The article "White House, Congress deadlocked on surveillance law upgrade" states "President Bush implored lawmakers to update a 1978 surveillance law before leaving Washington for a monthlong summer break -- a potentially vulnerable time for attacks because of the high-travel season.
The president threatened to veto any bill by the Democratic-led Congress that his intelligence director deemed unable "to prevent an attack on the country."
The Bush administration began pressing for changes to the law after a recent ruling by the special FISA Court that barred the government from eavesdropping on foreign suspects whose messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers, including Internet sites."
FISA Court has found that W has broken the law and still this arrogant thug is pressing Congress to jump to his bidding. Why should they? His person lawyer, otherwise known as the Attorney General of the US has been played fast and loose with the truth regarding the illegal NSA eavesdropping on US citizens for years so what can the Congress think other than they are evading the truth again about this subject?
The April 28, 2006 Washington Post article "Specter Wants More Debate on Spying-Senator to Try to Block Program's Funding" outlines the rationale behind Specter's disgust and how he hopes to block its funding as it states "New expressions of frustration over how little information the administration has shared about the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping on Americans flared yesterday in the Senate, one day after House Republicans barred amendments that would have expanded oversight of the controversial program.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said yesterday that he will file an amendment to block the NSA program's funding-but said he will not seek a vote on it at this time-in hope of stirring greater debate on the warrantless surveillance, part of the agency's monitoring of alleged terrorists.
"Where is the outrage?" asked Specter, who has chaired hearings that questioned the NSA program's constitutionality."
Ironically W's greatest ally, FOXNews.com's article "Specter Threatens to Subpoena Information on Warrantless Surveilance Program" of June 16, 2006.
Specter said he had not received a response to his request that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appear before the panel this month to answer questions about the surveillance program and other touchy subjects - such as the FBI raid on a lawmaker's office last month.
"I will ask for authorization for a subpoena if we do not get an adequate response," Specter told the committee.
That was last May-just 15 or so months ago and now Specter gets nothing from Gonzales again and big bro 43's is trying to ram through expanded NSA illegal wiretapping of US citizens, which will have Gonzales, not the constitutionally correct FISA court, rule on the wiretaps.
The current article "Gonzales admits testimony 'confusing'" states "His letter to Senate Judiciary Committee leaders stopped short of an apology as the Bush administration pushed to expand eavesdropping on suspected terrorists.
But in response, the committee's top Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, joined Democrats who said Gonzales should not have sole authority to approve the warrantless interception of messages between foreign terrorists overseas.
The exchange marked the latest twist in a standoff between Congress and the administration over the beleaguered attorney general and his Justice Department.
Even as the administration sought to compromise with lawmakers over updating a 1978 surveillance law, the White House stood its ground against Congress on a separate matter. The White House invoked executive privilege in refusing to let two political aides testify in an inquiry about the Justice Department's firing of federal prosecutors.
That inquiry was the basis of what brought Gonzales before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week when he repeatedly said a dramatic 2004 hospital room dispute between him and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft was about "other intelligence activities" - and not what has since become known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
