

The House passed a bill in September to allow warrantless wiretaps under certain restrictions. House and Senate intelligence committees and congressional leaders would have to be notified, the president would have to believe that a terrorist attack is imminent, and certification would have to be renewed every 90 days.

A Republican measure in the Senate favored by the administration would require the Justice Department to report twice a year to the House and Senate intelligence committees the number and kind of any such operations. It would permit the surveillance to continue for up to one year without a warrant.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061111/ap_ ... wiretaps_3

______


Well, I feel so much safer now that the Democrats control Congress.

A majority of Democrats approve of this program. They just want to, this may be shocking, pass a bill making this legal. It's like elementary school, the Prez can propose the bill, Congress can pass it, and then the Supreme Court can see if it passes Constitutional mustor. Pretty simple.

Your change in thread title from just using the name of the article makes it a bit misleading as the new Congress wants some oversight of the legislation, not dropping it all together. At least that's the way I see it. The key part of this article, to me, is this section:

Again with the loaded thread titles

you said loaded

How is it "loaded?"

It is clear that the Democrats don't want the Terrorist Surveillance Act to go through...read the article. What the article doesn't include is the Democrats' threat to filibuster the legislation and stop it from going forward before the end of the year. President Bush has made it clear that the program is an essential tool in fighing Terrorism.
So again, how should the Democrats' actions be perceived? If they were in favor of the warrantless wiretap of Terrorists program, then they would not stand in the way of the legislation passing before the end of the year.

LeninFlux, just curious, do you approve of warrantless wiretapping? I have no problem with expediting or even expanding the process of tracking those who truly need to be tracked--I just don't want an entire branch of gov't cut out of the process.

Yes, I believe that the NSA does not need a warrant to listen in on the conversations of terrorists. The legislation only applies to foreign intelligence, so this pertains to agents in the US having conversations overseas. The whole FISA court thing is pointless because the NSA can wiretap a conversation in an emergency and then apply for a warrant 72 hours later.
In the end, this comes down to the fact that we are at war and need to give the President the tools he needs.

Don't you see the potential for executive abuse here? I'll go out on a limb and say that I feel the Bush administration is not abusing this privilege they have. However, if you get this on the books and it gets forgotten, future administrations may use it to creep in on things beyond terrorism.

If you want to create a hotline to a judge, great. If you want to designate a judge to quickly issue a warrant, great. Just don't completely cut them out of the process.

"Democrats Planning To Dismantle Wiretapping Of Terrorists"

Come on bro, that's more loaded than a junkie in a meth lab. You should get a job writing Fox News headlines



Read the article. Twice. It is unlikely to be OK'd because it's a dangerous oversight that could lead to power abuse. Checks and balances are good, and this lacks it. That doesnt mean some kind of wiretapping legislation could be made, or that the democrats dont want it period, it just means what's on the table is a really poor choice. Rethink it, rework it, get your checks and balances. Leave out the left hand doesnt know what right hand is doing, and non-accountability stuff. It's just bad legislation.

Nobody can dismantle something that hasn't been, well, mantled.

If anything, Bush dismantled American law when he started such surveillance. Refusing to make a criminal act legal after the fact is hardly "dismantling."

Actually, the National Security Agency has been "mantled" for over 50 years, and part of their duties have been enemy intercepts. Such surveillance has been taking place long before President Bush took office.

Such surveillance has been illegal for decades. The Bush Administration broke the law, there is nobody legitimately disputing that. Sure, some cook up crackpot legal theories in the Clintonian model, but come on.

Do you really believe this was legal? How is not agreeing to pass legislation to legalize an illegal program dismantling?

Is refusing to legalize the drug trade an act of "dismantling" drug cartels?

So....time to start impeachment proceedings?

I find it downright hilarious the pieces you chose to enbolden in that article.

Anyway, this is what strikes me as by far the most important thing that was said:



I am all for tapping terrorists, as I think the rest of the people here are, but with a measure of checks and balances just like all other laws are supposed to have. I am completely against giving the president another unilateral power with no checks, allah knows he already has enough of them.

The time to start impeachment hearings was about June of 2003.

The Dems won't do it, though, even if Bush is the only president in history to admit to an impeachable offense.

Well, let's take a look at the quote you selected from the article....Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy, eh? Let's examine a few of his votes...

- Secure Fence Act (secure borders, protect against Terrorist infiltration)
Patrick says NO

- Military Commissions Act (Keep Terrorists off of battlefield, provide a way for trying Enemy Combatants)
Patrick says NO

- Renewal of Patriot Act (Ironically, he was one of the co-authors of the Patriot Act)
Patrick says NO


That's great, Senator Leahy...way to fight a Global War Against Terrorism.

No wonder Vice President Cheney told him - "Hey Pat, go fuck yourself."

So, if the breach of the law is as obvious as you say it is, and now that the Dems have Congress, you don't think they'd proceed with it to humiliate the GOP further, especially after what they did to Clinton the last time around?

oh my god. You realize voting against those acts has no relation to voting against any of your parentheticals, right?

I wish Congress would just hurry up and pass a law to keep terrorists off the battlefield. It would end so many of our problems. I also wish they'd "provide a way for trying enemy combatants." That's perfectly concrete, leaving no room for error. It'd be perfect.

It's a shame we have Senators like Pat Leahy who adore terrorist infiltration.

I know the question wasn't posed to me, so I apologize for getting in the middle of the discussion. But putting partisan beliefs aside, wouldn't a back-and-forth impeachment attempt by the majority party as "payback" be a bad thing? Just to note, I thought Clinton's impeachment proceedings were stupid and pointless.