"I think the argument that somehow, in passing the use-of-force
resolution, that that was authorizing the president and the
administration free rein to do whatever they wanted to do, so long as
they tied it to the war on terror, was a bit of a stretch," she said.
"And I don't think that's what most members of Congress felt they were
doing."
"Ms. Wilson and at least six other Republican lawmakers are openly
skeptical about Mr. Bush's assertion that he has the inherent
authority to order the wiretaps and that Congress gave him the power
to do so when it authorized him to use military force after the Sept.
11, 2001, attacks."
"At the age of 45, Ms. Wilson has considerable credentials in national
security. She is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and a former Air
Force officer. A Rhodes Scholar, Ms. Wilson obtained a master's degree
and doctorate in international relations. She also worked as an arms
control negotiator for the National Security Council under the first
President Bush."


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/politics/11wilson.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1139711672-FdkrgkYtj7QZIH9uVr2R4A

February 11, 2006

Republican Speaks Up, Leading Others to Challenge Wiretaps

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 — When Representative Heather A. Wilson broke
ranks with President Bush on Tuesday to declare her "serious concerns"
about domestic eavesdropping, she gave voice to what some fellow
Republicans were thinking, if not saying.

Now they are speaking up — and growing louder.

In interviews over several days, Congressional Republicans have
expressed growing doubts about the National Security Agency program to
intercept international communications inside the United States
without court warrants. A growing number of Republicans say the
program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
the 1978 law that created a court to oversee such surveillance, and
are calling for revamping the FISA law.

Ms. Wilson and at least six other Republican lawmakers are openly
skeptical about Mr. Bush's assertion that he has the inherent
authority to order the wiretaps and that Congress gave him the power
to do so when it authorized him to use military force after the Sept.
11, 2001, attacks.

The White House, in a turnabout, briefed the full House and Senate
Intelligence Committee on the program this week, after Ms. Wilson,
chairwoman of the subcommittee that oversees the N.S.A., had called
for a full-scale Congressional investigation. But some Republicans say
that is not enough.

"I don't think that's sufficient," Senator Susan Collins, Republican
of Maine, said. "There is considerable concern about the
administration's just citing the president's inherent authority or the
authorization to go to war with Iraq as grounds for conducting this
program. It's a stretch."

The criticism became apparent on Monday, when Attorney General Alberto
R. Gonzales was the sole witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee
in a hearing on the legality of the eavesdropping. Mr. Gonzales faced
tough questioning from 4 of the 10 Republicans on the panel, including
its chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

By week's end, after Ms. Wilson became the first Republican on either
the House or the Senate Intelligence Committees to call for a
Congressional inquiry, the critics had become a chorus. Senator Lisa
Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said the more she learned about the
program, the more its "gray areas" concerned her.

Mr. Specter said he would draft legislation to put the issue in the
hands of the intelligence surveillance court by having its judges rule
on the constitutionality of the program.

Even Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the Utah Republican and Judiciary
Committee member who has been a staunch supporter of the
eavesdropping, said that although he did not think the law needed
revising, Congress had to have more oversight.

"The administration has gone a long way in the last couple of days to
assure people that this highly classified program is critical to the
protection of the nation," Mr. Hatch said. "I think they've more than
made a persuasive case. The real question is how do we have oversight?"

In part, the backlash is a symptom of Congressional muscle flexing; a
sort of mutiny on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have been frustrated
by the way Mr. Bush boldly exercises his executive authority.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who has also
criticized the program, said Ms. Wilson's comments were "a sign of a
growing movement" by lawmakers to reassert the power of the legislature.

"This is sort of a Marbury v. Madison moment between the executive and
the legislative branch," Mr. Graham said in a reference to the 1803
Supreme Court decision in which the court granted itself the power to
declare laws unconstitutional.

"I think there's two things going on," said Mr. Graham, a Judiciary
Committee member. "There's an abandonment of you-broke-the-law
rhetoric by the Democrats and a more questioning attitude about what
the law should be by the Republicans. And that merges for a very
healthy debate."

Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said: "I don't think
anyone wants any kind of constitutional showdown over this. We want
the president to succeed, but the fact is we are a coequal branch of
government and we have serious oversight responsibilities."

The White House insists that there is no need to amend the law, a
position that a spokeswoman, Dana Perino, restated on Friday. But Mr.
Bush also made clear on Friday that he was tuned in to the growing
Republican angst. At a retreat with House Republicans in Cambridge,
Md., he began private remarks by defending the legality of the
eavesdropping, a White House pool report said.

Apparently thinking that his microphone had been turned off so
reporters could not hear, the president told lawmakers that he wanted
to "share some thoughts with you" before answering questions.

"I expect this conversation we're about to have to stay in the room,"
Mr. Bush began. "I know that's impossible in Washington."

He restated what he had said publicly, that the program was legal and
necessary for the nation's safety.

"You've got to understand something about me," Mr. Bush said. "Sept.
11 changed the way I think. I told the people exactly what I felt at
the time, and I still feel it, and that is we must do everything in
our power to protect the country."

Ms. Wilson later stood up to pose a question, and many in the room
braced for a confrontation, said an attendee who insisted on anonymity
because the session was private.

But there was no showdown. Ms. Wilson simply thanked Mr. Bush and told
him that everyone wanted to catch the terrorists.

At the age of 45, Ms. Wilson has considerable credentials in national
security. She is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and a former Air
Force officer. A Rhodes Scholar, Ms. Wilson obtained a master's degree
and doctorate in international relations. She also worked as an arms
control negotiator for the National Security Council under the first
President Bush.

"I think that had an impact on the administration," she said. "They
knew that people in Congress would listen to me on this."

But Ms. Wilson, who represents a swing district in Albuquerque, also
faces a tough re-election challenge from the attorney general of New
Mexico, Patricia Madrid.

Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee, said Ms. Wilson was most likely
distancing herself from the White House to curry favor back home.

Yet Representative Jane Harman of California, the senior Democrat on
the Intelligence Committee, said Ms. Wilson expressed private concerns
to her about the eavesdropping last year, shortly after it became public.

"She was very concerned," said Ms. Harman, who has supported the
program in the past but said she now believed that its legal
underpinnings were weak. "She came to me, asking me what I thought."

Ms. Wilson said she decided to speak out this week because she had
become increasingly "frustrated that the administration was not giving
us the information we needed to do our job." With Mr. Gonzales unable
or unwilling to answer questions at the Senate hearing, she said,
there was no way to determine whether the surveillance law needed to
be updated.

"I think the argument that somehow, in passing the use-of-force
resolution, that that was authorizing the president and the
administration free rein to do whatever they wanted to do, so long as
they tied it to the war on terror, was a bit of a stretch," she said.
"And I don't think that's what most members of Congress felt they were
doing."

Carl Hulse contributed reporting from Cambridge, Md., for this article.






--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to