Subpoenas Issued Over NSA Warrantless Wiretapping

Spamicles writes "The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to subpoena documents from the Bush Administration related to the government's admitted eavesdropping on Americans' overseas emails and phone calls without getting court approval. In a 13-3 vote, the Committee decided to authorize its chairman to issue subpoenas for documents related to the NSA warrantless surveillance program. Nearly any request is going to be met with tough resistance from the White House, and the confrontation over the documents 'could set the stage for a constitutional showdown over the separation of powers.'"

Comments

Re:Write committee, wrong body.

[grcumb]

I cannot support impeachment. The phrase "President Cheney" scares me too much.

So start with Cheney. Move on to Gonzales. Repeat as necessary.

Heck, leave Bush alone for all I care. He's not driving this bus, he's just the guy with the hat.

Impeachment: It's not just for presidents.

Re:The defeatocrats are the terrorists best ally

[lawpoop]

Al Franken is not a credible source for content. You wouldn't accept a quote from Rush Limbaugh. The 911 Commission's Report is a better source and it was critical of both administrations. Al Franken's book was researched by a team of students at Harvard. He cites his sources. You can trust him inasmuch as you can check his sources. Not so sure about Limbaugh.

Oh wait! I look at what wikipedia has to say about the factual innacuracies in _Lies..._:

Franken wrote that former U.S. Senator Max Cleland (D-GA), while serving in the U.S. Army, "...left three of his limbs in Vietnam. A VC grenade blew them off."

In fact, it was not a Viet Cong grenade; instead the grenade had fallen from a fellow American soldier's flak jacket during a non-combat mission and accidentally detonated. Woah, that really blow his credibility!</scarcasm>

The inaccuracy was corrected in the book's paperback edition. Oh, nevermind.

You may disagree with a lot that Bush has done in office, but to say he has done nothing is wrong. He did nothing, *absolutely* nothing, about Middle East terrorists, Jihadists, or Islamic fundamentalists before 9/11. What was the Bush administration doing during their first several months in office? Trying to build a missile defense shield and back out the anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia. Clinton pursued and convicted Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the first WTC bombing. Yousef is now in a maximum security prison. ( Where is Bin Laden now? Probably hiding out in Pakistan, our military dictatorship friends in the middle east). Clinton launched cruise missile attacks against terrorist training camps in Sudan and Afghanistan while the Republican congress was investigating things like his Christmas card mailing list and his travel agent's activities. CNN said at the time that

U.S. officials say the six sites attacked in Afghanistan were part of a network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed supporters of Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden.

American officials say they have "convincing evidence" that bin Laden, who has been given shelter by Afghanistan's Islamic rulers, was involved in the bombings of the east African embassies. So he was attacking Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida.

At the time I wondered if this was wag the dog, to distract the American people from his troubles with the congress. Now I understand that the Republicans are more interested in using our terrorist enemies as a political tool, to win elections and gain power, rather than actually protecting us against them.