Gonzales said a recent secret-court approval allowed the government to act effectively without the program.

Matt, do you take this to mean that the FISA Court is giving the Administration a way around the problem? I would love to have been a fly on the wall when this decision was made.

Sorry, I should have read the whole linked Reuters article before asking the above question. Hopefully, the NYT will not leak the arrangements between the Administration and the FISA Court that resolved this issue.

Matt, did you actually read the article you linked to? Nothing has changed except that now the administration has agreed to do it in a way that provides judicial oversight.

That's a bad thing??

That's a bad thing??

Rico, I guess the proof will be in the pudding. In the past the FISA judges wouldn't accept an NSA intercept by itself as "probable cause" for an FBI warrant unless the FBI developed independent information. I'm not sure that I have ever heard a satisfactory explanation from a FISA judge as to why they considered NSA intercepts "tainted", but they have for as long as I can remember. My guess is that the arrangement between the Administration and the FISA Court overcomes that hurdle. If it doesn't, then, yes, it could be a very bad thing.

Surprised and very disappointed -- maybe he's afraid Hillary will become President and she will tap everyone's phone who is politically against her!

I don't understand this decision. We cannot fight a war on terror guided by political correctness.

Sure we can, its called the 'DFL Plan', though we werent made aware of this before the last election and certainly wont be before the '08 decision.

Two things. First, they've always been able to do this with a warrant obtained from a federal judge. Secondly, if it was SOOOOOO crucial to protecting the country, it would have been preserved in some form or another.

I see this as two potential areas of concern. As the FISA law was written, the listening in of phone calls wasn't considered wiretapping by the statute. So FISC didn't have jurisdiction to review the program to begin with.

But if all those people who have no basic grasp of what reasonable actually means, then they should be happy happy joy joy that the President has decided to let the FISC review a program they have no jurisdiction over.

So now, after enough bitching, we have an executive and legislative branch giving more responsibility to a non-elected judge who can do nearly whatever they want. After all, someone passing state secrets to an accused terrorist should only suffer a sentence of time served.

My second concern relates to the fact that everyone on BOTH sides seems to make it seem like their responsibilities via the Constitution gives them 100% power over another branch.

Let's get back to oversight meaning what it means. They review, and if they approve or disprove, they use the power of the purse or the power to legislate changes, not pass non-binding resolutions in an attempt to move a president via opinion polls.

Here's a hint; that definitely worked with Clinton, but it's not going to work with Bush.

Spook,

Whatever the arrangement is, it appears it has broad support from everyone concerned. Here's the letter AG Gonzalez sent to the Judiciary Committee. He sounds pretty fine with it. And based on the link Matt provided (and everything else I've been able to dig up), Tony Snow and Olympia Snow sound fine with it. So does Leahy, Schumer, and Spector. The only one I've heard that isn't content is Conyers. Go figure that, huh?

Rico:
If everyone thinks it's good, than I guess that solves a conflict, but it doesn't guarantee we'll be safer.

Only time will tell on that front.

I am very happy to see at least one less thing people are fighting over.

Rico,

Well, if the arrangement (or as Gonzales refers to it -- orders) passes muster with all the people you listed, then, as Wawilliyo notes, this should put to rest one of the most hotly contested and debated topics in recent memory.

The fact that it has taken almost 2 years of negotiations between the Administration and the FISC is a pretty good indication of just what a complex issue this is.

AG Gonzalez likes his freedom. No one wanted to go up the Hill to explain this to the Judiciary Committee when it was not chaird by a loyal meber of the GOP. It was always this simple, get the easy warrant snoop all you want. Fear of dying in a terror attack, or the collapse of your consumer excess driven lifestyles is not a blank check to have a bar b q that starts with lighting the grill with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Score one for democracy over fascist theocracy!

May God forbid we use "political correctness". When it comes to the war on terra, no rules baby! All bets are off. If you ain't done nuthin wrong, you got nuthin to worry about.

