If the NYT's description of the NSA bill proposed by Pat Roberts and other Senate Republicans is anywhere near accurate, the Bush liegemen are trying to give the administration carte blanch to violate the Fourth Amendment to their heart’s delight with no oversight whatsoever.
Here are the relevant passages from the article:
Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that they had reached agreement with the White House on proposed bills to impose new oversight but allow wiretapping without warrants for up to 45 days…
…The measure would require the administration to seek a warrant from the court whenever possible…
What in the wide world of sports does “whenever possible” mean? Whenever Alberto Gonzales possibly feels like it?
…If the administration elects not to do so after 45 days, the attorney general must certify that the surveillance is necessary to protect the country and explain to the subcommittee why the administration has not sought a warrant. The attorney general would be required to give an update to the subcommittee every 45 days…
Are Roberts and the rest of the constitutional rights robbers serious, or are NYT’s writers hosed up?
From the NYT description of the proposed legislation, NSA could monitor all your phone calls, e-mails, and other electronic communications for 44 days, skip a day, and repeat the pattern indefinitely without ever having to answer to Congress or the courts. And they could do that to every other American citizen and other persons supposedly protected by the bill of rights as well.
This is Roberts’ idea of “oversight?”
If the NYT’s description of the proposed bill is accurate, and NYT isn’t raising the same question as I am, is that the Gray Lady’s idea of acting as a fourth column?
And if NYT writer's haven't gotten the story on the proposed bill straight, what are they doing working for the NYT? If the "paper of record" can't get the record straight, who can?