Centerfield

They've had four years to get this on a firm legal footing. Why didn't they?

Because they believed they were already on pretty firm legal footing, and trying to turn it into statutory authority would have meant revealing the program to some extent. In addition, a wartime emergency measure is not necessarily something you want to put into statute. It should be extraordinary and rarely used, not enshrined for potential expansion and ossification.

Just a hypothesis. YMMV. The dogfight between Congress and the Executive over constitutional powers and authorities has been going on for over two centuries. It rears its head in just about every administration. A case can be made the other way as well--that Congress "broke the law" in trying to usurp the constitutional authorities of the Executive. Do we get to impeach Congress?

Remember the impeachment of Johnson? It took over sixty years, but the Supreme Court ened up vindicating the action that got him impeached. Step warily into the briar patch of conflicting constitutional authorities. It is almost by definition an attempt to criminalize politics.

I'd say they have at most one foot on the ground.

George Will sees this as part of the President's big government inclinations.

If a Congressional investigation succeeds in establishing the facts of the surveillance, including its targets (American citizens at home or abroad, permanenet residents, non-immigrant legal aliens, illegal aliens, &c.), the surveillance point (whether the wiretap was installed at some overseas communications point or one in the United States), and the use of the information acquired (law enforcement purposes, enemy combatant designations, or merely overseas action covert or overt), it will have accomplished a great deal. If the Administration hinders the investigation by refusing to cooperate--particularly with a closed investigation by the intelligence committees--it may be appropriate to start thinking the I-word. If the investigation is unhindered, the I-word is only appropriate if the law was, in fact, violated. However, if the investigation concludes that the law was violated, impeachment should be a viable legal remedy--it's the constitutional check by the legislative branch on the president's use of his claimed executive powers when that use violates statute.

It's fine for Democrats to press for an investigation. I would like to know more about the facts myself. It's far too early to throw the I-word around. And it's bad politically: Democrats should not want the voters to believe in 2006 that if Democrats win control of the House that the first thing they're going to do is mount an impeachment. That overwhelms more legitimate concerns about the deficit, public corruption, Social Security, Medicaid/care, and a host of issues of daily importance to middle America.

Wiretapping is against the law unless you have probable cause to do so (enough evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime is being committed or is in the progress of being committed). You may have nothing to hide, but that doesn't make it right to wiretap your phone or read your email. Would you allow the police or any other agency to come into your house just because they wanted to? The burden of proof should be on the agency who is requesting the wiretap and they should be able to articulate why they have suspicion about illegal activity, not just because they think you may be up to something illegal.

I agree with Jaded JD. Investigation has to be done. My gut feeling is that the administration will stonewall any investigation in any and every way possible. However, unless the Democrats get control of the House, I can not see impeachment becoming a viable option.

My personal feeling as a Republican is that nation comes ahead of party. I know I am in the minority in that thinking. My gut feeling is that an impeachable offense has occured. more so then anything Clinton did. I refuse to be a hypocrite, though. I have no problem calling for impeachment if the tactic is not eliminated or the President refuses to assist fully with the investigation.

Jim;

My personal feeling as a Republican is that nation comes ahead of party. I know I am in the minority in that thinking.

c3:

Point taken. I am guilty of a big sweeping generalization. I am talking more of our elected leaders in Congress. Not about the people on this blog.

IMHO the Dem's throw around the "I" word at their own peril. Yes, there is a segment of the populace who would love to see George Bush impeached, but they've been pretty much hanging around since he took office in January 2000. The general public, on the other hand, recognizes that despite what their own opinion of the President may be, impeachment is good for no one. Democrats may want to re-study the Clinton impeachment to remind themselves that it would particularly not be good for them.

Republicans had Clinton where they wanted him. They controlled both Chambers and could have embarrassed the shit out of him and pretty much called the shots for the next few years, but they couldn't stop salivating over bringing down someone that many of them had viewed as iligitmate all along (sound familiar)? It backfired. The same would happen to the Dem's today. No doubt about it. A weak Presidency and government in turmoil is good for no one, particularly our economy.

The Dem's would have a great shot at '06 if they would present themselves as a viable alternative who actually has different, workable proposals for the various issues we face. But, talk about "beating Bush" (He's not running people!) and having Barbara Boxer already wetting herself with excitement over a possible impeachment trial...that's a certain way to stay a minority party.

It's kinda like Charlie Brown and that football, Abel. They just can't stop themselves.

I believe that the Republicans impeaching Clinton for allegedly lying about his sex life in a civil suit was not only a terrible idea on its own merits, but also set a terrible precedent. Impeachment as a partisan tool for rather-less-than High Crimes.

On a related note, the media has a tremendous bias in favor of impeachment -- politicians who call for impeachment are news, politicians who don't are not. Even if just a few Democrats utter the "I-word," it will seem like a Democratic party platform.

If it becomes really obvious that a law has been broken, how can the Democrats not call for impeachment? Regardless of the fact that the republicans would stop it or that it would make Cheney president.

Rather than call for impeachment maybe a better strategy would be to call for the Republicans to clean up their own mess.

