What is the Fuss About the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program?
Here are statements by left-liberal Democratic statements from yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the NSA program for conducting electronic surveillance of calls from Al Qaeda to co-conspirators in the U.S., and vice versa:
FEINSTEIN: I'd like to make clear that, for me, at least, this hearing isn't about whether our nation should aggressively combat terrorism; I think we all agree on that. And it's not about whether we should use sophisticated electronic surveillance to learn about terrorist plans and intentions and capabilities; we all agree on that. And it's not about whether we should use those techniques inside the United States to guard against attacks; we all agree on that.
FEINGOLD:All of us are committed to defeating the terrorists who threaten our country, Mr. Attorney General. It is, without a doubt, our top priority. In fact, I just want to read again what you said. "As the president has said, if you are talking with Al Qaida, we want to know what you're saying." Absolutely right. No one on this committee, I think no one in this body, believes anything other than that, and I want to state it as firmly as I can.
SCHUMER: General Gonzales, I just want to make a couple of points that are important to keep in mind as we ask you questions. First, we all support a strong, robust and vigorous national security program. Like everyone else in this room, I want the president to have all the legal tools he needs as we work together to keep our nation safe and free, including wiretapping.
So let me get this straight. None of these people think eavesdropping on communications between Al Qaeda and its co-conspirators in the U.S. is a bad thing. Everyone agrees that we should be doing it. Apparently their only quibble with the NSA program is that President Bush and his administration did not ask the FISA court for permission to do the eavesdropping. (Begging the question of whether the Constitution permits an unelected judiciary to have a veto power over foreign policy, intelligence and military decisions taken by the President as Commander-in-Chief.) But many left-liberal commentators have also commented that getting FISA approval is "easy," implying that it is just a bit of paperwork, just a procedural hoop, a rubber stamp, and not a substantive check on the President's power to conduct foreign intelligence gathering operations. So I don't get it... what exactly is the fuss about?
The fuss is about the Democratic Party getting hoisted on their own petard. Last fall when the NSA story broke, the Dems made a big deal out of it because it looked like President Bush was faltering in the polls and they thought this could be a ticket to a victory in 2006. But, as the details got out -- largely through the blogosphere -- it quickly became clear that the story would actually help President Bush, because it would show him to be the kind of forceful leader who won't let bureaucratic red tape keep him from doing the right thing. (Ever notice how Hollywood movies, even from the lefties, never make heroes out of people who follow the rules, dot their i's and cross their t's, fill out the correct forms, etc.? Dirty Harry doesn't read Miranda rights.) But by then the Dems had committed to hearings that would drag the story out.
So you get the peculiar spectacle of supposedly adult Senators frothing that a program is "illegal" that they now also say is a good program that they want us to have. Why doesn't some Republican Senator just call their bluff and introduce legislation making what the President is doing explicitly legal and then dare Democratic Senators and Congressmen to vote against it in an election year?
FEINSTEIN: I'd like to make clear that, for me, at least, this hearing isn't about whether our nation should aggressively combat terrorism; I think we all agree on that. And it's not about whether we should use sophisticated electronic surveillance to learn about terrorist plans and intentions and capabilities; we all agree on that. And it's not about whether we should use those techniques inside the United States to guard against attacks; we all agree on that.
FEINGOLD:All of us are committed to defeating the terrorists who threaten our country, Mr. Attorney General. It is, without a doubt, our top priority. In fact, I just want to read again what you said. "As the president has said, if you are talking with Al Qaida, we want to know what you're saying." Absolutely right. No one on this committee, I think no one in this body, believes anything other than that, and I want to state it as firmly as I can.
SCHUMER: General Gonzales, I just want to make a couple of points that are important to keep in mind as we ask you questions. First, we all support a strong, robust and vigorous national security program. Like everyone else in this room, I want the president to have all the legal tools he needs as we work together to keep our nation safe and free, including wiretapping.
So let me get this straight. None of these people think eavesdropping on communications between Al Qaeda and its co-conspirators in the U.S. is a bad thing. Everyone agrees that we should be doing it. Apparently their only quibble with the NSA program is that President Bush and his administration did not ask the FISA court for permission to do the eavesdropping. (Begging the question of whether the Constitution permits an unelected judiciary to have a veto power over foreign policy, intelligence and military decisions taken by the President as Commander-in-Chief.) But many left-liberal commentators have also commented that getting FISA approval is "easy," implying that it is just a bit of paperwork, just a procedural hoop, a rubber stamp, and not a substantive check on the President's power to conduct foreign intelligence gathering operations. So I don't get it... what exactly is the fuss about?
The fuss is about the Democratic Party getting hoisted on their own petard. Last fall when the NSA story broke, the Dems made a big deal out of it because it looked like President Bush was faltering in the polls and they thought this could be a ticket to a victory in 2006. But, as the details got out -- largely through the blogosphere -- it quickly became clear that the story would actually help President Bush, because it would show him to be the kind of forceful leader who won't let bureaucratic red tape keep him from doing the right thing. (Ever notice how Hollywood movies, even from the lefties, never make heroes out of people who follow the rules, dot their i's and cross their t's, fill out the correct forms, etc.? Dirty Harry doesn't read Miranda rights.) But by then the Dems had committed to hearings that would drag the story out.
So you get the peculiar spectacle of supposedly adult Senators frothing that a program is "illegal" that they now also say is a good program that they want us to have. Why doesn't some Republican Senator just call their bluff and introduce legislation making what the President is doing explicitly legal and then dare Democratic Senators and Congressmen to vote against it in an election year?
posted by PDB at 9:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home