Overseeing the Spys

This NSA topic has me baffled in multiple arenas. I've previously spoken on the blank check law and concerns about why the laws already in place weren't sufficient for the President. Now I'm trying to figure out the Congress and Senate oversite and complete lack of action.

In a statement Monday, one of the lawmakers briefed, then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, complained that 'If subsequent public accounts are accurate... the briefers omitted key details, including important information about the scope of the program.'

Daschle said that he 'raised significant concern' at the time. And a letter released Monday by the senior-most Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, shows that in July 2003, he too raised doubts about the program.

Pointing out that security restrictions prevented him from consulting with staff, Rockefeller wrote: 'With out more information and the ability to draw on any... legal or technical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns' about the program.

I know there were republicans who stated similar concerns, but being as these are the representatives of the opposition party, I believe that their actions are far more telling. If Daschle believed that there were key portions of information missing and had significant concerns, then what did he do in response? What relevance is the scope of the program? If a thousand taps are illegal how is a single act any less illegal?

Rockefeller draws even more disbelief. Can he honestly state that if he had lingering concerns that there was no legal advice from any sources in the government that he could have drawn upon? And instead chose to do what appears to be absolutely nothing?

Then there is further statements from the president that don't make me feel any more secure.

Bush said Monday the program was implemented to supplement court-approved wiretaps because speed was of the essence to 'connect the dots' before any possible terrorist attack.

'We know that a two-minute conversation between somebody linked to al- Qaida here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives. To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks,' he said.

The presidential review and other factors were in place to protect constitutional rights, he added.

Why did the wiretaps need to be faster? I still don't get that. Roving wire-taps naming the Al-Qaida operatives and any associated calls could have been put in place as a reasonable precaution, couldn't they? As for the presidential review, I don't see that as a review at all. The president was exercising a presidential power and oversite in such cases comes from other branches of the government. [Though I'll state that it looks like there was some attempt at review since the activity was reviewed and re-aproved 30 times.]

For all of the screams about the illegality of the president's actions, I'd say maybe the net of indignation should be spread a lot further to those who were correctly informed on the issue and who chose to take no action. As I've stated before, the Senators and Representatives are expected to perform due diligence when acting in the name of the people, and when they fail, they should be held accountable.

QandO has a piece on the legality issue that goes along similar lines as have been stated in other lawyer's blogs. There is a second piece that is in opposition to the view on the site as well. Though I think the above piece does point out factual errors therein.