Defensetech.org has kept up its data mining operation on the wiretap side of things by supplying a plethora of links.

One of the links had a link, quoting Gonzales.

When asked why the president didn't ask for Congressional authority for this wiretapping, Gonzales said: We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program.

Seems like a dumb thing to say in public.

Abel;

A weak Presidency and government in turmoil is good for no one, particularly our economy.

Rick, I don't think the Democrats have to say the word impeachment at all. Their mantra for 20006 should be "accountability". From there they can point at all the scandals breaking out among the GOP poiliticans as well as the lack of congressional oversight over presidential actions, and not seriously investigating the contradictory statements that have come forth from the Bush down to Rice - after all that is part of their job.

And Bush's own words should get used against him:

April 2004, Bush addressed the question of wiretaps.
"Now, by the way,any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think 'Patriot Act,' constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Play that over and over with the recent speeches.
Political campaign fodder of the highest order.
Also quite a lie.

One more thing.
Next time someone sez that the NYT is liberal I' swear to god I will pull my grandfather's over under out of the crate and let them have it with both barrels.....rock salt of course.
The NYT sat on this story since BEFORE the 2004 election. Had this been out in the public airwaves there could have been a significant shift in several of the close states. Combine that with the Judy Miller crap and other stories that were sat on then the NYT is toast as far as I'm concerned.
They're not a liberal paper, they're a suck up sycophant paper.

"if the president does it, it can't be illegal."

Richard Nixon

Look for Bush not to make many campaign stops where the vote is close in 2006.

The public wants a change in 2006, but I doubt they are going to install a Democratic congress if the major agenda item is impeaching the president.

Amen.
It seems that my party has nothing for an agenda other than have an impeachment. How lazy is that? It proves they have no goals, no decent alternative plans, no doggone decent strategic goals. Is this all they give the American people? Impeachment/!!!
They sound no different than clinton republicans

The public wants a change in 2006, but I doubt they are going to install a Democratic congress if the major agenda item is impeaching the president.

Amen.
It seems that my party has nothing for an agenda other than have an impeachment. How lazy is that? It proves they have no goals, no decent alternative plans, no doggone decent strategic goals. Is this all they give the American people? Impeachment/!!!
They sound no different than clinton republicans

The NYT sat on this story since BEFORE the 2004 election. Had this been out in the public airwaves there could have been a significant shift in several of the close states. Combine that with the Judy Miller crap and other stories that were sat on then the NYT is toast as far as I'm concerned. They're not a liberal paper, they're a suck up sycophant paper.

It seems that my party has nothing for an agenda other than have an impeachment. How lazy is that? It proves they have no goals, no decent alternative plans, no doggone decent strategic goals. Is this all they give the American people? Impeachment/!!!

Hey look, undercover Republican!

I mostly agree Rick, although I think it remains to be seen what legal footing they had. Impeachment of Bill Clinton killed the Republicans, and even approaching the issue will kill the Democrats in '06. I think it is pretty clear here that some have been itching for this and are too quick to use the latest news on domestic spying as a means to an end. Caution would be advised, indeed.

The idea that this could have cost Bush the election is ludicrous and unfounded. There is no evidence that the American people are upset about this, in fact, ABC News and the Washington Post have Bush's approval ratings up to 47%. I think what the Democrats should be worried about is the American people viewing this as a President doing what he can to fight terrorism. They have lost on this front before by going negative and should realize that the American people are looking for a vision, not finger pointing.

And Marcus, if the secret program is so wrong as you claim, where is the accountability for the Democratic leaders in Congress who knew about it for months while doing nothing to stop it? Where was Nancy Pelosi when we needed her? Sitting on her ass, at her own political convenience, and now that the news has broken, she is back up on her hypocritical soap box, pointing fingers, and telling us all that she told us so.

Any side that claims righteousness is throwing bricks from a glass house.

Abel, Tully, Jaded, and Oberon,

All good points.

Suppose Bush violates the other 9 amendments of the Bill of Rights? Is that OK?

Suppose Bush violates the other 9 amendments of the Bill of Rights? Is that OK?

It's becoming clear to me that the reason the NSA didn't do the after-the-fact 72 hour warrants is primarily because it would have taken a lot of time by the analysts and their administrators to prepare the paperwork for those warrants. And of course any time the analysts spend doing paperwork is time they are not actually listening for terrorist communications and analyzing terrorist threats.

This is not going to damage the President in any significant way. Here's the ultimate question... An American military unit in Iraq seizes an address book at a terrorist hideout. The book has the names of several known terrorists in it, plus several unknown names. The unknown names have American cell phone numbers or e-mail addresses listed next to them. Should the NSA immediately begin monitoring those phone numbers, or should they spent several hours or days first to obtain a search warrant? When such phone numbers are found, should the government experts spend their time investigating those leads or filling out paperwork to justify what they are doing?

For the bulk of the American people, I suspect the answer is, let's listen in, and not worry so much about paperwork...

Just for the record Rockefeller did object to the program and kept the proof of that objection.

The list of people at the 2003 briefing looks quite small and does not include Pelosi.

