so lets look at the facts...

[acroyear]

rsteachout :It's more complex than what the article makes it out to be (but then again, it's an editorial -- the writer has to make sure what he writes only reinforces the opinion he wants to convey). Even WTOP's relatively short news piece gave more information on what happened in the committee and the positions of the parties.


ok, fine, lets look at it (with my opinions thrown in)

G.O.P. Plan Would Allow Spying Without Warrants - New York Times:

The plan by Senate Republicans to step up oversight of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program would also give legislative sanction for the first time to long-term eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant, legal experts said on Wednesday.

[...]  the Republican senators who drafted the proposal said it represented a hard-wrung compromise with the White House, which strongly opposed any Congressional interference in the eavesdropping program.

The Republican proposal appeared likely to win approval from the full Senate, despite Democratic opposition and some remaining questions from Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas and chairman of the Intelligence Committee, emphasized in an interview on Wednesday the White House's resistance to any limits on what President Bush considers his inherent power to order surveillance of potential terrorists on American soil.

sounds like a capitulation to ME.  If the President says X and congress truly believes X is illegal and unconstitutional, then the President doesn't get to do X.

Rob it is called CHECKS AND BALANCES and it doesn't work when congress says "ok, you can do X, but we'll be watching you..."

it still means this administration get away with a flagrantly illegal and unconstitutional act.  it still means that Congress is saying "yes, you broke the law, so we'll just change the law so you're not as illegal anymore...".  and not for the first time, either.

it is BLACK AND WHITE and i will not endure your "republicans mean the best for the country, really" apologetics on this issue.

As for

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, issued a conciliatory statement, saying that while he favored a full investigation, a committee decision on Tuesday to appoint a seven-member subcommittee to oversee the N.S.A. eavesdropping was "a step in the right direction."

that statement is such a sign of defeatism its disgusting.  it is NOT step in the right direciton, it is a step towards absolute unhindered executive power.

the position of Congress should be that this president and his administration have broken the law and all such illegal activities should be stopped immediately.

Anything less and we might as well just say fuck it all. it was a nice experiment while it lasted...

The truth is that in an election year, republcans want to continue to present a fully unified partisan front, "the platform" rather than the people (the House and Dubae not withstanding, but some of that is actually intentionally playing off the inherent racism in this country in a way they can get away with).

AS for the nature of the proposal:

The Republican proposal would give Congressional approval to the eavesdropping program much as it was secretly authorized by Mr. Bush after the 2001 terrorist attacks, with limited notification to a handful of Congressional leaders. The N.S.A. would be permitted to intercept the international phone calls and e-mail messages of people in the United States if there was "probable cause to believe that one party to the communication is a member, affiliate, or working in support of a terrorist group or organization," according to a written summary of the proposal issued by its Republican sponsors. The finding of probable cause would not be reviewed by any court.

But after 45 days, the attorney general would be required to drop the eavesdropping on that target, seek a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or explain under oath to two new Congressional oversight subcommittees why he could not seek a warrant.

The administration would be required to provide "full access" to information about the eavesdropping, including "operational details," to the new Senate and House subcommittees, the summary said.

Do you honestly, realistically think, that this means true oversight, that the administration will honestly and truthfully and with full disclosure, given its documentable history of never fully disclosing ANYTHING in the entire 5 years in place always citing "national security concerns", reveal who they are spying on and why?

Really?

If so, you are far beyond hope, because even the most basic review of this administration's history should view such a sentiment with extreme skepticism and cynicism.

I repeat: Congress, crown the asshole and get it over with.

Comments

[stori-lundi.livejournal.com]

LJ cut babe!! You're killing my f-list. :)

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

then filter me out.

this is far too important than "gee, how big is my friend's page today".

i'm not smiling today.

i'm in the anger stages of grief as one of the trusted, constitutional civil liberties we have left in this country vanishes without a fight.

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to drag this out into a long arguement: your journal - your soapbox. I would like to reply to a couple of points.

On the whole "black and white", "clearly illegal" question, I favor waiting for the input of the 3rd branch of government, the courts. As I indicated in my reply on your other post, the question of the actual legality or illegality is not so clear-cut in my mind. What is clear is that the administration is sticking to its claims that the program is not illegal, while many in Congress equally believe it is illegal. Irresistable force meet immovable object. In my opinion, each side has strong points that bolstering their position. Let 'em slug it out: it may get ugly but it will result in a clearer understanding of what the issues are and what the law actually means.

i will not endure your "republicans mean the best for the country, really" apologetics on this issue.
*sigh* Why do I always get stuck with the role of straw man in these productions? :-) Not only is that *not* a position I have taken in this discussion; it's a position I would not take on any discussion unless intention was an relevent component of the issue discussed.

In re: oversight -- I don't think it is a particularly effective method of oversight, period. Irregardless of whether one thinks this administration or any other is trustworthy enough to comply.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

the constitution gives Congress the means to override the president without the courts (and vice versa). If congress impeaches, the 3rd branch is not involved, just as when the president vetos, the 3rd branch is not involved.

let them use that power or they will lose it. that is, if they haven't already simply given it up...

just because the country seems to have been in the state of "every societal and political debate will eventually become a court case" for the better part of the last 60 years doesn't mean we need to maintain it that way...

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

Absolutely correct. If they feel this is impeachable, then they should go for it. The only caveat I have is the same one I made about the Clinton impeachment: an impeachment is a political trial, not a criminal one, with all the negative connotations that implies.

"Complex" my ass!

[motherwell.livejournal.com]

I don't see anything really complex here: the "third branch" have ruled time and again that searches require warrants, and warrants require probable cause. Furthermore, the FISA court system has already bent over backwards to ensure that the Feds could get the necessary warrants without slowing down or compromising whatever surveillance the Feds had undertaken. The President circumvented the system -- thus breaking the law -- anyway. "National security" is not an excuse. There is, in fact no excuse. Period.