Letters to the Editor
kovie
Published Letters: 688
-
Ché Pasa
[Read the article: Yesterday's ruling on NSA warrantless eavesdropping]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is nothing to "give it a rest" on because in these 6 months congress HAS--as you yourself attest to--conducted oversight. My point wasn't that it hasn't had enough time in these 6 months to do oversight, because it has had time and in fact HAS done oversight, but rather that it hasn't had time to bring them to a satisfying conclusion, which it clearly hasn't.
Even 24 months was pushing it, but 6 months was always not a realistic timeframe for satisfying completion of the oversight process. So, I'm not sure what I need to put to rest if all I'm doing is pointing out the obvious, that congress has used these 6 months to conduct oversight, but that there was no way in the world it would conclude it to our satisfaction in such a short amount of time. So perhaps you confuse my use of the "X months" argument with less credible ones.
In any case, I share your concern that congress will strike a deal with the administration, but I have a hard time believing that it would strike a necessarily BAD deal with it, unless either the respective committee heads lose heart (which I just don't see in Conyers or Leahy), are corrupt (which I also don't see, despite allegations about Conyers' adventures in babysitting), or are forced to back down by the leadership (which I also don't see happening, and if it does, I predict will lead to revolt in the ranks that could well topple that leadership, at least in the house).
However, I'm not sure that it WILL strike a deal, because confrontation just seems the smarter and more promising (not to mention more principled) avenue to persue, because if it succeeds, it's a win for congress (and the country and party), and if it fails due to stonewalling, it will be obstruction of justice that could lead to a solid case for impeachment, and if it fails due to the courts' rejecting congress's claims, congress still has the inherent contempt path.
Plus, I am not at all convinced, for reasons stated, that the courts will find for the administration on either executive privilege or states secrets, given that there is serious evidence of criminality in both scandals--and a host of others that congress may choose to persue. For every Gorsuch, there are counter precedents that I think would be more relevant to these cases (e.g. during Watergate).
So yes, congressional dealmaking is something to worry about, but until such a thing happens, all speculation about it is, really, just speculation. It could go in any of these directions, or in others entirely. But I'm just going on what I've seen so far on OVERSIGHT (bringing in the supplemental and other legislation does not really pertain, for reasons I've stated previously), and what I see so far encourages me, however cautiously.
And, btw, I am aware of that last-minute Gonzo appointee just before Bush signed S.214, but his appointment is just as time-limited to 120 days as every other interim USA appointed by Gonze. They will or could all be gone by mid-October. And the most important one will be named by Hogan's court, which gives me some hope. He is, in effect, or likely will be, our era's Judge Sirica. Along with, I suppose, Walton. And, perhaps, Fitz might be our era's Jaworski (we've already effectively had our Cox's in these fired USA's).
But I'm getting ahead of myself. We'll just have to see how this plays out, and from what I've seen, I see more to feel hopeful about than to feel worried about. But that's just me.
-
WT
[Read the article: Yesterday's ruling on NSA warrantless eavesdropping]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree that further legislation is pointless and perhaps even stupid given that it would weaken congress's contention that the warrantless wiretap program is already illegal. If so, why pass yet further laws to restate the obvious and thus weaken your already strong original argument?
Of course, if the purpose of such legislation would be to further refine FISA so as to better suit today's technological realities, without in any way reducing the need for FISA court oversight and approval, that would be a quite different matter. In fact, it could even prove to be a boon to congress in that, in order to write such legislation, the administration would be forced to reveal details of this program that might help congress determine if it's been used to spy on wrongful targets. Which is why I believe that the administration will refuse to persue such legislation, as it has in the past, and why congress might be politically smart to call them on it.
But legislation to further declare illegal that which the existing FISA law already declares illegal? Simply idiotic, and I can't imagine that congress will do such a thing (no matter how much noise Specter attempts to make over it).
And yes, the congressional path is what I view as the most promising path in dismantling this administration's illegal and disasterous programs and holding those responsible for them at least partly responsible, and hopefully far more than partfully. It's not just the right thing to do, but the politically smart thing to do. And I don't hear Pelosi taking oversight, per see, "off the table". Nor will she, I believe. Instead, she mentions quivers, arrows and sharpenings. Others can read what they will into that, but I see effective impeachment by a thousand subpeonas.