Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
This poor bastard..... (an ex-DOJ attorney) was "one of their own".....
|
I doubt that "this poor bastard" understands the possible impact his leak had on our nation's ability to gather intelligence on terrorists.
Then we have those who "get it" like some people in Congress, but then lead people to believe they are victims of the wily ways of the Bush administration:
Quote:
The White House bill not only fails to prohibit domestic surveillance, but opens a huge hole for just that purpose. It exempts from FISA scrutiny any communication that is "directed at" persons reasonably believed to be outside the U.S., and then leaves this phrase undefined and therefore wide open:
Quote:
|
For surveillance to come within this exemption, there is no requirement that it be conducted outside the U.S.; no requirement that the person at whom it is "directed" be an agent of a foreign power or in any way connected to terrorism or other wrongdoing; and no requirement that the surveillance does not also encompass communications of U.S. persons. Indeed, if read literally, it would exclude from FISA any surveillance that is in some sense "directed" both at persons overseas and at persons in the U.S.
|
If this is right, it means that Democrats caved in on a simple provision meant to prohibit domestic surveillance without a warrant. Under the White House bill, the only oversight against abuse of the "directed at" clause is the Attorney General's say-so, and the FISA court is required to accept the AG's reasoning unless it's "clearly erroneous." This is about as toothless as oversight comes.
Democrats pretty clearly got steamrolled on this. Until Thursday they were negotiating productively with Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and had reached agreement on the bill's language. Nobody was making a big deal out of it because things seemed to be going smoothly. Then, at the last second, the White House rejected the language its own DNI had accepted and suddenly all hell broke loose. Democrats weren't ready for it, and with Congress about to adjourn and no backup strategy in place, they broke ranks and caved in. The only concession they got was a six-month sunset in the bill.
Was this the White House's strategy all along? To lull Dems into a stupor and then hit them over the head at the last minute with brand new demands? Hard to say, but it sure looks deliberate. Demorats are going to have to learn to play in the big leagues if they want to keep up.
|
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3135604.shtml
Is Bush going to get what he wants? Why would the Democrats give in on this issue?