An American military unit in Iraq seizes an address book at a terrorist hideout. The book has the names of several known terrorists in it, plus several unknown names. The unknown names have American cell phone numbers or e-mail addresses listed next to them. Should the NSA immediately begin monitoring those phone numbers, or should they spent several hours or days first to obtain a search warrant? When such phone numbers are found, should the government experts spend their time investigating those leads or filling out paperwork to justify what they are doing?

Excellent scenario! Might I reply with: They have lawyers for that and the level of evidence needed to get FISA warrants (even retroactive) is likely not high (none rejected in ~30 years of use). Plus, the situation you name would be EXACTLY the reason that FISA exists!

Think of it, you get a "Primary Source" (like that, recall the term from history DBQ papers) that provides timely, direct evidence of collaboration (at least familiarity) and a linkage to someone overseas. Intelligence would be entirely right to request a wiretap. That's why FISA exists.

If the power to do what he's ordered here exists because of the precedent of previous presidents doing this without a check, well and good. My skin still crawls..but THAT would be a legit argument. If they're arguing that he has the power based on laws passed in 01 and 02..I'm not so sure...

Again I keep getting tripped up by "...and WHY exactly wasn't FISA good enough for you???? ESPECIALLY after the expansions of PATRIOT???"

That's what's got my noodle baking right now...

It's becoming clear to me that the reason the NSA didn't do the after-the-fact 72 hour warrants is primarily because it would have taken a lot of time by the analysts and their administrators to prepare the paperwork for those warrants.

C'mon, bro. If the problem is really too much FISA paperwork to catch terrorists, I'm sure Congress would have gladly amended the statute if asked.

It seems likely to me that the warrantless searches were done because either (i) some new technology made warrants impractical, but amending the law would have revealed the new technology, OR (ii) even the rubber-stamp FISA court would have rejected the warrant applications.

You obviously trust the Bush administration, and human nature, a lot more than I do. I hope the warrantless searches weren't done to spy on domestic policitical opponents, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to find out the adminstration which has tortured more than 20 people to death has also illegally spied on American dissenters or journalists.

Don't bake those noodles to much Patrick.
Three possible clues are available.
1)Senator Rockefeller talked about “John Poindexter's TIA project “
2)The NSA is the agency in charge of the program.
3)FISA rarely rejects a warrant request.

TIA is the Total Information Awareness program. It wanted to collect every scrape of information about everyone in the USA then run algorithms on the data to find terrorists.

It would not be inconceivable for the NSA to listen to every single cellphone call in a city, then use its computer power to hunt for terrorists. Problem is, even FISA would refuse to issue that kind of warrant.

Exercise your intelligence, back-burner your political prejudices, save your torches for the next lynching, and examine the available data. It may lead you someplace less alarmingly histrionic than the soaring hyperbole about wantonly trampling on citizen's rights.

I'll toss in one more datum. Even after the "facilitating" procedures implemented after 9-11, complaints that the FISA process is slow and cumbersome abound. It's not hours and minutes, folks, as some are claiming. It's days. If you're lucky. The court is infamous for asking for additional "supporting evidence," and taking a while to deliberate. They may be amenable as far as agreeing to issue, but they're NOT quick.

I have been reading all the posts with interest. There are excellent points, both pro and con for the President's actions.

Anyone watch the 4th season of "24" on Fox? They showed a weak President Logan, who wanted to consult his legal team and the cabinet in an emergency situation. The terrorists had a nuclear weapon they were about to unleash and a chinese person had information. Jack Bauer wanted to go get him but President Logan was in his way - finally they brought in the stong armed ex-President Palmer, who made the right, probably marginally legal decision to let Bauer do his work.

Who do we want here? President Logan, who waffled and remained indecisive, or President Palmer who made a tough choice?

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the NSA monitoring international conversations between suspected terrorists - that is NSA's primary function any way. Not doing so will be dereliction of their duty.

President Bush has relied upon the advise of his legal team and the Attorney General for his actions. He informed the key members of the Congress regularly. Thus he did not exercise "unchecked" authority, as some have suggested. He acted in good faith in order to protect us from the terrorists. I congratulate him for his courage and hope he will continue to perform the job we elected him to do. If there was President Gore or Kerry I would expect him to do the same.

On the other hand, I see no mention of the real law breakers - those who leaked this sensitive information to the media. This is far more sensitive and critical information than the Plame affair. Anyone have any comments about those?

Thanks for excellent discussion..

I guess the way you view this depends greatly upon your point of view (Alec Guiness said it SO well).

See, ideologically, I see the warrant process as the BEDROCK of our legal system... It is the fundamental check/balance between the PEOPLE and the GOVERNMENT. If you short-circuit that process, you weaken our basic society. I don't care WHO the president is...I don't care how much oversight Congress grants...some powers Congress does NOT have the right to give away.

A warrant is the basic guarantee that the executive branch has acted upon the rules as laid out by the legislative branch under the guidance and auspices of the judicial branch.

It matters NOT to me (again, standing on principle) that it would be HARD WORK for the intelligence guys to get the warrant within the 72 hours. That's their job...and if the gov't wants them to do it, they darn well need to give them sufficient resources to make sure they get their briefs together in time for gaining that approval.