Sad, how terribly sad.

Jim, Cavalor and Raker, your comments betray a colossal degree of ignorance on the whole subject of electronic surveillance.

Spook: "The fact that it has taken almost 2 years of negotiations between the Administration and the FISC is a pretty good indication of just what a complex issue this is."

You may be right. Then again, it could also be effectively argued that the administration didn't feel much of a need prior to now. The latter argument starts with Gonzalez's first appearance before the Sen. Judiciary Committee on the issue last January, and follows consistently from there.

Either way, the ultimate timing sucks. It at least appears that this was another softball issue served up underhanded to the Dems.

Rico:
You and I both know that even if we set aside the facts that we think are in dispute, Democrats would have tried to make public information that clearly should remain classified.

They'd have a committee without jurisdiction over classified provide oversight because it'd be a committee that could be on C-Span. You can't cater to your base by having conversations in private.

So this is the only conceivable way of addressing the issue.

But in reality, how good was the program anymore anyway... after all... the New York Treason-Times, with information provided by Democratic Staffers of the Intelligence Committee already gave out information on this and a dozen other programs.

Makes you wonder, what's more important, getting the terrorists or trying to paint something that's legal as illegal so they can get the president.

All may not be lost.

See this article.

wawilliyo: "You and I both know that even if we set aside the facts that we think are in dispute, Democrats would have tried to make public information that clearly should remain classified."

You're implying here that one or more Democrats were responsible for leaking information to the press. What evidence do you have to support that charge? If you're thinking about the Dem staffer on the Intel Committee that Hoekstra suspended in Oct 2006, think again. That was a red herring. And it had to do with the Cunningham investigation. And the staffer was reinstated. What else you got?

"But in reality, how good was the program anymore anyway... "

Actually, it's still active. The only change is that the FISA court is now overseeing the process. At least two requests have been submitted to the FISA court in the last week. Both have been granted. Leo is right -- the predominant issue has never been about the program, it has always been about oversight of the program.

I don't understand this decision....
Posted by Matt at January 17, 2007 04:46 PM

Where were you on November 7th? The days of the do nothing rubber stamp Congress are over. I am sure the word went out to the President, we will fight the war on terror within the bounds of the Constitution. Failure to live up to the Presidential oath…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution… are grounds for impeachment.

Rico:
It's not a red herring. The staffer was reinstated because the Democratic ranking member at the time ACTUALLY threatened to release other information AND to block Republicans from having ANY access once they were in charge.

I understand VERY well how the game is played. And that's exactly what Democrats and the media that supports them have done since 2000, and particularly nasty after Bush won re-election... and that simply sir is this...

Nothing is off limits. There can be no confidential information. There can be no secret plans if the Democrats could possibly lie about the details for political effect.

And Rico, with all do respect, your side didn't care about "oversight." The House and Senate Intelligence Committees Chairs and Ranking Members knew ALL about it. That's where oversight is supposed to take place.

But I said it in another thread and I'll say it here as well. Democrats, when they can't win a legislative victory always turn to the courts in a hope for an adjudicated victory.

And there, is the crux of all the animosity between the parties. One side was playing by the rules of one branch creating a law, another approving it, and that was that. But somewhere along the line, it's become that "third and equal branch" should be legislating with the rest of us.

Too bad you seem to share that view with the vast majority of people who believe what you believe, but where the vast majority of the American people don't want a non-accountable judge making laws.

wawilliyo: "It's not a red herring. The staffer was reinstated because the Democratic ranking member at the time ACTUALLY threatened to release other information AND to block Republicans from having ANY access once they were in charge."

