As a follow up on Specter's new bill (see full text here), I suggest this post by Orin Kerr and this post by Jack Balkin. Both point out that not only does the bill not tighten the oversight on the administration's domestic spying efforts, it actually loosens it. Balkin calls it a sham and that's exactly what it is. From Balkin:
At first glance, Specter's bill looks like a moderate and wise compromise that expands the President's authority to engage in electronic surveillance under a variety of Congressional and judicial oversight procedures. But read more closely, it actually turns out to be a virtual blank check to the Executive, because under section 801 of the bill the President can route around every single one of them. Thus, all of the elegant machinery of the bill's oversight provisions is, I regret to report, a complete and total sham. Once the President obtains the powers listed in section 801, the rest of the bill is pretty much irrelevant. He will be free of Congressional oversight forever.
Could Specter be any worse at this point?
- Log in to post comments
The Washington Post's editorials page came to the same conclusion as well.
Yesterday, after Specter announced what he'd accomplished, I wrote him (I'm a Pennsylvania resident) the following...
"With great dismay today I read of your efforts to modify the laws governing what the President can do with regard to domestic eavesdropping. I'm very much of the same opinion as Rep. Jane Harman that you're proposing to give '...away in this legislation a core Fourth Amendment protection by basically saying that the FISA court has permission to bless the entire program, which will abandon as best I can tell the requirement of individualized warrants.' To follow what you propose to do is an extraordinary departure from American principles.
"Since the law as currently written compels the administration to seek warrants in every case, except short term emergencies, why does it even need modifying? Why not just compel the administration to follow the law? Is that asking too much? The rest of us are expected to follow the law. Why not George Bush???
"I also think it's extremely likely that Bush has no intention of changing the administration's practices, unless forced to do so by the courts. So what's to stop him from agreeing to your proposal, signing it when enacted, and then issuing a "secret" signing statement in which he says the restraints don't apply to him? He's already done that more than 700 times. What's to stop him from doing it again?
"In 2004 I voted for you in the primary and in the general election. With this move, however, you've deeply disappointed me and caused me to seriously question why I should ever vote Republican again. In fact because of actions like your proposal--and, to be fair, the actions of the administration--I'll vote a straight Democratic ticket this fall for the first time. In the meantime I hope you'll have a 'eureka' moment and reconsider."
I'm skeptical it will do any good, but it's one straw in the wind and if he gets enough....there's always hope.
Joe -
Bad link.
This blow fish deflates every goddamn time he is bitch-slapped by the White House.
this things html parser sucks.
the 'post editorial is tinyurl'ed as http://tinyurl.com/qmk7q