Allowing for reality, there needs to be some latitude for those intelligence officers that, if they are acting in good faith (in the view of the court) trying to meet the court's request for more detail, then they can continue monitoring their wiretap. If that's not permissable in the law as written, then congress needs to get that in there.

There IS cause to fight to expand the window of time, when needed, and to fight over THAT expansion of power...there is NO cause to attempt to expand the executive power to obviate the pursuit of a warrant.

Now...to drag this back on topic and get off my soapbox....
(/preaching)

As I've said in previous items about this: I'd like to know more about HOW they applied this "expanded power." If that's too sensitive, then yes, congress has a reason to get involved and ask the questions in closed session. Impeachment is WAAAAAAYYYY out on the distant horizon. Dems shouldn't even be talking about it at this point. Going to the "I-word" at this point is effectively jumping the shark. If this was being done because there are new processes that FISC would not recognize, that's something that congress needs to get their asses working on NOW. If this was being done for other reasons, congress needs to do its job and ASK.

Look, I say wait it out, and let's have hearings on this, before anyone seriously starts talking impeachment. The Republicans made a mockery of the Constiitution in the '90s over that Impeachment mess, and the anti-Bush Left ought not do the same.

"My life is an open book, and I don't commit any crimes."

This is a somehow naive idea that is still shared by many others. Just think if you really don't know anybody who might be linked to terrorists. And try to remember if you really never made any cooment on the phone to that person, that might be interpreted as a coded message. You think such screwups don't happen at intelligence services? Just remember this Oregon lawyer Mayfield who was accused of particpating in the Madrid bombing acts! You want such public controversy in your life?

I suppose I'm beginning to wonder whether there's anything this president could do that would receive condemnation from the Republican base.

We obviously don't know that he committed an impeachable offense, but I've very suspicious of anyone who isn't at least alarmed by the recent revelations. It's getting scary how quickly some Republicans circle the wagons in response to any criticism of Bush.

I'm not, of course, suggesting that we rush to judgment here...but anyone who isn't demanding an explanation at this point is probably either not paying attention or playing the good partisan.

Oberon,
Believe what you want, to. You sound just like Bush - "if you're not with us, you're against us."
Hypocrite.
I have to ask you a question. Let's say Bush does get impeached. If he broke the Fourth Amendment, he should be removed from office and jailed. Have the Dems showed anything else to offer Americans?
I don't care what you want to call me. But for once in five years I want focus, beltway politics.

You're the one quoting RNC press releases, not me.

To answer your question: as a party, the Democrats have offered few concrete plans. (About as little as your party, in fact.) As individuals and various factions, the Democratic leaders have offered gazillions of plans and proposals.

"I am totally in favor of wiretapping bad guys, and personally, I wouldn't even mind if they wiretapped my own phone. My life is an open book, and I don't commit any crimes."

Rick,

Are you serious? I hope you are being ironic (and, if so, I apologize). You really wouldn't care if the government was listening to your conversations? Without probable cause? I'm all for security, but I don't want the government easedropping on my conversations for no reason even if I have nothing to hide. I think it's a dangerous standard to say, I don't care what the government does because I haven't committed any crimes.

there is NO cause to attempt to expand the executive power to obviate the pursuit of a warrant...

Patrick, every President since Hoover has claimed the same executive authority for warrantless searches in one form or another for purposes of gathering national security intelligence. And used it. That includes FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. The courts have affirmed that authority. What is not clear is the complete and delineated extent of that authority in all particulars, or the powers of Congress to encroach upon it.

Now, if they're right (and that's over 70 years of presidents and courts) then aren't Congressional attempts to encroach and usurp that authority by legislation "breaking the law"? Do we get to impeach Congress? Sounds silly when you put it that way, doesn't it? An "authorities" dogfight is always fun to watch.

I'm not, of course, suggesting that we rush to judgment here...but anyone who isn't demanding an explanation at this point is probably either not paying attention or playing the good partisan.

You're not only "suggesting" it, Winston, you're doing it. While simultaneously trying to label anyone who doesn't as a blind partisan or an ignoramus. Nice try.

Marc,

On further consideration, now that I'm in journalism school, I wouldn't want my line wiretapped, because I might be interviewing a source off-the-record, and having the NSA wiretap the conversation could compromise my source.

But as for me, personally, while I'm not an exhibitionist, I can't think of any phone conversations I've had lately that I'd be mortified if they were replayed on CNN. Some people are more private, and the constitutional protection is something they value highly. I know my wife would not like anyone listening in.

This is not going to damage the President in any significant way. Here's the ultimate question... An American military unit in Iraq seizes an address book at a terrorist hideout. The book has the names of several known terrorists in it, plus several unknown names. The unknown names have American cell phone numbers or e-mail addresses listed next to them. Should the NSA immediately begin monitoring those phone numbers, or should they spent several hours or days first to obtain a search warrant? When such phone numbers are found, should the government experts spend their time investigating those leads or filling out paperwork to justify what they are doing?

For the bulk of the American people, I suspect the answer is, let's listen in, and not worry so much about paperwork...

