White House Agreement on Spy Law Changes

Absolute Zero · February 16th, 2006, 02:49 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1628067

We'll see how this plays out. I think this may be an effort by the White House to avoid further investigation and hearings in the Senate Intelligence Committee. Otherwise, I don't see the point. The WH does not believe it needs congressional authority to wiretap domestically, doesn't believe it needs to follow FISA, so why else would it be agreeing to changes in the existing law? Stay tuned.

Djaughe · February 16th, 2006, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absolute Zero

http://forums.go.com/abcnews/Politic...hreadID=309379...

Did you mix up links? This one is about the iraqi death estimates.

Absolute Zero · February 16th, 2006, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Djaughe

Did you mix up links? This one is about the iraqi death estimates.

Woops, should be fixed now.

Djaughe · February 16th, 2006, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absolute Zero

...We'll see how this plays out. I think this may be an effort by the White House to avoid further investigation and hearings in the Senate Intelligence Committee. Otherwise, I don't see the point. The WH does not believe it needs congressional authority to wiretap domestically, doesn't believe it needs to follow FISA, so why else would it be agreeing to changes in the existing law? Stay tuned.

Mucho Gracias.

You may see it as a White House effort - but the article clearly shows congress doesn't want to take this to court or have further investigations.

Kinda like how I forshadowed:

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/...5&postcount=92

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/...&postcount=103

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/...&postcount=118

Absolute Zero · February 16th, 2006, 07:03 PM

You'll have to define "congress". I think that the dems would love to have hearings on this, investigations, etc. See Wally's other thread about the 2nd Secret... There is a lot going on that we don't know about, and it may be illegally. Frankly, I think some Congressional oversight is long overdue.

Clearly the WH wants to strike a deal to avoid the spotlight.

Djaughe · February 17th, 2006, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absolute Zero

...Clearly the WH wants to strike a deal to avoid the spotlight.

You need at least 2 sides to make a deal. Neither side wants to take this to the Supreme Court - even the democrats.

The closest (but obvioulsy different) precedent was set when Lincoln acted unilaterally at first, waging war and even suspending habeas corpus in places.

Later Lincoln then summoned Congress and asked for laws blessing his actions. Congress largely obliged. Of course we all know that wasn't GW's position in the begining of this issue.