I agree that the Katrina subject will be covered extensively this weekend...but the NSA thing will also.
Did you see Sen.DeWine on Brit's show last night??
He is the one that is suggesting that the NSA programs stay as it is, without having to have further hearing and legislation, that would further "out" classified information.
I think he is advocating a separate "Congressional board" that would have 6 members from each party to get regular updates about who/what/when/where/how...
Funny, how HE isn't a guest on any of these shows.
I didn't see the program. I'm sure that no Senator will propose an activity that "outs classified information." The differences between the various approaches are how stern to get with the President (accusatory Commission or "work with the administration"?), who will provide oversight (if any) in advance of surveillance (courts or self-policed by administration? - will Congress review the program and compose legislation that legitimizes the disclosed activity?), and what will the form of oversight be (if any) post-facto (Courts on a periodic review? Courts on a case by case basis? Reports to Congress?).
There will be a question about what is enough "probable cause" to justify surveillance, and I think that question will only be answered on a case-by-case basis, post facto, by the courts. The enemy combatant detention cases are a prelude to the inevitable -- assuming there will be a criminal prosecution that depends on the terrorist surveillance program for probable cause.
Roberts told the Times that he does not believe much support exists among lawmakers for exempting the program from the control of the FISA court. That is the approach Bush has favored and one that would be established under a bill proposed by Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio.http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/02/18/ap2537282.html
I haven't found a statement by DeWine or the WH that particularly describes his approach. I think it's a mistake to put this "Constitutionality" question in the hands of Congress, because the Courts will second guess the decision at some point in the future. Better to have the Courts second guessing each other. That is, I don't think a Congressional "it's okay" would provide the kind of judicial certainty that ALL the government players seek.
Yes and, on first viewing, it bothered me. The premise that Congress or a court must grant the authority for the President to intercept communications from a foreign power to someone in the US is, frankly, insane!
What I have come to understand since then is that DeWine is NOT proposing such a requirement, but instead is offering a mechanism where Congress' fragile egos can be salved in the form of a select committee (with staff) who the administration (whatever administration) must report any program like the NSA surveillance to (report to, not get premission from).
On balance it sounds like a good compromise, dropping the "gang of eight," whom Bush has already reported to under existing legislation, for the "gang of six" from a joint committee, and that sounds like a good thing. Then Roberts throws a monkey wrench into the mix by suggesting that the administration must get permission from yet another FISA like judicial body.
Suddenly DeWine strikes me as leadership material...