Please find below an example of UPI's continuing coverage of the
president's program of warrantless counter-terrorist surveillance,
published yesterday. A shorter version appeared on A9 of this morning's
edition of the Washington Times. I hope you find it interesting. You may
link to it on the Web here:

http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20060327-030420-7157r

If you would like more information about UPI's Security and Terrorism
service, or to stop receiving these alerts, please get in touch.
  
Shaun Waterman
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: 202 898 8081



Intel committee sidelined on warrantless wire-tapping laws

By SHAUN WATERMAN
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor

WASHINGTON, March 27 (UPI) -- The chairman of the powerful Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence believes congressional officials were mistaken
to refer a bill dealing with the president's program of warrantless
counter-terrorism surveillance to a rival panel. 

"Chairman (Pat) Roberts's (R-Kan.) strong position is that this decision
was incorrect," said a senior committee staffer, who asked not to be
named. 

In practice, the decision will limit the input the committee will have
on the final shape of legislation. 

The Senate Parliamentarian, a little-known but influential official who
makes decisions about the legislative procedure for Senate bills,
referred the bill -- S2455, GOP Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine's Terrorist
Surveillance Act of 2006 -- to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
after a great deal of behind-the-scenes negotiations, according to other
senate aides. 

The judiciary committee, which is also working on a very different bill
dealing with the program drafted by its Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter,
R-Penn., plans a hearing Tuesday on the issue. 

Judges from the secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, or FISA, will testify. Specter's proposal would give
the court authority over the program -- which officials have said
monitors communications into and out of the United States where one
party to the call is suspected of links to al-Qaida or other terrorist
group. 

Observers said that because it gives the FISA court this role, the
referral of Specter's bill to the judiciary panel was a relatively
straightforward call. But the DeWine bill gives authority and oversight
over the program to the intelligence committee, and the decision to
refer it elsewhere has left some baffled. 

"This is a piece of legislation about an intelligence activity, carried
out by an intelligence agency, and where the only group of people fully
briefed are members of an intelligence committee sub-committee and we
didn't get referral," said the intelligence committee staffer. 

The sub-committee, announced earlier this month by Roberts, has been
fully briefed on the program and has visited the National Security
Agency's Ft. Mead, Md., headquarters, from which it is run. The
sub-committee, along with the program it was set up to oversee, would be
given legislative approval by the bill, which is co-sponsored by Sens.
Chuck Hegel of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Lindsey Graham of
South Carolina. 

A spokesman for DeWine said that the referral was a matter for the
parliamentarian and the Senate leadership. "They work with the sponsors,
but it is not our decision," said the senator's Communications Director
Mike Dawson. 

The parliamentarian's office referred press inquiries to the office of
the Senate secretary. No one from that office or the office of Senate
Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., returned phone calls requesting
comment. 

In practice, the referral means that members and staff of the
intelligence committee will have only a short time to work on whatever
proposal emerges from Specter's panel -- 10 days, according to committee
staff. And the intelligence committee's influence over the final shape
of the bill the Senate will vote on may also be limited in other ways by
the chamber's arcane parliamentary rules. 

And that is significant because some on the intelligence committee --
though they would not speak for the record -- say important changes need
to be made to the DeWine bill. 

Most controversially, they believe the bill should authorize the use of
this new surveillance tool to protect the country against threats other
than terrorism. 

The DeWine bill would create a list of terrorist organizations
designated by the president. Anyone that the government has probable
cause to believe may be "an agent or member ... affiliated with ... or
working in support of" one of those groups is liable to be wiretapped. 

"Why restrict it to terrorist groups?" pondered one committee insider.
"There are criminal organizations or nation states that might also pose
a serious enough threat to warrant inclusion." 

The bill mandates a review of the program by the Attorney General every
45 days, as at present. But some are fretting that the reviews -- which
require a certification for each wiretap -- will create an undue
administrative burden. 

They argue that the trade-off for the more thorough review process,
which culminates in a case-by-case certification to the sub-committee by
the attorney general, ought to be more time between reviews. 

Finally, some believe that the bill raises the bar too high for deciding
who can be tapped. Currently, officials have said that the president's
program authorizes surveillance on those they have "a reasonable basis
to believe" might be working for or with terrorists. The bill would
raise that test to the "probable cause."

(c) Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved 




--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: [email protected]
  Subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to