The AP has a good article today about the partisan bickering surrounding the overreaching NSA monitoring plan, namely Jane Harman acting like she never knew about it and and Peter Hoekstra saying not only that Harman knew about it, but that in the past, she had not mentioned any objections to the program or its oversight.
The article is a good demonstration of the partisan mess this has become. Apparently, if you disagree with the monitoring program (which I cannot find one legal substantiation for at all, just a lot of, “he did it too!” stuff).
Mike S nails it with this part of a recent post on the issue:
Bush could follow the law and protect the country at the same time. We went ’round and ’round, with neither of us budging from our positions. He threw out the right-wing canard about Article Two powers. I asked him to send me the link that says the president can usurp American law. Ever. The only ones granted that power is Congress. Here’s the relevant passage from Article Two, Section Two:
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;
My bitch about this whole thing has been that Bush is trying to extend his powers into areas where they’ve never been before. Oh, my brother pointed out that Carter and Clinton had done the same thing. From what I read, they had authorized physical searches, which are covered by other statues. Regardless, if they had both broken the law as Bush has done, I say handcuff their asses, too. The three of them can share a cell and save us taxpayers a couple of bucks.
What is most disturbing to me is this continued acceptance of government encroachment on our liberties. “Keep me safe, and you can do whatever you want”.
Actually, that’s what bothers me the most. I personally think some latitude should always be given to the President in the direction of giving him more authority so that he can act quicker when a problem arises. However, when something so blatantly crosses the line, we need to stand up to it and say we’re not going to accept it just because “we’re supposed to,” and “it’s in our best interests.”
Dick Cheney has said at least a thousand times in the last two weeks that this program has prevented terrorist attacks and both he and President Bush have said that they told Congress about it and it’s critical for national security. Well, frankly, if you’ve told members of Congress about it, name names. Tell us who, specifically, okayed it.
I have a feeling they mentioned it in passing as something they may want to do, but never actually told anyone that it was either happening or they were planning on pursuing it. I haven’t seen any Republicans step up and say, “Yep, he told us at this meeting on this day.” Even someone with only a basal understanding of the way things work has to find that odd.
The last paragraph of the AP story:
Democrats who have been briefed on the program have raised serious concerns about its legality, but have not called for its immediate halt. Republicans and Democrats alike have called for hearings this year.
Why the hell not? If they’re so outraged about it, why not call for its cessation?
Fact is they aren’t all that outraged, and if they do call for it, they’ll be wearing egg on their face when it comes out that they in fact knew about all of this long before they started the outrage parade.