White House Position on NSA Program Becomes Clearer
It’s becoming abundantly clear that the Administration doesn’t want judicial review of the NSA surveillance program, though it appears willing to submit to greater Congressional oversight. The reasons for that could be many (an innocent explanation could be that it fears compromising the speed of the response from a meddling court – a more sinister one that it fears it would be found unconstitutional), but a number of stories out today reinforce this interpretation.
The Washington Post:
At two key moments in recent days, White House officials contacted congressional leaders just ahead of intelligence committee meetings that could have stirred demands for a deeper review of the administration’s warrantless-surveillance program, according to House and Senate sources.
In both cases, the administration was spared the outcome it most feared, and it won praise in some circles for showing more openness to congressional oversight.
The New York Times:
After two months of insisting that President Bush did not need court approval to authorize the wiretapping of calls between the United States and suspected terrorists abroad, the administration is trying to resist pressure for judicial review while pushing for retroactive Congressional approval of the program.
The administration opened negotiations with Congress last week, but it is far from clear whether Mr. Bush will be able to fend off calls from Democrats and some Republicans for increased oversight of the eavesdropping program, which is run by the National Security Agency.
The latest Republican to join the growing chorus of those seeking oversight is Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
In an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Mr. Graham, a former military prosecutor whose opinion on national security commands respect in the Senate, said he believed there was now a “bipartisan consensus” to have broader Congressional and judicial review of the program.
“I do believe we can provide oversight in a meaningful way without compromising the program,” he said, “and I am adamant that the courts have some role when it comes to warrants. If you’re going to follow an American citizen around for an extended period of time believing they’re collaborating with the enemy, at some point in time, you need to get some judicial review, because mistakes can be made.”
Four other leading Senate Republicans, including the heads of three committees — Judiciary, Homeland Security and Intelligence — have said they would prefer some degree of judicial oversight. Their positions, if they hold, could make the negotiations more difficult.
The latest reports are like Christmas in February to Glenn Greenwald, while AJ Strata wonders if we’re asking the right questions…
UPDATE 8:16 p.m.: Tom Maguire, in typically excellent fashion weighs in, and concludes that, contra Greenwald, Congress will decide in the end that things are just hunky-dory as is, or, as Tom puts it:
The heroes in Congress, after a few weeks of Voguing, passed the Patriot Act. At crunch time, they will endorse the NSA program in a way that lets them deny any responsibility for killing it.
The latest reports are like Christmas in February to Glenn Greenwald
Genuinely funny – and even more accurate. I don’t see how the Administration can ever accept a proposal to eavesdrop only within the parameters of FISA oversight – do you? After all, they have now staked out a position that national security requires them to eavesdrop with no judicial oversight. And if revisions are made to FISA that render them willing to eavesdrop within the law, then it will prove that those revisions could have been made all along and there was never any reason for them to violate FISA.
And I really don’t see them ever accepting any framework where Congress limits the eavesdropping they can do and where they need permission from the courts to do it. Such a framework contravenes their central belief about the world – that the President has the power to engage in any anti-terrorism measures without “interference” from Congress or the courts.
At the same time, even this GOP-controlled Senate won’t allow themselves to be so emasculated by simply giving the Administration a complete exemption to eavesdrop without judicial oversight. That seems to lead us to quite a stalemate/stand-off, doesn’t it?
Well, we don’t see eye-to-eye on much, but we do on this: I agree that the administration will not agree to judicial oversight without much, much more of a fight than we’ve seen thus far. If that’s what Congress intends as a solution, this story won’t go away anytime soon…
However, I’m not sure Congress has the stomach you give them credit for…I think at least a few more days in the news cycle will have to pass, maybe two weeks, before we can get a handle on how they can withstand the White House pressure…
The naysayers regarding the “killing” of the Patriot act wound up disappearing when the rubber hit the road on that issue – why does anyone think congress will somehow find a backbone on this proposal (yes, I know it’s a GOP – dominated Congress, but still…)?
Reverse Polarity
If anyone in the blogosphere has been even more inspired than I have about providing correctives to the NSA "domestic spying" story, it's AJ Strata, who continues to push through the fog of major media spin (see today's WaPo and NYT…
My impression of the political dynamic is that no politician wants to be responsible for stopping this program, since (Heaven forbid) we may be attacked again. For example, Jane Harman has said it is a valuable program which she supports – it is just the legal subtleties that vex her.
So, for Congress there are two choices: (1) as with the Patriot Act, Congress needs to do its cheap suitcase act and fold up.
or, (2) pass the buck to the FISA court, so that if a slow process effectively ends the program, it is not Cthe fault of Congress.
Duck, or pass the buck.
Should I go read Greenwald? One might have thought the absence of impeachment talk would disheartern him. Or is that imminent?
I see- the key when watching Congress on this issue is that it will choose the path of least responsibility – now it all becomes clear!…
You should read Glenn, but not the one I referenced…rather his latest, that begins thusly:
Jane Hamsher just posted some initial thoughts which she and I have discussed concerning how the energy, vibrancy and desire for action which pervades the blogosphere can be translated and channeled into greater influence on actual events, beginning with the NSA scandal.
Glenn, if you’re reading this, your plan his one big flaw…people love to kvetch about Bush, but now you’re asking someone to put down the IPod and get involved…
Good luck with that!…
You know, Tom, the more I think about it, the more I think your principle regarding this issue can be phrased as a general one. More on that latter, I think…
If you accept the Administration believes the NSA program is a wartime effort to obtain enemy intelligence from foreigners, then as a constitutional issue, it’s hard to see where judicial oversight fits in. The view of FISA as an unconstitutional encroachment on the Executive’s warfighting prerogatives is certainly an arguable position, and for those who hold that view, judges making warfighting decisions is particularly problematic.