Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |   E-mail Dan  |  
Page 4 of 5   <       >

Karl Rove's Immunity

FISA Watch

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Ellen Nakashima and Spencer S. Hsu write in The Washington Post: "Congressional Democrats outlined a temporary plan yesterday that would expand the government's authority to conduct electronic surveillance of overseas communications in search of terrorists.

"The proposal, according to House and Senate Democrats, would permit a secret court to issue broad orders approving eavesdropping of communications involving suspects overseas and other people, who may be in the United States. To issue an order, the court would not need to identify a particular target overseas, but it would have to determine that those being targeted are 'likely,' in fact, overseas.

"If a foreign target's communications to a person inside the United States reaches a 'significant' number, then an court order based on probable cause would be required. It is unclear how 'significant' would be defined.

"Under a sunset provision, the authority would have to be revisited in six months. . . .

"Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative office, contended that Democrats are 'capitulating to the politics of fear.'"

What's the problem all of a sudden? It's complicated. But apparently this stems from the Bush administration's decision in January to put the program under the supervision of the FISA court. At least one judge didn't like what he saw.

Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball write for Newsweek: "A secret ruling by a federal judge has restricted the U.S. intelligence community's surveillance of suspected terrorists overseas and prompted the Bush administration's current push for 'emergency' legislation to expand its wiretapping powers, according to a leading congressman and a legal source who has been briefed on the matter."

Richard Willing writes in USA Today: "Rapid growth in cellphone use in South Asia and the Middle East has spurred a battle in Congress over whether foreign communications of suspected terrorists can be intercepted by intelligence agencies without court order. . . .

"Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee . . . [says] it's difficult for eavesdroppers to separate foreign and domestic calls because of the fiber-optic technology on which call data is routed through the USA."

Law professor and blogger Jack Balkin and Greg Miller of the Los Angeles Times have more.

Blogger Digby marvels at the Democratic rush to capitulate, and writes: "What are they afraid of, that the Bush administration will blame them if a terrorist attack occurs and they didn't approve another blank check? Guess what? It wouldn't matter if the Democrats named Bush king with the power to draw and quarter hippies and Muslims on the White House lawn, they will still blame the Democrats if there is another terrorist attack."

Clinton v. Cheney

Greg Sargent writes for TPM Cafe: "Escalating her battle with the White House over the Pentagon's contingency Iraq withdrawal planning, Hillary Clinton has written a sharply worded letter directly to Vice President Dick Cheney, demanding that the administration clarify its position as to whether her ongoing request for info about such planning is aiding enemy propaganda."


<             4        >


© 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive