Daschle Story From Wash Post On Washington Journal This Morning

[Dinger]

Brian seems a little uncomfortable. Wonder why?

[indepat]

1. Done

[bridgit]

2. he's a republcan, his lead question 'living a year unseriously'...

to paraphrase of course leads me to wonder, "A YEAR, MR LAMB!?!? ONE YEAR!?! ONE (1)?!? you only see one year lived unseriously, sir?!?!"

they don't have to bring lamb 'on board', he has foxnews just below him in the same building, while i understand & appreciate the c-span concept, lamb has come out of the nixon white house with what has developed into the nicest, sweetest, kindest, most presumably well rounded red white & blue republican agenda on the scene.

[meegbear]

3. What's the "Daschle Story"?

[Binka]

5. Here You Go

Power We Didn't Grant

By Tom Daschle

Friday, December 23, 2005; Page A21

In the face of mounting questions about news stories saying that President Bush approved a program to wiretap American citizens without getting warrants, the White House argues that Congress granted it authority for such surveillance in the 2001 legislation authorizing the use of force against al Qaeda. On Tuesday, Vice President Cheney said the president "was granted authority by the Congress to use all means necessary to take on the terrorists, and that's what we've done."

As Senate majority leader at the time, I helped negotiate that law with the White House counsel's office over two harried days. I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance.



On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States." Believing the scope of this language was too broad and ill defined, Congress chose instead, on Sept. 14, to authorize "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons determines planned, authorized, committed or aided" the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

[meegbear]

6. Whoa! Thanks!

And HAPPY HOLIDAZE!!

[flakey_foont]

7. Thanks

[mrcheerful]

4. In his own words

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." -- George Bush, April 20, 2004

so he did nothing illegal?

[bigtree]

8. This is incredible

made more amazing that it has been held in secret for so long. This is witness to the power of individual action. Someone had to be the first to step up and say 'enough'.