And those who do not understand this, politically, are doing so at their own peril. How could the scenario Pat describes not be okay after September 11th? I agree, fully.

"To answer your question: as a party, the Democrats have offered few concrete plans. (About as little as your party, in fact.) As individuals and various factions, the Democratic leaders have offered gazillions of plans and proposals."

Oberon, can you please quote a couple of concrete plans the Democrats have offered out of these gazillions?

Further, can you please offer the rationale for those plans, and explain why those plans would have been more successful than the current administration's policies?

Remember, please do not simply offer a criticism of the ongoing policies or the war in Iraq or the war against terrorism. We went through entire election based on such criticism. I'd like to see concrete alternative steps which the Democrats would have been taken after 9/11 that would have made you more safer in your home than you are now. I's like to see what those alternative plans would have accomplished, how those plans would have worked and why we would have been safer than we are now under those plans.

Thanks.

Oberon, can you please quote a couple of concrete plans the Democrats have offered out of these gazillions?

Okey-doke. I'll quote "H.R. 798: Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2005" sponsored by Rep. Barton Gordon [D-TN], since that showed up first when I logged on a government tracking website.

-------------------------------------

Last Action: Dec 14, 2005: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

109TH CONGRESS
H. R. 798
1ST SESSION
AN ACT
To provide for a research program for remediation
of closed methamphetamine production labora-
tories, and for other purposes.
109TH CONGRESS
H. R. 798
1ST SESSION

AN ACT
To provide for a research program for remediation of closed
methamphetamine production laboratories, and for other
purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2
1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ``Methamphetamine Re-
3 mediation Research Act of 2005''.
4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

5 The Congress finds the following:
6 (1) Methamphetamine use and production is
7 growing rapidly throughout the United States.
8 (2) Some materials and chemical residues re-
9 maining from the production of methamphetamine
10 pose novel environmental problems in locations
11 where methamphetamine laboratories have been
12 closed.
13 (3) There has been little standardization of
14 measures for determining when the site of a former
15 methamphetamine laboratory has been successfully
16 remediated.
17 (4) Initial cleanup actions are generally limited
18 to removal of hazardous substances and contami-
19 nated materials that pose an immediate threat to
20 public health or the environment. It is not uncom-
21 mon for significant levels of contamination to be
22 found throughout residential structures where meth-
23 amphetamine has been manufactured, partially be-
24 cause of a lack of knowledge of how to achieve an
25 effective cleanup.

HR 798 EH
3
1 (5) Data on methamphetamine laboratory-re-
2 lated contaminants of concern are very limited, and
3 uniform cleanup standards do not currently exist. In
4 addition, procedures for sampling and analysis of
5 contaminants need to be researched and developed.
6 (6) Many States are struggling with estab-
7 lishing assessment and remediation guidelines and
8 programs to address the rapidly expanding number
9 of methamphetamine laboratories being closed each
10 year.
11 SEC. 3. VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES.

12 (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES.--
13 Not later than one year after the date of enactment of
14 this Act, the Assistant Administrator for Research and
15 Development of the Environmental Protection Agency (in
16 this Act referred to as the ``Assistant Administrator''), in
17 consultation with the National Institute of Standards and
18 Technology, shall establish voluntary guidelines, based on
19 the best currently available scientific knowledge, for the
20 remediation of former methamphetamine laboratories, in-
21 cluding guidelines regarding preliminary site assessment
22 and the remediation of residual contaminants.
23 (b) CONSIDERATIONS.--In developing the voluntary
24 guidelines under subsection (a), the Assistant Adminis-
25 trator shall consider, at a minimum--

HR 798 EH
4
1 (1) relevant standards, guidelines, and require-
2 ments found in Federal, State, and local laws and
3 regulations;
4 (2) the varying types and locations of former
5 methamphetamine laboratories; and
6 (3) the expected cost of carrying out any pro-
7 posed guidelines.
8 (c) STATES.--The voluntary guidelines should be de-
9 signed to assist State and local governments in the devel-
10 opment and the implementation of legislation and other
11 policies to apply state-of-the-art knowledge and research
12 results to the remediation of former methamphetamine
13 laboratories. The Assistant Administrator shall work with
14 State and local governments and other relevant non-Fed-
15 eral agencies and organizations, including through the
16 conference described in section 5, to promote and encour-
17 age the appropriate adoption of the voluntary guidelines.
18 (d) UPDATING GUIDELINES.--The Assistant
THE

19 Administrator shall periodically update the voluntary
20 guidelines as the Assistant Administrator, in consultation
21 with States and other interested parties, determines to be
22 necessary and appropriate to incorporate research findings
23 and other new knowledge.

HR 798 EH
5
1 SEC. 4. RESEARCH PROGRAM.

2 The Assistant Administrator shall establish a pro-
3 gram of research to support the development and revision
4 of the voluntary guidelines described in section 3. Such
5 research shall--
6 (1) identify methamphetamine laboratory-re-
7 lated chemicals of concern;
8 (2) assess the types and levels of exposure to
9 chemicals of concern identified under paragraph (1),
10 including routine and accidental exposures, that may
11 present a significant risk of adverse biological ef-
12 fects;
13 (3) identify the research efforts necessary to
14 better address biological effects and to minimize ad-
15 verse human exposures;
16 (4) evaluate the performance of various meth-
17 amphetamine laboratory cleanup and remediation
18 techniques; and
19 (5) support other research priorities identified
20 by the Assistant Administrator in consultation with
21 States and other interested parties.
22 SEC. 5. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER CONFERENCE.

