StopTheACLU on Specter's "Compromise"

I'm sure you've all watched the little tempest in a teapot the last few days between Arlen Specter and Dick Cheney over the NSA's wiretapping and information gathering programs. For a few minutes, it actually looked as though Specter was going to try and support the constitutional notion of checks and balances and attempt some congressional oversight on the NSA programs. He was negotiating with Dick Cheney - okay, negotiating may be the wrong word....being told what was going to happen by Dick Cheney is more accurate - over what the administration would accept. The bottom line was that the administration isn't going to accept any actual oversight, only mythical oversight.

Specter initially demanded that the administration submit to the oversight of the FISA court, the court specifically set up to provide a check on the constitutionality of executive branch actions regarding intelligence gathering. He issued an angry-sounding letter about Dick Cheney's unwillingness to submit to such oversight, then quickly changed his tune. He's now offering a "compromise" plan:

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has proposed legislation that would give President Bush the option of seeking a warrant from a special court for an electronic surveillance program such as the one being conducted by the National Security Agency....

The new proposal specifies that it cannot "be construed to limit the constitutional authority of the President to gather foreign intelligence information or monitor the activities and communications of any person reasonably believed to be associated with a foreign enemy of the United States."..

Another part of the Specter bill would grant blanket amnesty to anyone who authorized warrantless surveillance under presidential authority, a provision that seems to ensure that no one would be held criminally liable if the current program is found illegal under present law.

So let's see...his "compromise" is to give the administration the option of going to the FISA court for permission - the same court the administration has heretofore refused to ask for permission. Where did Specter learn to negotiate, from Isiah Thomas? Oh, and a grant of total immunity just in case some court does have the guts to hear a case on the issue decides to actual do their job. Brilliant. The only good thing that might come out of this compromise is this:

A third provision would consolidate the 29 cases that have been filed in various federal district courts challenging the legality of the NSA program and give jurisdiction over them to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which was established by FISA. Any decision of that court would be subject to Supreme Court review and otherwise would be binding on all other courts.

That would be a good idea. It would allow such trials to take place, but keep the details secret so they can't claim the state secrets privilege. That's actually a reasonable compromise. But would the administration do it? I doubt it. Remember, Bush has to sign the law once it passes and I'd be willing to bet he would use his veto for the first time. Why? Because he has nothing to lose by it. The courts have so far rolled over and played dead at their mention of state secrets.

All of this has the halfwits at StopTheACLU up in arms. Why? Because the ACLU is critical of this "compromise" - i.e. this blatant cave in by Specter. They don't actually offer any analysis of why the ACLU is wrong. Apparently, they believe that just mentioning the ACLU's position is enough because their positions are automatically wrong. They say:

Of course, the ACLU are not happy. They are calling it a blank check given to the president. Since it makes sense to most Americans, and it goes along with the best interest of national security, the ACLU don't care for it. They were the ones calling for the Senate to review things, now they don't like what the result was. What a bunch of whiners.

Gee, maybe that's because Specter's "compromise" isn't a review at all, it gives the administration the option of choosing to change their policy. Well, duh. They could submit to FISA court review any time they want; they don't want to. Offering them the option to do what they already have the option to do isn't a compromise, it's an empty gesture that accomplishes nothing. And it is a blank check for the president. Not only a blank check, but total immunity for whatever they decide to do with that blank check.