White House begins to bow

As I had hoped, the White House has done the heavy lifting for our side of the debate; their defense of "unitary executive theory" has proven fatal to it.

Faced with the burgeoning threat of open hearings in both houses of Congress -- and in multiple committees arguing jurisdiction -- the White House bows and goes into closed session with the House and Senate intelligence committees, in what Pete Hoekstra calls "a positive first step." San Fran Chronicle:

Despite the administration's overture, several prominent Republicans said they will pursue legislation enabling Congress to conduct more aggressive oversight of the National Security Agency's warrantless monitoring of Americans' phone calls and e-mails. Recent disclosure of the 4-year-old program has alarmed civil libertarians and divided the GOP, with many Republicans defending the operation and others calling for more information and

An important constitutional point has been made here, and it is solely the result of the administration's overreach in the consolidation of executive power. To the broader public, the president used fear and bad *It's for your own good*-rationales to try and generate a backing that would have intimidated Congress, but such tactics aren't sustainable in the face of the whithering public scrutiny an open Senate hearing can provide. Support among the American public is eroding and would have continued to erode. Better to concede now and pretend it never happened.

Again showing the drawbacks of just "winging it" with the idea you are somehow more "nimble," the Washington Post (HT Sean-Paul) details how the administration's hapless implementation of its own program ended up creating more problems:

Twice in the past four years, a top Justice Department lawyer warned the presiding judge of a secret surveillance court that information overheard in President Bush's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to obtain wiretap warrants in the court, according to two sources with knowledge of those events.

The revelations infuriated U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly -- who, like her predecessor, Royce C. Lamberth, had expressed serious doubts about whether the warrantless monitoring of phone calls and e-mails ordered by Bush was legal. Both judges had insisted that no information obtained this way be used to gain warrants from their court, according to government sources, and both had been assured by administration officials it would never happen.

Downplaying the constitutional and civil libertarian positions, Michael Hirsch also examines the competence issue, calling "proficiency" the real question. And: The right-wing Insight Mag sharpens its claws [Ed. note: This is actually a 12/27/2005 piece]:

The Bush administration's surveillance policy has failed to make a dent in the war against al Qaeda.

U.S. law enforcement sources said that more than four years of surveillance by the National Security Agency has failed to capture any high-level al Qaeda operative in the United States. They said al Qaeda insurgents have long stopped using the phones and even computers to relay messages. Instead, they employ couriers.

On this theme, an incredulous Bill Petti looks at the AG Gonzales testimony.

And so . . . reminding us of those glorious days of the Ashcroft press conference, Bush uses today to recycle old news, and the media bites at it as if new. Rubes.

Update: [Edited for amplification and clarity, 10:50am.] Also: A Christian Science Monitor roundup is informative, including an item supporting the notion that multiple power centers are in chaotic competition within the executive branch:

As late as Tuesday night, Vice President Dick Cheney was telling the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer (PBS) that there was no need to give Congress any further information on the eavesdropping program. Cheney expressed concern that giving more details to Congress could lead to the disclosure of sensitive information.

Lastly: See Dan Froomkin today, commenting on the "Liberty Tower" dog-and-pony act, along with many links to articles on the surveillance controversy.

David E. Sanger , in a New York Times story about the transitory nature of secrets in Washington, wrote: "A senior official who talked about [the plots] that night joked that a few hours earlier he might have been jailed for discussing the subject.

" 'Now we've posted it on the White House Web site,' he said."