[Mb-civic] Senate Panel Decides against Eavesdropping Inquiry, for Now By David Stout The New York Times

[Michael Butler]

Also see below:    
Senate Rejects Wiretapping Probe    €

    Go to Original

    Senate Panel Decides against Eavesdropping Inquiry, for Now
    By David Stout
    The New York Times

    Thursday 16 February 2006

    Washington - The Senate Intelligence Committee decided today not to
investigate President Bush's domestic surveillance program, at least for the
time being.

    "I believe that such an investigation is currently unwarranted and would
be detrimental to this highly classified program," Senator Pat Roberts,
Republican of Kansas and chairman of the panel, said this afternoon
following a closed session.

    While Mr. Roberts's announcement signaled that the administration's
eavesdropping program would not be subject to Senate scrutiny, at least for
the time being, there was no guarantee that the House would not go ahead
with an inquiry of its own.

    Mr. Roberts said "an agreement in principle" had been reached with the
administration whereby lawmakers would be given more information on the
surveillance operation run by the National Security Agency.

    "The details of this agreement will take some time to work out," Mr.
Roberts said. But the committee's ranking Democrat, John D. Rockefeller IV
of West Virginia, was clearly unhappy after the meeting and said it made no
sense to pursue legislation when the full details of the surveillance
program were not known. Mr. Roberts said Mr. Rockefeller's proposal for an
investigation would be reconsidered when the committee reconvenes on March
7.

    "If by that time we have reached no detailed accommodation with the
administration concerning the committee's oversight role, it is possible
that the committee may vote to conduct an inquiry into the program," Mr.
Roberts said. He added, "The administration has come a long way in the last
month. I am optimistic that we will have an agreement before the committee
meets again."

    Although Republicans outnumber Democrats, 8 to 7, on the committee,
there had been some suspense over whether the panel would vote to
investigate the operation. Two committee Republicans, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah
and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, are among lawmakers who have called for
Congress to be given more information on the N.S.A.'s operation.

    Several Republican senators not on the committee have also expressed a
desire for more information from the administration. And Representative
Heather A. Wilson, Republican of New Mexico and chairwoman of the House
Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, said in a
recent interview that she had "serious concerns" about the surveillance
program.

    Earlier today, the Senate handed the administration a victory as it
voted, 96 to 3, not to hold up the Patriot Act to incorporate changes urged
by Senator Russell D. Feingold, the act's most persistent critic.

    Mr. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said he wants to make the Senate
debate several more days on the bill, and under the Senate's rules he can do
so. But today's vote signaled that, once Mr. Feingold has exhausted his
moves, the act will indeed be renewed by the Senate before its scheduled
expiration on March 10.

    In explaining his continued resistance, Mr. Feingold borrowed a quote
from Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is head of the
Judiciary Committee and is the bill's sponsor: "Sometimes cosmetics will
make a beauty out of a beast and provide enough cover for senators to change
their vote."

    Mr. Feingold, not looking for cover, said, "No amount of cosmetics is
going to make this beast look any prettier."

    Mr. Feingold was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, which
broadened government surveillance powers, when it was passed by Congress
shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The senator has insisted all
along that the act impinges too much on personal liberty in the pursuit of
national security.

    "We still have not addressed some of the most significant problems with
the Patriot Act," Mr. Feingold insisted today.

    Joining him in voting "no" were Senators Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of
West Virginia, and James M. Jeffords, an independent from Vermont. Mr. Byrd
is first in seniority in the Senate and a jealous guardian of what he
considers Congressional prerogatives against intrusion by the executive
branch.

    Mr. Jeffords's contrarian streak was demonstrated several years ago,
when he bolted the Republican Party. (Senator David Vitter, Republican of
Louisiana, did not vote today.)

    The White House said it was pleased at the action on the Patriot Act.
"There was a good agreement that was reached by members of the Senate," said
Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman. "It was reached in a good faith
effort. Yet there are still some Senate Democrats that want to continue to
engage in obstructionist tactics and prevent this vital legislation from
being reauthorized."

    The House has already voted to renew the Patriot Act. But the law met
stiff resistance from some senators of both parties. Modifications to the
statute in recent weeks have satisfied the overwhelming majority of the
senators.

    But not Mr. Feingold has complained that even as modified the bill would
still allow "government fishing expeditions" through the seizure of
"sensitive business records of innocent, law-abiding Americans."

    Not many weeks ago, Senator John E. Sununu, Republican of New Hampshire,
was among the senators sharing Mr. Feingold's concerns. But Mr. Sununu said
he was satisfied with changes in the law. "In an effort like this," he said,
"no party ever gets everything that they want."

 

    Go to Original

    Senate Rejects Wiretapping Probe
    By Charles Babington and Carol D. Leonnig
    The Washington Post

    Friday 17 February 2006

    But judge orders Justice Department to turn over documents.

    The Bush administration helped derail a Senate bid to investigate a
warrantless eavesdropping program yesterday after signaling it would reject
Congress's request to have former attorney general John D. Ashcroft and
other officials testify about the program's legality. The actions
underscored a dramatic and possibly permanent drop in momentum for a
congressional inquiry, which had seemed likely two months ago.