23 (a) CONFERENCE.--Not later than 180 days after the
24 date of enactment of this Act, and at least every third
25 year thereafter, the Assistant Administrator shall convene
26 a conference of appropriate State agencies, as well as indi-
HR 798 EH
6
1 viduals or organizations involved in research and other ac-
2 tivities directly related to the environmental, or biological
3 impacts of former methamphetamine laboratories. The
4 conference should be a forum for the Assistant Adminis-
5 trator to provide information on the guidelines developed
6 under section 3 and on the latest findings from the re-
7 search program described in section 4, and for the non-
8 Federal participants to provide information on the prob-
9 lems and needs of States and localities and their experi-
10 ence with guidelines developed under section 3.
11 (b) REPORT.--Not later than 3 months after each
12 conference, the Assistant Administrator shall submit a re-
13 port to the Congress that summarizes the proceedings of
14 the conference, including a summary of any recommenda-
15 tions or concerns raised by the non-Federal participants
16 and how the Assistant Administrator intends to respond
17 to them. The report shall also be made widely available
18 to the general public.
19 SEC. 6. RESIDUAL EFFECTS STUDY.

20 (a) STUDY.--Not later than 6 months after the date
21 of enactment of this Act, the Assistant Administrator shall
22 enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of
23 Sciences for a study of the status and quality of research
24 on the residual effects of methamphetamine laboratories.
25 The study shall identify research gaps and recommend an

HR 798 EH
7
1 agenda for the research program described in section 4.
2 The study shall pay particular attention to the need for
3 research on the impacts of methamphetamine laboratories
4 on--
5 (1) the residents of buildings where such lab-
6 oratories are, or were, located, with particular em-
7 phasis given to biological impacts on children; and
8 (2) first responders.
9 (b) REPORT.--Not later than 3 months after the
10 completion of the study, the Assistant Administrator shall
11 transmit to Congress a report on how the Assistant Ad-
12 ministrator will use the results of the study to carry out
13 the activities described in sections 3 and 4.
14 SEC. 7. METHAMPHETAMINE DETECTION RESEARCH AND

15 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

16 The Director of National Institute of Standards and
17 Technology, in consultation with the Assistant Adminis-
18 trator, shall support a research program to develop--
19 (1) new methamphetamine detection tech-
20 nologies, with emphasis on field test kits and site de-
21 tection; and
22 (2) appropriate standard reference materials
23 and validation procedures for methamphetamine de-
24 tection testing.

HR 798 EH
8
1 SEC. 8. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

2 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to add to or
3 limit the regulatory authority of the Environmental Pro-
4 tection Agency.
5 SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

6 (a) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.--There
7 are authorized to be appropriated to the Environmental
8 Protection Agency to carry out this Act $3,000,000 for
9 each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
10 (b) NATIONAL INSTITUTE STANDARDS
OF AND

11 TECHNOLOGY.--There are authorized to be appropriated
12 to the National Institute of Standards and Technology to
13 carry out this Act $1,500,000 for each of the fiscal years
14 2006 through 2009.
Passed the House of Representatives December 13,
2005.
Attest:

Clerk.

Further, can you please offer the rationale for those plans, and explain why those plans would have been more successful than the current administration's policies?

Why would I do that?

I'm just saying that individual Democrats, Democratic factions, Democratic interest groups, etc. have countless proposals, but that the Democratic party as a whole lack a unified program.

I'd like to see concrete alternative steps which the Democrats would have been taken after 9/11 that would have made you more safer in your home than you are now. I's like to see what those alternative plans would have accomplished, how those plans would have worked and why we would have been safer than we are now under those plans.

Off the top of my head?

Let's see: destroy Al Qaeda instead of invading Iraq (yes, many Dems voted to authorize military force, but clearly Pres. Gore would never have invaded Iraq).

Spend more resouces on port security (e.g. inspections and radiation-detection equipment), airline security, emergency responders, equipment for emergency responders (e.g. radios), etc.

Allocate homeland security resources according to target priority (e.g. New York over Wisconsin).

Increase funding and resources for the program to to track and eliminate old Soviet "suitcase nukes" instead of cutting funding.

etc. etc.

Actually, strike the part about allocating resources according to target priority. I'm sure the Dems would be just as guilty of Republicans for allocating resources based on pork.

Patrick, every President since Hoover has claimed the same executive authority for warrantless searches in one form or another for purposes of gathering national security intelligence. And used it. That includes FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. The courts have affirmed that authority.

And if you look at the executive orders from Clinton and Carter, they are all in line with FISA. If the Presidents policy has been correctly portrayed in the media reports, his new policy goes beyond the orders of Carter or Clinton.

