Comments (15)

ARM wrote on January 17, 2007 4:02 PM:

He says this is a response to "political" questions about the NSA program. By "political," I guess he means "fundamental/constitutional/ethical/terror-sympathizing/brie-eating." Or do I read this wrong?

Bearpaw wrote on January 17, 2007 4:08 PM:

I'm sure the fact that the Administration has changed its behavior such that it *might* stop breaking the law has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility of real Congressional oversight.

And I am Marie of Roumania.

P J Evans wrote on January 17, 2007 4:18 PM:

I'm sure they have some kind of 'workaround' already lined up, so they can continue breaking the law.

MasonMcD wrote on January 17, 2007 4:31 PM:

"What has changed?"

"We can't tell you."

Yes. Yes you can. And rather soon, I suspect.

slb wrote on January 17, 2007 4:34 PM:

Why is it that when it comes to domestic surveillance, a warrant in -72 hours (that's a *retroactive* 72 hours) is too slow, but when it comes to protecting troops from RPGs, 4 years down the road is soon enough?

cos0115 wrote on January 17, 2007 4:40 PM:

I suspect that this was all about Leahy taking over the Judiciary Committee and threatening not only subpoenas, but legal action. Bush knew he was cornered, and as usual, took credit for doing the right thing. I agree with earlier posters, they have some workaround in place. There is little doubt in my mind that they have been spying on their domestic political enemies, and they hope, with this move, to draw Leahy and others off the trail. Let's hope he doesn't take the bait.

az5762 wrote on January 17, 2007 4:50 PM:

I don't live this political stuff 24/7 but i do pay attention. Why do they care about the rule of law today? They haven't for 6 years. I'd like a run-down of by some of our TPM prognosticators on thier views of the BIG picture and what's going on in the Bush White House besides a lot of document shredding . . please advise. Thanks.

PTM wrote on January 17, 2007 4:57 PM:

So the administration has belatedly and begrudgingly decided to stop breaking the law. Should I be grateful? Should its past illegal behavior be forgotten now that they have decided to become law abiding?

Long Memory wrote on January 17, 2007 5:00 PM:

Question for cos: And what's going to happen when we find out that they WERE spying on their political enemies. It's gonna come out. It always does. I haven't been in favor of impeachment proceedings, but if that were to come out, would the American people rise up? They're pretty sick of Bush right now (31% and declining), so is there a threshold of weariness?

Legalize wrote on January 17, 2007 5:02 PM:

No, the administration has belatedly and begrudgingly decided to *appear* to stop breaking the law - even though we didn't have to because we didn't *appear* to be breaking the law in the first place.

Cheryl wrote on January 17, 2007 5:30 PM:

Leahy taking over the Judiciary Committee and threatening not only subpoenas, but legal action.

Was Bush/Cheney listening in on Senators phone conversations and reading their mail? Is Bush/Cheney more like Nixon than not, so Leahy better not back down. Why is Bush so interested in being legal right now? Bush insisted he had a right to do what he did, Bush said it was terrorist concerns, I sure it wasn't anything to do with terrorism.

Did Bush pull a Nixon? I sounds just exactly like Watergate all over again. Gee I wonder what Nixon did tell us about Richard Cheney? Was Watergate Cheney's idea?

Cynic wrote on January 17, 2007 5:45 PM:

Can we find out what "the new rules" are, and how they differ from the old rules?

midwestblue wrote on January 17, 2007 5:53 PM:

Question: doesn't the administration appoint the judges who serve on this secret FISA court? Maybe they have a FISA court that thinks the same way as the administration thinks now.
Probably not. I think it's just CYA right now. I hope it's too little, too late. I hope they'll be up to their necks in hot water soon and that Alberto Gonzales is scared witless.

Devon wrote on January 17, 2007 7:22 PM:

Is there any evidence that the guidelines he refers to are new? That is, has the FISA court loosened or in any way altered its standards to meet the Administration? This is a key question: either this is all a smokescreen for presidential capitulation, or it's a watering down of standards that were established to protect privacy rights, standards that many found somewhat disturbing even before it became clear that the FISA court was being ignored anyway.

DallasNE wrote on January 18, 2007 10:00 AM:

What has really changed here. Details now coming out show that what Bush did was to get a blanket authorization from a single, cherry picked FISA Judge to validate what he was already doing. One must presume that there is no expiration date attached to this blanket authorization. This needs to be challenged in Federal Court.