    Senate Democrats said the Republican-led Congress was abdicating its
obligations to oversee a controversial program in which the National
Security Agency has monitored perhaps thousands of phone calls and e-mails
involving US residents and foreign parties without obtaining warrants from a
secret court that handles such matters.

    "It is more than apparent to me that the White House has applied heavy
pressure in recent days, in recent weeks, to prevent the committee from
doing its job," Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the
intelligence committee, said after the panel voted along party lines not to
consider his motion for an investigation.

    There was one setback, however, to the administration's efforts to keep
tight wraps on the NSA operation. Yesterday, a federal judge ordered the
Justice Department to turn over its internal documents and legal opinions
about the program within 20 days - or explain its reasons for refusing.

    Before yesterday's closed-door meeting of the intelligence panel began,
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that the NSA program does not
require "congressional authorization" but that the administration is "open
to ideas regarding legislation." Committee sources said such comments -
characterized as meaningful by Republicans but empty by Democrats -
apparently persuaded GOP moderates to back away from earlier calls for a
congressional investigation into the program.

    After the meeting, Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) told reporters: "The
administration is now committed to legislation and has agreed to brief more
intelligence committee members on the nature of the surveillance program.
The details of this agreement will take some time to work out."

    Democrats said the administration's overture is so vague that it amounts
to nothing, calling it a stalling tactic to give Republican lawmakers
political cover for rejecting a full inquiry. "For the past three years, the
Senate intelligence committee has avoided carrying out its oversight of our
nation's intelligence programs whenever the White House becomes
uncomfortable with the questions being asked," Rockefeller told reporters.
"The very independence of this committee is called into question."

    In December, two Republicans on the committee - Olympia J. Snowe (Maine)
and Chuck Hagel (Neb.) - called for a congressional investigation of the NSA
program. Yesterday, they supported the move that adjourned the meeting
without voting on Rockefeller's motion.

    Snowe said in a statement: "The administration must demonstrate its
commitment to avoiding a constitutional deadlock by engaging in good-faith
negotiations."

    McClellan and Roberts cited efforts by committee member Mike DeWine
(R-Ohio). DeWine, who will face a tough reelection battle this fall, is
drafting legislation that would exempt the NSA program from the 1978 Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act. The law provides a mechanism for secret
warrants for wiretaps in anti-terrorism investigations. But several key
Republicans, including House intelligence committee member Heather A. Wilson
(N.M.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (Pa.), say the
NSA program should fall under FISA guidelines.

    In the House, the intelligence committee will ask administration
officials to explain the NSA program and its legal justifications in closed
hearings over the next few months, said Wilson, one of its subcommittee
chairmen.

    The committee "has begun a process to thoroughly review this program and
the FISA law" through a series of yet-to-be-scheduled briefings and
exchanges of letters that will unfold as part of the panel's "regular
order," Wilson said in an interview in her office. "This is the way we do
oversight," she said, adding that she has discussed the matter with the
committee chairman, Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.).

    Wilson indicated that the House hearings will not have the sharply
investigative tone that Rockefeller sought in his motion, which would have
required the administration to detail its reasons and rationale for starting
the surveillance program in late 2001.

    "Sometimes minority parties call for oversight" of government programs
for strictly partisan reasons, said Wilson, who faces a potentially strong
Democratic challenger this fall. "The intelligence committees in my view are
an exception to that rule. This is not political theater ... . We ask tough
questions, and we expect straight answers."

    Meanwhile yesterday on the Senate side, Specter released a day-old
letter in which Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella seemed to
reject the senator's request for testimony from Ashcroft and former deputy
attorney general James B. Comey. Comey had raised questions about the NSA
program. Some senators want to know more about Ashcroft's response to
Comey's concerns during a 2004 conversation with top administration
officials while Ashcroft was hospitalized for pancreatitis.

    "We do not believe that Messrs. Ashcroft and Comey would be in a
position to provide any new information" to the Judiciary Committee,
Moschella said in his letter Wednesday to Specter.

    In a victory for three privacy advocacy groups seeking Justice
Department records about the program, US District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr.
ruled yesterday that the department cannot decide on its own what documents
it will provide, because news reports in December revealing the program's
existence have created a substantial public dialogue about presidential
powers and individual privacy rights. Kennedy rejected Justice's argument
that, because so much of the surveillance program involves classified
information, the agency alone can determine when it is feasible to review
and possibly release documents.

    "President Bush has invited meaningful debate about the warrantless
surveillance program," Kennedy wrote, alluding to comments Bush has made at
news conferences and speeches acknowledging public disagreement about
domestic spying. "That can only occur if DOJ processes its requests in a
timely fashion and releases the information sought."

    Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the department "has been
extremely forthcoming about documents and information about the legal
authorities" for the surveillance program.

    The American Civil Liberties Union, which had requested the records
under the Freedom of Information Act along with the Electronic Privacy
Information Center and the National Security Archive Fund, cheered the
ruling.

    Kennedy agreed with the three groups that the Justice Department's
decision to set its own time frame "would give the agency unchecked power to
drag its feet and 'pay lip service' " to the law requiring the release of
public information.