Just because it seems like a good idea, it does not justify breaking the law or violating fourth amendmendment rights [disclaimer: if the law or amendment has been broken. This must be found out]. I am sure the Japanese Internment Camps looked like a good idea in the 1940's. Did not make it any more correct or legal.

If we did things based one what people want or think is ok versus the rule of law, we would have very little rights. The majority of the people would give up their liberty for security in the minute. It is easier to cower in fear and ask someone else to protect them then to accept responsibility for paying attention to their own saftey.

Japanese internment camps? Democrat President, right? Same one who slipped J. Edgar off the leash in 1939? ROFL. I just love soaring hyperbole citing non-comparable cases
utilized for conflation.

Carter and Clinton both paid lip service to FISA in their executive orders, but Clinton boosted Echelon and TIA. You're not gonna find a single post-Hoover president that didn't at some point assert that warrantless authority in regards to foreign intelligence. And the question of whether Congress can encroach the executive authority in this regard has NOT been settled on the side of Congress. At most, it's an open question. At least, the courts have continually affirmed the executive authority exists, but have not defined the boundaries of it. The most recent case in that regard said:

We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.

That would seem to argue that it is certainly NOT a cut & dried area of the law, no? That's from the FIS Court of Review, by the way, the court that directly reviews the FIS Court's decisions.

The Fourth Amendment does not read "no search without warrant, ever, no way, no how." It says no "unreasonable searches." Conservative columnist (and former federal prosecutor) Andrew McCarthy has compiled an abbreviated list of situations where the government's power to perform warrantless searches and seizures is already settled law. He comes up with 28 off the top of his head. The general remedy to unreasonable searches is exclusion of the evidence from use at trial.

Mr. McCarthy's point are all typical prosecutorial blowhardness in justifying this. However, ever single one of those items have the overview of a court or could be challenged in court becuase they are public events and are in the process of monitoring and dealing with illegal acts. Not a single one of those have to do with "secret" monitoring. It is an issue of trust. History has shown that our leaders can not be trusted not to abuse power. J. Edgar Hoover. What more needs to be said? I don't give a damn about what party it was done under. It could have been the Whigs for all I care.

As far as what power belongs to what branch, that will always be in flux. There is always a check. If the issue is pushed, Impeachment, a political event and not legal, could be used to redefine a boundry.

Now, the real question here, is it likely? Unless some bombshell falls out of the investigation that NSA had snoop on people in Congress, I highly doubt it. For me, this stuff is right up there with no-bid contracts and spinning poor intelligence. I don't like them and I don't like this. Bush is adept at taking everything right up to the line. I, personally, can not trust a person like that. Reeks of used car salesman. At some point, they will cross the line. I just have to wonder if this is the case.

I guess I'm probably in the minority here that is still unsure quite what to think about all of this. While the initial media reports do sound troublesome, I'm more inclined to wait for the whole story to come out (if it ever will in this case) before making a judgement call. I did find it interesting that members of Congress were apparently briefed on this program, something that we would certainly have never guessed from their staged outrage when the program first became public.

I am disturbed by the pattern of leaking to the press. There is a process in place for employees (CIA or otherwise) who feel that the government is going too far. To begin with, they could have approached the Congressional heads of the committee that their agency reports to with their concerns. That is certainly a more desirable way than just leaking secrets to the world.

To address Rick's comments...

But as for me, personally, while I'm not an exhibitionist, I can't think of any phone conversations I've had lately that I'd be mortified if they were replayed on CNN. Some people are more private, and the constitutional protection is something they value highly.

That's the part that makes me step back and wonder exactly what qualifies someone as being suspected of having terrorist ties. Regardless of the content of my conversations, I would be outraged if my rights were violated. Obviously, I have nothing that would even resemble terrorist ties, but let's just cast that fact aside for the moment. I don't buy the argument that "you won't be upset if you don't have anything to hide." That's really not the point. Despite the fact that I have nothing to hide, you can bet I'd be raising serious hell if I found out I have been violated.

Tully,

The two examples I know of where Carter and Clinton utilized that power show that they still required the Atty Gen. to meet the certification requirements under FISA. The efforts were, as I stated up thread, made to expand and enhance the flexibility of time allowed and the people who could make the initial authorizations

Clinton's Version

Carter's Version

IF you read them, these executive orders address what the President views as implicit authority under the constitution with respect to the laws passed by congress - that is, the President can devolve initiating authority to high-ranked suborinates so long as they obey the same restrictions and duties ascribed to the President under the duly signed laws.

In fact, in Clinton's case, you can clearly see that the Carter E.O. was the basis..the construction is virtually identical.

Nowhere in all this does it say that they are obviated from SEEKING THE FISC warrant. No president has the right to eliminate that part of the constitution. The examples of times addressed BEFORE FISA are irrelevant. FISA was the congress' action to clarify the law on the subject of surveillance. Once FISA was passed, the previous Executive Orders must all be RE-viewed in the light of FISA.

That is, rightly, the back-and-forth between Congress and the President. Yes, Presidents will always seek to expand their powers to execute their jobs more quickly/efficiently or to suit their style.

Show me where, post-FISA, a court has upheld that a sitting President could direct wiretaps or searches without requiring that, at some point, the Presidency either obtain a warrant or demonstrate probable cause.

