The Next Hurrah: The Politics Of Spying On Americans

« What Was Dick Really Hiding? | Main | If The Election were Held Today... »

February 20, 2006

The Politics Of Spying On Americans

by DemFromCT

Is it legal? is it appropriate? Is it necessary? Is it effective? Those are some of the tough questions the Bush Administration hasn't fully addressed to everyone's satisfaction, thereby making the next question easy to answer.

Is the WH sales pitch working? The answer is no.

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.

In fact, this whole right wing media notion that this is a 'winning issue' for the WH is just so much hot air. It's interesting that the myth of the WH being invincible on national security issues is beginning to get punctured. As a matter of course, it will depend on Republicans to do some of the damage, since they're the party in power and the President's own. But lame duck symptoms are creeping in everywhere, and will only accelerate the closer we get to 2006. That's what happens when you're stuck in miserable failure territory in the polls.

[[UPDATE]: Glenn Greenwald, same topic. Excellent read. And, to his credit, Glenn responds to comments.

February 20, 2006 at 13:00 in Bush/Republican Scandals, Contributor--DemFromCT, Domestic Policy, Law, Terrorism | Permalink

Comments

The open debate about domestic spying is just a side show to distract Congress and the voters with what is really happening. Project ADVISE, the new name for Poindexter's program defunded by Congress called Total Information Awareness is advancing by leaps and bounds using unaccountable intelligence funds. The Bush Administration is not only spying on Americans, they are cataloging electronic signatures of citizen's activities such as credit card purchases, phone call records, tax records and looking for trends suggesting circumstantial evidence of illegal activities. They also are trying to pressure Google into surrendering it's user data. If anyone believes Bush that its only about a pornography investigation, they are naive.

Posted by: Dave Marco | February 20, 2006 at 16:12

"In fact, this whole right wing media notion that this is a 'winning issue' for the WH is just so much hot air."

I remember the same meme being spouted by the msm when Congress interfered with poor Terri Schiavo. I remember being in abject despair, thinking that my country had gone to a place that I just couldn't follow. For a couple of days, congressmen pontificated and pundits discussed how this might be for the best after all.

Then a remarkable thing happened; the first polls came out. 60% disapproved, then 70%, then 80%. It felt so good to know that my fellow Americans didn't really feel like giving up their most precious rights to these thugs and madmen.

Maybe it will happen again.

Posted by: merciless | February 20, 2006 at 16:27

This issue is beginning to resemble Iraq. The Dems think talking about it makes them seem soft on terrorism, so they don't. Then the Republicans get ahead of them, making it really seem like the Dems are weak, because they don't stand for anything. Anyone with half a brain knows that Dems generally oppose this kind of thing, so why don't they just do it?

It is like Iraq withdrawal. The war is a losing proposition and is bankrupting us. But too few Dems will support Murtha or something like that, and before they know it, either BushCo themselves or the more isolationist/frugal Republicans will start saying it's time to bring the troops home. The Dems as a party will look like they don't stand for anything.

Dem's really do have principles. What they lack is the guts to articulate and defend them. By not doing so, and ceding the emotional ground to the Republicans, they end up looking like they stand for nothing.

Posted by: Mimikatz | February 20, 2006 at 18:18

And on the issue of torture, don't miss Jane Mayer's new piece from the New Yorker on more BushCo legal shenannigans.

Posted by: Mimikatz | February 20, 2006 at 18:23

I think the same question that emptywheel recently raised about Cheney's hunting trip needs greater air here--namely, What are they really listening for? It's plain as day that this topic is a political loser and that the listening protocols are useless in actually fighting terrorists, so there must be some far more compelling tidbit out there in the ether that Bushco just can't seem to live without....

Posted by: Schmuck | February 20, 2006 at 21:29

Mimikatz -- it gets harder and harder for me to convince myself that the Democrats "really do have principles" as you say above. Principles are a "use it or lose it" sort of thing. Like you, I yelled for months that the Dems were in danger of ceding withdrawal from Iraq to the Republicans -- now they are ceding the rule of law. I see a McCain presidency, not very different from the present one, except popular.

Posted by: janinsanfran | February 20, 2006 at 23:39

Mimikatz - you hit the nail on the head. The Democrats are paralyzed with fear that in general they don't stand for any principle any longer. They are so afraid of being labeled "weak on terror" or "unAmerican" and their loser DC consultants keep them tied in knots.

Instead of getting behind Murtha on Iraq they will wait around trying to "triangulate" while Rove will be ready with ticker tape parades after declaring victory and a perfunctory withdrawal.

And instead of standing up for principle on the illegal spying on Americans they'll wait until the Repubs who control Congress create a smokescreen of action and gain the positive publicity of protecting individual rights while the spying will now be made legal.

The issue is not if these positions are Democratic positions but does the Democratic party have leaders that have courage. The electorate will believe that if the Dems don't have the courage to stand up to the Repubs how will they have the courage to stand up to the terrorists.

Change has to happen by first electing stand up fighters during the Democratic party primaries this year.

Posted by: zanzibar | February 21, 2006 at 03:18

Hi ! Your site is very interesting. Thank you.

Posted by: Junior | March 15, 2006 at 23:56

Posted by: oj | September 09, 2007 at 20:17

Posted by: oj | September 09, 2007 at 20:17

The comments to this entry are closed.

Contributors

Where We Met

Daily Kos

The Next Hurrah

February 20, 2006

The Politics Of Spying On Americans

Comments

Recent Posts

Contributors

Categories

Archives

Where We Met

Links