AUDIO/PODCAST- Reasonable Suspicion versus Probable Cause

[liveoaktx]

From something I read yesterday in the LA Times-Congress intends to legitimize the NSA spying program

Related article at MSNBC
Former Clinton administration State Department official Harold Hongju Koh, who is now Dean of Yale Law School, told Specter’s committee that the NSA spying was “as blatantly illegal a program as I’ve seen.”

If Congress went along with Bush’s rationale for the NSA spying, it “would turn this body into a pointless rubber stamp whose limited role in the war on terror would be enacting laws the president could ignore at will.”

And Koh told Specter his bill wouldn’t remedy the problem. One reason: Specter’s bill would allow the FISA court to authorize the entire NSA spying program, not particular searches of particular people. Therefore it would allow a general warrant, which is what the Framers of the Constitution tried to ban by writing the Fourth Amendment, Koh said.

[liveoaktx]

1. Do You Think the NSA Spying Program Should be a Given? Republicans Do

and apparently some Democrats.

<snip>

Indeed Judiciary Committee member Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., while critical of the administration for not revealing more about the NSA program, was specific after the hearing in saying, “I do not want to have it ended; I’ve never wanted to have it ended, I just want to make sure that somebody is overseeing it.”

</snip>

I don't know how to say this any more plainly. Congress intends to legitimize the NSA spying program as a GIVEN, but add oversight to it at a Congressional committee level. In other words

1. NSA would spy on you and collect your information-how exactly we don't know for sure, although State of War and Bamford offered clues about telecomm switches and software that aggregates information to search through for certain criteria.
2. NSA would then, if they think someone is a terrorist or has terrorist connections, bring a certified list to some committee... IN CONGRESS. Not to a court. NOT TO A COURT
3. IF that committee, which presumably would be expanded beyond the Gang Of Eight DECIDED TO TAKE IT FURTHER (ie, they think someone is an innocent civilian unjustly spied upon), they would THEN refer it to tha court.

Arlen Specter, to his credit, is not as extreme as some of these other nutjobs, including Hatch, who want to use a "Reasonable Suspicion" standard... FIRST as justification to continue the NSA program that spies on you.

Speaking for myself, I don't want this. When we don't even know what the NSA Spying program entails (we, the public, much less Congress) why should it be assumed as a default? I'm bothered that even some Democrats might be for this... (see Schumer, above).

[liveoaktx]

2. Just saw that Hoekstra is now pushing this- NO FISA COURT FOR NSA PROGRM

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060302-061329-8011r

A White House official authorized to speak to the media said the administration had been "for several weeks ... committed to legislation and to briefing more members (of Congress) into the program ... to ensure reasonable oversight that allows the program to operate effectively and maintain its secrecy."

But the official stressed that no deal had been done as yet. "We have not committed to any particular idea or legislative proposal... We are actively discussing the matter with Congress."

In an interview with United Press International, Hoekstra acknowledged that the modalities of the oversight arrangement had yet to be worked out, but he said that the administration had agreed in principle to expand full briefings on the NSA program beyond the so-called Gang of Eight -- the leaders of both parties in the House and Senate and the chairmen and ranking members of the intelligence committees of both chambers.

"The only question open is how big the group (of members being briefed) will be, and how it will be made up," Hoekstra said, adding that the committee might use one of its existing subcommittees, or might establish a new subcommittee.