The Senate Intelligence Committee strongly endorsed Michael Hayden to be the head of the CIA. Four Democrats joined all eight Republicans to vote for the candidate. The only no votes came from Russ Feingold, Even Bayh and Ron Wyden. Now, truthfully, I have no idea who Wyden is or why he voted no, but the other two are widely regarded as contenders for the Democratic nomination for President.
Whether this will penetrate the fog in some people's minds or not, this should make it pretty clear that the NSA program(s) that have generated such enormous amounts of punditry and screaming headlines are, almost certainly, legal. Not one Democrat would have joined the majority otherwise. Much too dangerous to be associated with it. Feingold and Bayh, however cannot, under any circumstances, be seen by the netroots as having endorsed the program that the left loves to hate.
So all the screaming and yelling over the NSA program comes down to a vote where the people responsible for the oversight are comfortable with the man who set up and ran the program(s).
his should make it pretty clear that the NSA program(s) that have generated such enormous amounts of punditry and screaming headlines are, almost certainly, legal.
How does it do that?
How does it not? This, whether you admit it or not, is an endorsement of the program(s) by the people who provide oversight.
It says absolutely nothing about the legality of the program. If confirmation hearings were a gauge of congressional intent, then the law would change with every nominee to the Supreme Court or cabinet.
The last time we had this discussion, you said the constitutionality and legality of the program was up in the air and would be decided by the courts. Are you seriously hanging your hat on this as a determination?
Wyden, D-Oregon, achieved distinction during his campaign for the Senate when he was unable to locate Afghanistan on a map. Which remains his most notable accomplishment since taking office.
Both Democrats and their masters in the MSM know full well the NSA program is legal. They only pretend it’s not so they can yell and scream about how mean and awful those terrible Republicans are. But, push comes to shove, Dems don’t want to be on-record opposing efforts to improve national security. It’s just more two faced posturing by the duplicitous jackasses. On issues of national security, Dems have nothing useful to offer.
Sven, I’m saying this is a strong indication that the program is legal and acceptable to the congressional members of both parties. It is not proof positive, that will take the courts, one presumes. But do you honestly believe that four Democrats would risk the voter backlash? Really?
Backlash? Are you kidding? Those Democrats – and the Republicans, for that matter – took the easy way out.
The vast majority of voters don’t give a flying #%$@ about the rule of law, particularly when they feel threatened. As a political strategy, it’s completely hopeless. You have to engage in lengthy explanations and nuance, while all your opponent has to do is go around screaming “He’s pro terrorist! Pro terrorist!”
Congress is just as culpable – no, even more so – than the President for this sorry state of affairs. There’s a law on the books – FISA – that expressly prohibits what NSA is doing. Congress has recognized this, as evidenced by calls for FISA to be amended to comport with the program. Yet they can’t even take that weak, ex post facto action because of their pathetic fear of being criticized.
The NSA controversy is a small but emblematic part of a very serious problem – the erosion of checks and balances. Congress should either take a stand and knock down the program by defunding it, or clearly and unambiguously endorse it. We shouldn’t have to be reading tea leaves from confirmation hearings. As this new group of bipartisan experts point out, this ambiguity is extremely dangerous.
Well, that’s an interesting take on it.
Black Jack,
I live in Oregon, and I don’t recall the incident you mention. Do you have any references?
Juggler,
No, I don’t have a reference, but it made the papers in mid November 1996. I believe the embarrassing incident occurred when Wyden was running in a special election to replace Bob Packwood.
I’ll have a look and see if I can find something else on it for you. Its no bother, it gave me an excuse to call an old pal who lives in Portland with whom I discussed the matter back then. He points out I’m wrong about it being Afghanistan Wyden couldn’t locate. Bosnia was actually the topic under discussion in 1996. That’s the second mistake I’ve made this week. My memory isn’t what it once was.
PS: I’m also wrong about Wyden’s record. He has accomplished more than I gave him credit for above. And, since I just learned we both went to the same college, my opinion of him has improved considerably.