I'm well aware of the accusations. But as far as I know, there is nothing more to them than accusations. Heaven knows there is a lot of politics swirling around up there on the Hill. But in this particular case, what is known is that the suspension of the staffer was a political hatchet job, done in retaliation for Jane Harman releasing info on Duke Cunningham's contacts at the CIA prior to the authorized release of that info. Harman argued that the GOP members were sitting on the info. The GOP members argued that her release was motivated to influence the elections. Both accounts are likely to be true. But the fact is, she did violate protocol. But instead of going after her they went after her aide. And that is also hard to deny. Ray LaHood admitted on FoxNews that the suspension of her aide was motivated by payback. And that, to me, makes it a red herring.

I'm not sure who you include on "my side". I would hope it includes anyone who is uncomfortable with the concept of a unitary executive. That's my concern here. You can try to spin it into some sort of activist judge thing, but the fact is, congress set up the FISA court to handle the kinds of cases we're talking about. Three different bills were introduced during 2006 -- two in the senate and one in the house -- all sponsored by Republicans (Specter and DeWine in the senate, Heather Wilson in the house), attempting to return oversight of the wiretap program to FISA. As far as who was responsible for the leak to the NYT about the program, I don't think anyone still knows. But the last I heard the most probably source was someone in the NSA, not a congressional Dem.

I'm amazed that Matt and the rest can't be happy that their president is protecting the Constitution. Bush is so wrong most of the time, and now he does one thing right, when he's been beaten by his betters. He goes through FISA, doesn't break the law, and we get oversight so we can get TERRORISTS as opposed to liberals that Rove hates. Makes sense to me....

How dare Bush flip-flop like this. How dare he put the Constitution before the safety of the American people.

I always suspected he was weak on terrorism when he let the Bin Laden family fly out of the U.S. right after 9/11, and how he waited a month to invade Afghanistan so Osama could get away, and how he let Osama get away at Tora Bora. I was almost convinced he was weak on terrorism when he dropped the ball in Afghanistan and invaded Iraq even though Iraq did not have Al Quida (or maybe he was thinking ahead because they are there now). But now I am convinced. Dropping illegal wiretaps has convinced me that Bush is weak on terrorism.

Really, what is next? Is he going to close the black sites? Is he going to stop torturing suspects? Will he allow Gitmo detainees actual rights? Will he acknowledge Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions?

He just stepped on the slippery slope. If he is not careful, we may be looking at a system of justice and fair trials.

I wonder how many fair trials the 3000 people got who were killed by terrorists on 9/11.

Ya... you're right... let's let people in Los Angeles, who can't render a guilty verdict with videotaped evidence, a confession, and DNA hear these terrorism trials.

Or maybe they should get a trial of THEIR peers.

Christian, Beth and Steve... here's hoping you never ever end up hurt in a terrorist attack. Because you'll be kicking yourself for the stupidity you've just put on display here. But if you are a victim of an attack, I hope you get to ask the terrorists why they aren't giving you a fair trial before they slit your throats or blow you up.

I knew this thread would be a feeding frenzy of the unhinged neorads but finally decided to take a look.

There was always judicial oversight of the electronic surveillance program. Always. The radical Left demanded more OVERSIGHT but no one, not one, not ever, answered any of my questions about what exactly would make them happy. Not one answer about how much oversight, who would provide oversight, who would appoint the overseers, should there be oversight for the overseers, etc.

"Oversight" was just a buzzword that got the rads all pumped up, but meant nothing.

My prediction: Bush has found a way to do what has to be done to keep an eye on our enemies, here and abroad, and at the same time has let go of his end of the rope in this tug of war, allowing the rads to fall on their butts and at the same time set themeselves up to take the rap when and if we are attacked in a way that could have been prevented by more stringent surveillance.

The Dems loved being able to whine about the mis-characterized "domestic spying" program. It gave them a rallying cry for the ignorant radicals who were always eager to find a cause that would let htem rant and rave, and spout about the sanctity of the Constitution. The LAST thing they wanted was to have this issue taken away from them, and the accompanying liability if the removal of this program can at any time be used to make an attack possible, or even easier.

I think it was a brilliant move, and one that probably has the Dems sweating bullets while posturing that they have won a victory. Be careful of what you wish for, fellas......