a sphincter says 'amnesty'

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter has threatened to subpoena administration officials over the NSA scandal. Specter claimed that he was fed up with the lack of cooperation from the White House, specifically naming Cheney. As recently as June 7, 2006 he sent a 3 page letter (.pdf) to Cheney saying it was "neither pleasant nor easy to raise these issues with the administration of my own party."

CNN reports:

"What I'm looking for is sufficient information for the Congress, the Judiciary Committee, to handle our responsibility for congressional oversight on a constitutional issue," Specter said. Specter wants the administration to submit the National Security Agency's no-warrant domestic surveillance program to a review by a secret federal court. He called the program a "flat violation" of the 1978 law that set up that court.

But just days later this WoPo article reports that Specter has changed his position slightly:

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has proposed legislation that would give President Bush the option of seeking a warrant from a special court for an electronic surveillance program such as the one being conducted by the National Security Agency

I'm not opposed to some sort of compromise, as long as it doesn't make the President too powerful...eliminate checks and balances, etc. You know, the whole creation of a Dictatorship thing....but Sphincter's Specter's proposal goes on to include blanket amnesty...yes...that's what I said...blanket amnesty.

Another part of the Specter bill would grant blanket amnesty to anyone who authorized warrantless surveillance under presidential authority, a provision that seems to ensure that no one would be held criminally liable if the current program is found illegal under present law.

WTF? Why am I surprised at this? I guess I'm not.

The WoPo article goes on to quote Sen. Dianne Feinstein. She says the current NSA program "is a significant intelligence tool, but it can be fit into and should conform to the FISA law." I think that the majority of the people agree with her on this one. Repubs make the argument that the majority of the people think that this wiretapping stuff is ok...the "What does it matter if you aren't doing anything illegal" argument. Ok, fine. But what about the LAW???? What Feinstein is saying is just that. Do the wiretapping, within the law, with a warrent. The WoPo article finishes like this:

One problem, according to Feinstein, is that "people are legislating in the dark" because most members of the Judiciary Committee, including Specter, have not been briefed on the NSA program. Feinstein said she believes Congress should take its time on the issue, because it involves serious constitutional questions on the scope of presidential powers. She said she is not sure her bill will be ready for approval by the committee by the time of a meeting to take up NSA legislation scheduled for next week. "We're setting a precedent for a 30-year war on terrorism," she said. "If you know you can carry out the program within the law, why not do it with the added benefit that you are guaranteeing people's rights?"

Orange Gearle says...well, yeah, why not stay within the law, guarenteeing people's rights?? That's a big fucking duh. But wait, this is Bush and Cheney we are talking about -- when have they ever been concerned about much of anything besides increasing their own power (or padding their pocketbooks)??

UPDATE: Crooks and Liars has The Cafferty File regarding this subject. Worth a watch.