Remember...Warrants are not NECESSARY - IF there is demonstrable probable cause. That is the subject of a GREAT deal of case law.

Oberon raises a good point...what if the TYPE of activity being authorized doesn't wholly fit under the descriptions provided for in case law and the original FISA law. That's where I expect Congress to get off their butts and do their jobs.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012623.php

This should settle the questions.

Nowhere in all this does it say that they are obviated from SEEKING THE FISC warrant.

And nowhere does it say they aren't. Actually there's a fair amount of decisions that don't directly address that, but still keep confirming that Congress cannot encroach on that authority. The question is the extent of that authority and the application of it in the present case. No? That's certainly one of the basises claimed by the administration.

No president has the right to eliminate that part of the constitution.

What part? Article II? Last I looked the 4th amendment was still in the bill of rights, and Article II was still in the body of the text. The 4th still has exceptions that keep it from being an absolute right to warrant in all cases of search and seizure. "Unreasonable searches." The quagmire of conflicting powers. Congress may not eliminate the constitutional powers of the executive, either--short of Constitutional amendment. Re-read the excerpt from the FISC Review Court decision. Obviously post-FISA (as the court was created by the act). Yes, the addressing of executive constitutional authorities pre-FISA is completely relevant, as FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power. Congress can pass all the laws they like, but if they encroach on the constitutional powers of another branch, we're back to the conflicting authorities dogfight. The executie may not trespass on the powers of COngress. Congress may not respass on the powers of the executive. Is there something ambiguous about that? It's consistent with all the prior decisions I'm aware of.

Warrantless searches under Clinton--hmmm, what's the "probable cause" on random drug testing of student athletes? Or ECHELON? And you seem to have left out "exigent circumstances" as well, although there's some crossover with probable cause there, and failed to address the gathering of foreign intelligence at all.

My point is not to just argue (though I freely admit I love arguing for it's own sake, on a "good will" basis) but to note that the hyperbole being passed around is somewhat less than solidly grounded in the legal realities, and more grounded in partisan pontification. There's a lot more noise being made than light being shed, and when you shine the light on the relevant (and often conflicting) legal authorities, it becomes more and more obvious that it is certainly not a clear-cut legal violation by any means, and that the possibility of it being one is likely somewhat less than the opposite.

More facts would help, but from I've been able to gather of the facts, the actions reported look reasonable in light of executive authority, the realities of inadequate (or insufficient, take your pick) legisative address, and the likely application of both probable cause and exigent circumstances. Barring some very startling revelations, I'm not reaching for a noose. And if there's any hand-slapping to be done, I suspect Congress will be due for a big share of it.

Cthruu, I prefer to link directly to Schmidt's article here. That way you avoid any of the selective citation problem involved in a conservative blog's excerpting, however accurate it may be. The Schmidt article neatly highlights some of the gigantic loopholes in trying to apply even a lone FISA interpretation of "guilt" to the available (and still skimpy) facts.

Now, if you can figure out a way to toss the "legality & authorities" questions to the Supreme Court on an expedited basis, I'd be happy to take odds on the likely decision.

I suppose I'm beginning to wonder whether there's anything this president could do that would receive condemnation from the Republican base.

A lot of it is that people can't believe that not everyone feels the same emotional outrage they do. Nor over the same things.

The beauty of democratic pluralism is that it tends to balance out.

Abel, if you're in the minority, at least be consoled that you're not alone. We're absolutely missing some solid fer instances of exactly what was done. The absence of these fer instances really precludes us from making solid judgements about the reasonableness of what was done.

Just as a quick possible, who here is going to defend the untrammeled right of Joe Citizen to be protected from an unreasonable and warrantless wiretapping of a cell phone conversation with Osama Bin Laden or Al-Zarqawi? Hmm? I don't really know any details beyond a few potentially scary words, so I'm not going to talk out my ass on theoreticals and go all high-minded, at least not right now.

So now I've actually fulfilled my 2004 New Year's resolution. I promised myself that at least once during 2005 I would let my personal recognition of my virtually complete ignorance lead me to refrain from braying like a pompous jackass. And I did it with 10 days to spare!

Wow..."quoting" Assrocket (Hinderaker)...that's the laugh of the day

Title II, Section 2 States:

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Tell me where it gives the president the authority to eliminate the need for wiretaps? It neither affirms nor eliminates the power. I agree that this becomes a morass of legal and political maneuvering.

My point is that I don't believe this matter should be just affirmed and swept aside...the reactions of various officials (the FISA judge resigning in protest comes to mind) makes me wonder at whether or not there's something to this.

As I've said...I want congress to investigate (closed session if necessary) and determine if there's been a gross violation. If not, put it down and move on...if so, but not a GROSS violation, modify the law to clarify it...if a gross violation, push articles of impeachment.

That is their role.

I promised myself that at least once during 2005 I would let my personal recognition of my virtually complete ignorance lead me to refrain from braying like a pompous jackass. And I did it with 10 days to spare!

Lol! Count me in the same boat. I perhaps need to admit that "I don't know" a little more frequently.