NSA controversy ends with a whimper?

[Jim]

You've just got to laugh if this story is true. Instead of a "gang of eight" being briefed, we would have a seven member "terrorist surveillance subcommittee."

 

First, it would create a bipartisan seven-member “terrorist surveillance subcommittee” that would be fully briefed and kept up-to-date on the program. This is a good idea, although it will represent an unprecedented level of congressional involvement in the executive's intelligence activities. Congress wants to hear justifications for each and every act of warrantless surveillance. This is extraordinary.

 

This controversy was always about legislators throwing their weight around in the only remaining sphere in which they are capable of bipartisan unity - preserving their own power. Now, let's see how many leaks occur....

[bascule]

And what is the purpose of congressional oversight as opposed to judicial oversight?

[Pangloss]

Judicial oversight would be at the case-by-case level. Congressional oversight would look at the larger picture.

[Jim]

And what is the purpose of congressional oversight as opposed to judicial oversight?

 

My point is that the MSM dismissively labeled the earlier briefings as being only to the "gang of eight." A more pejorative biased label the DNC could not have conjured.

 

It will be ironic if the ultimate solution to this "problem" is to have a committee of seven do oversight. This is another issue on which democrats need an exit strategy after playing politics with national security. As especially the members of the "gang" know, this is a much needed program which they will let fly after extracting their pound of political flesh.

[pcs]

You've just got to laugh if this story is true. Instead of a "gang of eight" being briefed, we would have a seven member "terrorist surveillance subcommittee.[/url']"

 

One problem there, the committee membership actually rotates. So the number of lawmakers informed on at least some period of the operation will increase dramatically. Considering the propensity for lawmakers' staffs to leak classified information (remember, with only a fixed number of eight legislators personally responsible for keeping quiet, we had to wait three years for the leak to come out of the Administration), I can't help but sense that we're paddling into dangeorus waters.

[Jim]

One problem there, the committee membership actually rotates. So the number of lawmakers informed on at least some period of the operation will increase dramatically. Considering the propensity for lawmakers' staffs to leak classified information (remember, with only a fixed number of eight legislators personally responsible for keeping quiet, we had to wait three years for the leak to come out of the Administration), I can't help but sense that we're paddling into dangeorus waters.

 

I am torn between two Yoda lines:

 

"Now, matters are worse."

 

and...

 

"Always in motion is the future."