And, yes, I believe you are right that Lieberman was the first legislator to call for such an entity.

You really can’t blame DHS on the Dems–it was created by a a Rep Congress and signed into law by a Rep president.

In regards to Katrina: it was clear by late Tuesday to early Wednesday of that week that FEMA and DHS were ill-prepared for the event. Part of that was directly linked to the created of DHS in the first place.

The bottom line problem is: there isn’t sufficient Congressional oversight. Briefing a handful of members of congress, as was done with the wiretapping program isn’t oversight. Indeed, if the briefed members are not allowed to discuss the matter because of security issues, it doesn’t even qualify as “informing Congress” except in the broadest of senses.

In regards to asking permission: it was clear from the Qwest experience that they (the NSA) weren’t sure if the activity was legal or not, but thought it was. They didn’t want to find out. If they don’t want to find out in a case like this, what will they do with more extreme programs that they think to be vital to national security?

I must point out you are being unfair on the post invasion and post Katrina issue. Each of these are complicated situations that even with enormous amounts of planning there will be mistakes made. Those mistakes will be seen clearly after the fact but it is unfair to say that planning did not keep every imaginable contingency from happening.

War and natural disasters are chaotic events that we should accept as unmanagable to a certain degree. To try and predict and manage these events to the level many ask is folly.

Your argument concerning asking permission for what is considered legal doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t ask permission to do things that are legal in my world. I don’t ask a policeman if I may make a right turn on a red, I just do it because I believe it’s legal. The administration relied on it’s in house legal advisors to make their call on the legality of the NSA program. Seems normal to me.

In the more contentious matters I would expect the proper path to determine legality would be to test the program in the courts. There is nothing wrong with taking the position that no real determination of legality occurs until the courts have had a say. This is common in our society.

I agree this isn’t about Bush, it is about any president and the powers they wield. This will set precedents to be followed for years.

I still do not see the collection of data establishing patterns of calls to be a sufficient invasion of privacy for concern. Private companies collect more data than this, governmmental agents such as IRS agents and regulatory agents collect much more information than this. Certain regulatory agencies can sieze records withouts warrants yet I hear no complaints about these intrusions.

The threat (I will use threat rather than war)is serious and immenent. Because it is such a large threat we can allow minor intrusions such as this. Coupled with the congressional oversight that was and is in place I believe this to be a good program. The intelligence people must also think it is worthwhile or why waste time on it.

Certainly I have a healthy distrust of government!