http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=5
Woo hoo! I can’t wait for this to kick off. Has the admin ever mentioned specifically why a 72 hour retroactive warrant wouldn’t suffice?
daysprune? Why do you hate Heather Wilson?
Try this link:
House Republican calls for FISA changes
I’m just going to assume for now that this would mean a senate or house committee, NOT an independent counsel. Which would mean we’ll pretty much know the result in advance. Not time to get excited or worked up yet.
Thanks Squink.
A senate our house committee is bad because the pubs outnumber the dems? Not sure how that whole thing works.
A senate or house committe investigating their own leadeship is going to tend to be political and biased. One can hope from less bias from some sort of independent investigation, though one might not get it.
Wasn’t the 9/11 an independent investigation yet still screwy?
Yes, I agree. I think this whole thing needs to be seen as a struggle between the legislative and executive branches, not a struggle between Republicans and Democrats. Of course there is going to be some partisan aspect to it, but I think that is secondary to the major issue-- legislative vs executive.
Sorry, I see you answered that. I’m suffering from post lunch coma.
“We, the accused, find ourselves not guilty. Thank you for your time, ladies and gentlemen.”
-Joe, prescient
I live in Heather Wilson’s district. She’s normally a complete sock-puppet to excecutive will. This is the first reason she has ever given me to consider voting for her. (I must say that her opponenents have provided lots of reasons to vote against them though)
That’s so sad. If only the partisan bickerers could see the forest for the trees. sigh
Here’s my prediction, so take it worth a grain of salt. Congress will continue it’s investigation for a little while, calling law professors, constitutional lawyers, and maybe a flunkie or two. While the investigation is dragging on, a bill will be passed through both houses, and signed by the President, that would amend FISA and allow the President to do what he is doing now. The investigation will peter out because nobody really cares, and becausee nobody wants to be painted by this administration as being soft on terrorism. Nobody will give a shit that the President violated the law, no one will be prosecuted, nobody will be impeached, and nobody will care. Republicans will claim victory, Democrats will be portrayed as whiny terrorists sympathizers. In other words, just like it is now.
And there we have the reason for Heather’s sudden brave stance. But when it comes down to actually acting on this in a way that is nuetral and independant, I suspect Ms. Wilson will catch a case of larangytis.
Who knows if it’ll go anywhere? I’m just encouraged to see a few Pubs distance themselves from the Admin like ships leaving a sinking rat! 
Not a bad prediction, but remember that Bush doesn’t want Congress to pass any new laws along these lines. I’m guessing that he would see that law, no matter how expansive it was, as still limitting his authority. IWO: Badges… BADGES? We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!
But than he could make a Signing Statement!!!
I, George W. Bush, do declare that this law is complete bullshit and I can ignore it. I wish those pesky congress critters would stop bothering me.
When the oil execs came to committee to say they weren’t price-gouging, and when the Attorney General came to say that no laws were broken in the warrantless wiretaps, the Republican majority voted not to swear them in. They were under no pressure to tell the truth.
That way it looks like an investigation is happening, but it is only an illusion.
I think that, given some pressure from Congress, he’ll deign to have his cake and eat it too, rather than worry about SCOTUS. Remember, this is the administration that released Hamdi, even though he was an “enemy combatant” and finally, charged Padilla and is still fighting to keep his detention case out of SCOTUS. Of course, this administration’s audacity never ceases to amaze me.
I have no doubt about that. It’ll be something along the lines of “signing this bill does not negate the inherent authority the president has under Article 2 of the Constitution”.
But I’m actually a big fan of these signing statements, now that I’ve looked into the matter more. Not in terms of their legality, but in terms of the predictive value. Bush is going to do what he wants to do, so at least it’s helpful to have some hint about it beforehand.
Anyone know if Karl Rove has tipped her the black spot yet?